What are the main different types of Utilitarianism ?

Question asked at Guruza

Types of utilitarianism

Negative utilitarianism
Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Negative utilitarianism requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of harm for the greatest number. Proponents argue that this is a more effective ethical formula, since, they contend, there are many more ways to do harm than to do good, and the greatest harms are more consequential than the greatest goods.

However, some advocates of the utilitarian principle (including Miller) were quick to suggest that the ultimate aim of negative utilitarianism would be to engender the quickest and least painful method of killing the entirety of humanity, as this ultimately would effectively minimize pain. Negative utilitarianism would seem to call for the destruction of the world even if only to avoid the pain of a pinprick. Yet the 'pinprick argument or the notion that negative utilitarianism calls for world destruction is not accepted by all philosophers.


Act utilitarianism vs. rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism states that we must first consider the consequences of our actions, and from that, make an appropriate choice that would then generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people involved. Rule utilitarianism states that we must consider the consequences of a rule instead then follow the rule which would best yield the most happiness for the most amount of people involved.

To illustrate, consider the following scenario: A surgeon has five terminal patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a heart, and two need kidneys. A sixth, non-terminal patient just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? Or, indeed, what would stop him from simply hunting down and slaughtering the first healthy man (the seventh) he comes across on the street, patient or non-patient? Many people would feel that these actions violate the rights of the sixth/seventh man, but utilitarianism initially seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing one man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and thus allowing the five terminal patients to die, violating one man's rights is exactly what we ought to do. Of course, there might be reasons for the act utilitarian to refrain from killing the sixth/seventh man, but most would agree that rule utilitarianism can provide more unconditional reasons not to kill him.

A rule utilitarian decides ahead of time that following certain rules is good, and following other rules is bad. To determine whether a rule is good or bad, he looks at what would happen if it was constantly followed. If the encounters the situation described above, one potential rule that might apply would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." This rule, if instituted in society, would obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would stop going to the hospital, we'd end up performing many risky transplant operations, etc.

So a rule utilitarian would also say we should implement the opposite rule: "don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people." Therefore, if the surgeon killed the sixth/seventh man, then he would be doing the wrong thing. (However, the system of organ harvesting described in the survival lottery might fit with rule utilitarianism).

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. To never kill a human might seem to be a good rule, but this could make defence against aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians would then add that there are general exception rules that allows the breaking of other rules if this increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics would then argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism, the rules become meaningless. Rule utilitarians respond that the rules in the legal system (i.e., laws) which regulate such situations are not meaningless. For instance, claimed self-defense might shift the burden of proof.

Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with rules of thumb. Many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to decide ahead of time on certain rules to follow if they find themselves in a situation in which the consequences are difficult, costly, or time-consuming to calculate exactly. If the consequences calculated relatively clearly and without much doubt, and then the general rules can be ignored. If two rules of thumb seem to be in conflict, one might first look to rules which might have been main detailing when the first rules might not apply. If this doesn't provide a solution, it makes sense to look beyond the rules and do a more complete calculation.


Preference utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism is a particular type of utilitarianism which defines the good to be maximized as the fulfillment of persons' preferences. Like any utilitarian theory, preference utilitarianism claims that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences; when defined in terms of preference satisfaction, the best consequences can include things other than pure hedonism, like reputation or rationality.

Preference utilitarianism is favored by utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer.

What is Precedent Utilitarianism ?

Question asked at Guruza

1. Not Voting

Suppose you live in a district where the candidate you want to win is the favourite and likely to win by a landslide. Should you spend your time casting yet another vote for her that will make no difference to the result, or spend that same time help a charity? And yet, if everyone on your side thought that way and didn't vote, the candidate would not get in.

The precedent utilitarian might take into account a couple of factors. They might consider voter participation in itself to be a good thing. They might also use a probabilistic argument. If 2000 votes are needed to win the seat this time, but in previous elections 12000 people have turned out to vote for your party, then if this time at least 1/6 of those turn up, the candidate will win. Therefore the voter could roll a die, and vote on a "6" and help out at the charity on a 1-5. (Or, more likely, to give a winning margin and take into account uncertainty, vote on a "5" or "6").

2. Putting strangers before family

You only have enough money to buy one Christmas present. Do you give it to your wife or to some stranger who earns less than your wife and might appreciate it more?

There are lots of half way houses possible with this example, but the general principle raised is whether you have any general obligation to look after and be loyal to those closest to you. Not just your family, but your town, your country, your species. In many of these situations, you will have taken on a specific obligation (e.g. wedding vows) or there exists a traditional obligation which serves a positive function and so there is a utility in supporting its existence. There may also be practical selfish considerations, which make you more likely to keep trying to live an ethical life, if you can chose between two options of similar net utility one of which vastly helps you personally.

But there is a third factor here that is of more general applicability. Information. The more you know about a person or situation, the less uncertainty there is when deciding whether an action will have a positive or negative impact. And since the magnitude of the impact needs to be weighted by the uncertainty, that means it really is ok to favour your wife over a stranger, other things being mostly equal. The same applies when considering the utility of those alive now when compared to those who might or might not be alive one thousand years from now.

3. Destroying the environment

Beautiful landscapes, snowy mountains, majestic trees, complex eco systems, untouched wildernesses. Surely it is utilitarian thinking, treating these things as having no value beyond what they can do for man, that has cause so much destruction?

The word "utilitarian" has a meaning outside ethics of "useful" or "functional", sometimes opposed to "decorative" or "artistic". Precedent Utilitarianism on the other hand has no preference for being simplistic, and can quite happily take into account the value of valuing such things for themselves. It is, again, a situation where you have to ask yourself "Is a society where such things are habitually treated with distain a society in which you would like to live?"

4. Creating over population

If all humans are born with equal potential to experience utility, then surely the more humans the better? In fact, should we not expand our numbers as quickly as possible, to the maximum we can support with our technology?

Shelving for the moment the issue of how many humans this planet can reliably support in the long term, and the risks of destructive war inherent in competition for resources, this pre-supposes that just because a human can experience a high utility that they will get a chance to in any society, however over crowded and unpleasant.

5. Hurting a few innocents to please the many

What price injustice? How can you ever justify deliberately hurting an innocent person, however bad the consequences of not doing so?

Countries only have finite budgets, that have to be split between health, railroad safety, the justice system, and many other things. No country can afford to give every citizen the best health care that money can buy. There comes a point where you reach diminishing returns. Where you say, "I have an additional $1,000,000. If I put it into heath, I will on average save just 1 more life. If I put it into railway safety, I will on average save 10 more lives.". Similarly with the justice system. There is only so much money you can spend on additional safe guards for the innocent. Sooner or later you reach a point where you say "I know that this policy, if implemented, will on average harm 5 innocent people a year. But to reduce that to 4 a year would cost an extra $15, 000, 000 which is better spent elsewhere."

From a Precedent Utilitarian perspective, every society places a large but not infinite value on protecting the innocent, and this is just another factor to take into account, like the chance of being struck by lightning.

6. Not punishing the guilty

With rights come responsibilities. If someone tries to mug me, they are ignoring their responsibilities under the laws of society, and are therefore consenting to give up their rights. Why should I take any account of their utility when deciding how to respond, if they have given up the right to have it taken into account? And if they do get put in prison, I don't want them pampered and given free education programs; I want them punished so that they suffer what I suffered. Isn't the best precedent to hang the lot of them?

From a Precedent Utilitarian perspective, having your utility taken into account is not a 'right'. Rights, and responsibilities are a human thing, which may be a good idea (one which will cause positive utility if encouraged) but are not fundamental. The criminal justice system that will create most utility may vary from society to society (and is perhaps more a question of sociology or psychology, than philosophy). A Precedent Utilitarian will take into account the utility of the criminal just as much as that of the victim. But they will also take into account the utility of possible future victims, possible future victims of others inspired by the original criminal and tax payers having to cope with the effects of crime.

On the question of how "wrong" an action taken was, when it comes to deciding a sentence in court, a Precedent Utilitarian is quite happy to take into account legality, motivation and what might have happened or was intended to happen, as well as what did happen, because the precedent set by doing so effects future utility.

7. Acting from false motives

When John makes a promise to pay me $10, I trust him, because I know that John believes in keeping promises. If Dave, the Precedent Utilitarian, tells me "I promise to pay you $10", I don't trust him as much as I trust John, because I know that Dave doesn't believe that keeping promises is an absolute good, and that today he might think that promise keeping is a socially useful institution worth supporting, but that there are other things he thinks are equally worthwhile, and what about tomorrow? And never mind my opinion of what Dave would really mean if he said "I love you" or "You are my friend".

This is a tricky one. If John's sole behavioural restriction in life is keeping his word, then perhaps he really is more trustworthy than Dave on this point. But it is more likely that John believes in a number of additional things, such as not stealing, protecting his property, paying his taxes on time, not letting his boss down. And for most of the time, John would hope to be able to keep all these. But what about when they come into conflict? If he is short on money, how does John choose between two of his beliefs? In such circumstances, Dave is no less trustworthy than John, and Dave has a predictable way he uses to choose between conflicting commitments or rules of thumb and so could in fact be considered to be the more reliable of the two.