Jeremy Betham's Ideas Of Utilitarianism

“Utilitarianism” focuses on the definition as well as the characteristics of utilitarianism. The text also draws attention to theories of morality. The author differentiates between the teleological/consequentialist theory, and the deontological theory. These theories place different levels of importance on the consequences of actions. Teleological theory emphasizes that the consequences of an action determine whether that act is right or wrong, whereas the deontological theory illuminates the role duty plays in actions, and contends that duty is unrelated to consequences (1). The widely accepted concept of utilitarianism asserts that the purpose of behavior is to bring the most happiness to the most people, and that this happiness should be

the motivation behind our actions (2).
The author’s argument is outlined by headings and subheadings that inform the reader what the next section of the argument will be about. These headings are titled “The Question of Consequences,” “What is Utilitarianism?” “Betham’s Version: Quantity Over Quality,” “Mill’s Version: Quality Over Quantity,” “Utilitarianism and the Morality of Murder,” “Kant’s Categorical Imperative,” “The Test of Moral Actions,” and “Some Objections.” The subheadings are entitled “Betham on Animal Rights,” “Act-Utilitarianism/Rule-Utilitarianism,” “John Stuart Mill,” “Pleasure: Quantity or Quality?” “Moral Sanctions: External and Internal,” “The First Paragraph in Mill’s Subjection of Women,” “What’s Wrong With This Picture?” “The Murderer at the Door,” “The Categorical Imperative,” “How to ‘Operationalize’ Kant’s Test for Moral Action,” “Martin Luther King, Jr., on the Categorical Imperative,” and “A Feminist Alternative: The Ethics of Care.” The author begins the first section by asking “do the consequences of our actions matter?” (1). The author explains that the consequences of certain actions influence whether or not they are considered moral or immoral, and from there, begins the discussion of the teleological and deontological theories. Within the next section, the author provides a description of utilitarianism. According to the author, utilitarianism is applied when everyone’s, not just an individual’s happiness is considered before an action is taken, and the greatest balance of good over evil is sought (2). An example is then provided; throughout the text, the author provides several scenarios in which utilitarianism can be applied. Most of the situations are drastic situations that result in decisions that are difficult to make. The famous question is asked: should the lives of several people be jeopardized in order to possibly save one more? (2). The rest of the text expands on this, and gives philosophers’ ideas and theories on this subject.
The majority of the argument differentiates between Jeremy Betham’s and John Stuart Mill’s ideas of utilitarianism.

The author asserts that whereas both of their ideas were centered around achieving the greatest pleasure for the most people, to Betham greatest meant “most,” and to Mill greatest meant “best” (3, 6). Betham, the founder of utilitarianism, emphasized the quantity of happiness. Betham’s idea is that the right thing to do is consider all available options for actions, and calculate the pleasure over pain, considering other people and the way they will be affected more important than one’s own self. Betham believed there were seven ways to calculate this pleasure, and that there were four sanctions that should shape the way we behave; the sanctions were considered punishment for immoral actions (3-4). Mill’s version of utilitarianism emphasized the importance of quality over quantity. According to Mill, only pleasure, and freedom from pain are desirable results (4). Mill’s idea includes the Christian rule of loving your neighbor as yourself; this is noted as being the “spirit of the ethics of utility” (4). In the text, the author distinguishes between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism, and gives more ideas from Betham and Mill, as well as Kant and Martin Luther King, Jr. Act-utilitarianism questions what should be done to result in the greatest happiness for all people, and rule-utilitarianism questions what rule should be followed in order to achieve such great happiness (5). Immanuel Kant created the idea of the categorical imperative, which he considers the fundamental principle of morality; this idea focuses on whether or not actions can be universalized (11). According to the author, “the categorical imperative isn’t concerned with what you do, but how you do it, since if the how is right, the what will be right” (11). The author includes another scenario: the murderer at the door, in which a decision should be made whether to lie or not

to lie in an attempt to spare a friend’s life. This scenario raises the question of whether telling the truth or choosing to lie is moral or immoral based on the outcome of the decision (11).
I agree with Betham that there is a difference between knowing what we ought to do and actually doing it. Even if we know what to do or what not to do, we may still act immorally if acting as such benefits us. However, I don’t agree with quantity being more important than quality. I agree with the author that while rules of conduct are necessary to promote social order and happiness, some situations are too unique to be categorized by a rule. It is easy to think about how you would react in a hypothetical situation, but if that situation became reality, it would be more difficult to think of a solution that is rational and morally sound.
In a desperate situation, a father may rob a store to feed his children. Whereas stealing is unethical, feeding children is the right thing to do. Most people would agree that it is against the law to steal, and would therefore overlook his efforts to be a good father and feed the children, an act that would result in the greater happiness of the family. Likewise, people have the same criticisms for women, who in wartime situations that required hiding, smothered or drowned their crying babies in order to keep quiet and avoid enemy soldiers from killing everyone that was hidden. While killing is immoral, especially killing an innocent baby, it could be argued that the mothers in these situations killed their babies for the greater good of the group.