Utilitarianism of the act and the rules

The traditional form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which states that the best act is the one that provides maximum utility. An alternative form is norm utilitarianism, which states that the best act is the one that is part of a norm that provides us with the most utility.

Many utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism encompasses not only acts, but also desires and dispositions, rewards and punishments, rules and institutions.

negative utilitarianism

Main article: Negative utilitarianism.

They defend the production of the minimum discomfort for the maximum number of people, preventing the greatest amount of pain or damage for the greatest number of people, considering this ethical formula as more effective than that of the greatest well-being for the greatest number of individuals, understanding that there are more possibilities of creating harm than of creating well-being, and greater harm would entail more consequences than greater goods.

The antinatalist Miguel Steiner understands that positive utilitarianism forgets to clearly differentiate between the need not to suffer (due to its intrinsic negativity) and the ethically non-imperative possibility of pleasure and happiness. The absence of happiness is not problematic (no one regrets the fate of the stones or the potential unborn child), while avoiding suffering, especially intense suffering, is important and necessary. Thus, renouncing one's child responds to a need that, within the framework of negative utilitarianism, makes complete sense as a preventive measure against the possibilities of suffering. It could be understood that the maximum happiness of the majority of people in classical utilitarianism already presupposes the absence of suffering, but reproduction, which implies more possibilities of pleasure, also implies more suffering, which is why the theoretical framework of both options has very different implications. That is precisely what antinatalism reveals. Negative utilitarianism also refuses to recognize the supposed compensation between the happiness of some and the suffering of others, clearly prioritizing the ethical weight of the latter. Thus it seems that, at least in theory, negative utilitarianism is better able to distinguish between spurious interests and elementary needs.

Preference Utilitarianism

Defines utility in terms of satisfaction of preferences. Preference utilitarians claim that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences, but defining the best consequences in terms of preference satisfaction first and foremost.

ideal utilitarianism

It recognizes beauty, friendship and pleasure as the goods that actions should seek to maximize.[4]​.

Critics argue that this view faces many problems, one of which is the difficulty of comparing utility between different people. Many early utilitarians believed that happiness could be measured quantitatively and compared through calculations, although none managed to make such a calculation in practice.

It has been argued that the happiness of different people is incommensurable, and that this calculation is impossible, not only in practice but also in principle. Proponents of utilitarianism respond to this by stating that this problem faces anyone who has to choose between two alternative states that impose serious burdens on the people involved. If happiness were immeasurable, the death of hundreds of people would not be worse than the death of one.

Another argument against utilitarianism, according to James Rachels in his Introduction to Moral Philosophy, is the accusation that this way of acting is too demanding and eliminates the distinction between duties and supererogatory actions.[5] To support this, anti-utilitarians start from what the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill himself recognizes: "the utilitarian requires being as strictly impartial as a disinterested spectator and benevolent".[6]​.

Taking into account "obligatory" as a key word, philosophers opposed to Bentham and Mill proposed, through imaginary examples, two ways of distinguishing the charitable actions of people: those who adopt a utilitarian position must necessarily and obligatorily dispose of their assets to contribute to the well-being of others, even if for this reason their social status is at the level of the poorest.

The consistent utilitarian should, by choice or conscience, donate part of his wealth if it produces more happiness than keeping it for himself, or use it as a means to generate more wealth destined to increase happiness indefinitely.

On the other hand, utilitarians respond to such criticism with the argument that the proposed examples are totally imaginary and only in the minds of some philosophers would such things happen, while utility is responsible for saying why they are or are not convenient in real life.

The Australian utilitarian philosopher J. J. C. Smart explains to us that we must be very careful with common sense, because sometimes it is influenced by our feelings, that is, sometimes the interpretation we make of a given situation can be inspired by the customs and precepts learned from our parents, society, etc. Perhaps this is the greatest contribution of utilitarianism, its questioning of common sense as a source of morality.

Utilitarianism has also been criticized for reaching such conclusions contrary to common sense morality. For example, if we were forced to choose between saving our own child or saving two children of people we don't know, most people would choose to save their own child. On the other hand, utilitarianism would defend saving the other two, since two people have a greater potential for future happiness than one.

Utilitarians respond to this argument by saying that common sense has been used to justify many positions on controversial issues and this notion of common sense varies depending on the individual, making it unable to be a solid basis for a common morality.

John Rawls (1921-2002) rejects utilitarianism, both normative and action-oriented, since it makes rights depend on the good consequences of their recognition, and this is incompatible with liberalism. For example, if slavery or torture is beneficial to the population as a whole it could be justified theoretically by utilitarianism. Rawls defends that political ethics must start from the original position. Utilitarians argue that Rawls fails to take into account the indirect impact of accepting inhumane policies.

It is important to note that most criticism is directed at act utilitarianism, and that it is possible for a rule utilitarian to reach conclusions that are compatible with the critics. In fact, John Stuart Mill considered Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) to be a rule utilitarian. According to Mill, Kant's categorical imperatives only make sense in cases of violence if we consider the consequences of the action. Kant affirms that living selfishly cannot be universalized because we all need affection at some time or another. According to Mill this argument is based on consequences. It can be seen that some forms of utilitarianism are potentially compatible with Kantianism and other moral philosophies.

R. M. Hare is another example of a utilitarian who has adapted his philosophy to Kantianism. He does not base his theory on the principle of utility. He believes that we can make utilitarian considerations when making universal judgments. He calls this philosophy universal prescriptivism.

Contenido

El utilitarismo como posición ética distinta surgió a principios del siglo , y aunque generalmente se piensa que comenzó con Jeremy Bentham, hubo escritores anteriores que presentaron teorías que eran sorprendentemente similares.

Premodern formulations

The importance of happiness as an end for human beings has long been recognized. Aristippus and Epicurus proposed forms of hedonism; Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is the supreme human good; and Augustine wrote that "all men agree in desiring the ultimate end, which is happiness." Happiness was also explored in depth by Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica. future."[12]​.

Different varieties of consequentialism also existed in the ancient and medieval world, such as the state consequentialism of Moism or the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli. Moist consequentialism defended communal moral goods, including political stability, population growth, and wealth, but did not support the utilitarian notion of maximizing individual happiness.[13]

18th century

Francis Hutcheson first introduced a key utilitarian phrase in An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725): In choosing the most moral action, the amount of virtue in a particular action is proportional to the number of people to whom it brings happiness.[14]​ Likewise, moral evil, or vice, is proportional to the number of people who suffer. The best action is the one that brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, and the worst is the one that causes the greatest misery. In the first three editions of the book, Hutcheson included several mathematical algorithms "for calculating the morality of any action." In doing so, he prefigured Bentham's hedonic calculus.

Some claim that John Gay developed the first systematic theory of utilitarian ethics.[15]​ In Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality (1731), Gay maintains that:[16]​.

This search for happiness receives a theological basis:[17]​.

In his work *An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), David Hume writes:[18]​.

Gay's theological utilitarianism was developed and popularized by William Paley. It has been claimed that Paley was not a very original thinker and that the philosophies in his treatise on ethics are "a set of ideas developed by others and presented for students to learn rather than debate among colleagues".[19] However, his book The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785) was a required text at Cambridge University[19]​ and Wilson Smith (1954) says that Paley's writings were "once as well known in American universities as were the readers and spellers of William McGuffey and Noah Webster in elementary schools."[20]​ J.B. Schneewind (1977) writes that "utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the work of William Paley."[21]​.

The now-forgotten importance of Paley can be judged from the title of Thomas Rawson Birks' 1874 work Modern Utilitarianism or the Systems of Paley, Bentham and Mill Examined and Compared.

In addition to reaffirming that happiness as an end is based on the nature of God, Paley also analyzes the place of rules and writes:[22]​.

According to the Dictionary of the Royal Academy of Language, utilitarianism is, as a first meaning, an attitude that values ​​above all the usefulness of things. As a second meaning, it indicates that it is a current of thought that considers utility as a principle of morality.[3]​.

The Academy considers pragmatism, positivism, and materialism as terms related or related to utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism of the act and the rules

The traditional form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which states that the best act is the one that provides maximum utility. An alternative form is norm utilitarianism, which states that the best act is the one that is part of a norm that provides us with the most utility.

Many utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism encompasses not only acts, but also desires and dispositions, rewards and punishments, rules and institutions.

negative utilitarianism

Main article: Negative utilitarianism.

They defend the production of the minimum discomfort for the maximum number of people, preventing the greatest amount of pain or damage for the greatest number of people, considering this ethical formula as more effective than that of the greatest well-being for the greatest number of individuals, understanding that there are more possibilities of creating harm than of creating well-being, and greater harm would entail more consequences than greater goods.

The antinatalist Miguel Steiner understands that positive utilitarianism forgets to clearly differentiate between the need not to suffer (due to its intrinsic negativity) and the ethically non-imperative possibility of pleasure and happiness. The absence of happiness is not problematic (no one regrets the fate of the stones or the potential unborn child), while avoiding suffering, especially intense suffering, is important and necessary. Thus, renouncing one's child responds to a need that, within the framework of negative utilitarianism, makes complete sense as a preventive measure against the possibilities of suffering. It could be understood that the maximum happiness of the majority of people in classical utilitarianism already presupposes the absence of suffering, but reproduction, which implies more possibilities of pleasure, also implies more suffering, which is why the theoretical framework of both options has very different implications. That is precisely what antinatalism reveals. Negative utilitarianism also refuses to recognize the supposed compensation between the happiness of some and the suffering of others, clearly prioritizing the ethical weight of the latter. Thus it seems that, at least in theory, negative utilitarianism is better able to distinguish between spurious interests and elementary needs.

Preference Utilitarianism

Defines utility in terms of satisfaction of preferences. Preference utilitarians claim that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences, but defining the best consequences in terms of preference satisfaction first and foremost.

ideal utilitarianism

It recognizes beauty, friendship and pleasure as the goods that actions should seek to maximize.[4]​.

Critics argue that this view faces many problems, one of which is the difficulty of comparing utility between different people. Many early utilitarians believed that happiness could be measured quantitatively and compared through calculations, although none managed to make such a calculation in practice.

It has been argued that the happiness of different people is incommensurable, and that this calculation is impossible, not only in practice but also in principle. Proponents of utilitarianism respond to this by stating that this problem faces anyone who has to choose between two alternative states that impose serious burdens on the people involved. If happiness were immeasurable, the death of hundreds of people would not be worse than the death of one.

Another argument against utilitarianism, according to James Rachels in his Introduction to Moral Philosophy, is the accusation that this way of acting is too demanding and eliminates the distinction between duties and supererogatory actions.[5] To support this, anti-utilitarians start from what the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill himself recognizes: "the utilitarian requires being as strictly impartial as a disinterested spectator and benevolent".[6]​.

Taking into account "obligatory" as a key word, philosophers opposed to Bentham and Mill proposed, through imaginary examples, two ways of distinguishing the charitable actions of people: those who adopt a utilitarian position must necessarily and obligatorily dispose of their assets to contribute to the well-being of others, even if for this reason their social status is at the level of the poorest.

The consistent utilitarian should, by choice or conscience, donate part of his wealth if it produces more happiness than keeping it for himself, or use it as a means to generate more wealth destined to increase happiness indefinitely.

On the other hand, utilitarians respond to such criticism with the argument that the proposed examples are totally imaginary and only in the minds of some philosophers would such things happen, while utility is responsible for saying why they are or are not convenient in real life.

The Australian utilitarian philosopher J. J. C. Smart explains to us that we must be very careful with common sense, because sometimes it is influenced by our feelings, that is, sometimes the interpretation we make of a given situation can be inspired by the customs and precepts learned from our parents, society, etc. Perhaps this is the greatest contribution of utilitarianism, its questioning of common sense as a source of morality.

Utilitarianism has also been criticized for reaching such conclusions contrary to common sense morality. For example, if we were forced to choose between saving our own child or saving two children of people we don't know, most people would choose to save their own child. On the other hand, utilitarianism would defend saving the other two, since two people have a greater potential for future happiness than one.

Utilitarians respond to this argument by saying that common sense has been used to justify many positions on controversial issues and this notion of common sense varies depending on the individual, making it unable to be a solid basis for a common morality.

John Rawls (1921-2002) rejects utilitarianism, both normative and action-oriented, since it makes rights depend on the good consequences of their recognition, and this is incompatible with liberalism. For example, if slavery or torture is beneficial to the population as a whole it could be justified theoretically by utilitarianism. Rawls defends that political ethics must start from the original position. Utilitarians argue that Rawls fails to take into account the indirect impact of accepting inhumane policies.

It is important to note that most criticism is directed at act utilitarianism, and that it is possible for a rule utilitarian to reach conclusions that are compatible with the critics. In fact, John Stuart Mill considered Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) to be a rule utilitarian. According to Mill, Kant's categorical imperatives only make sense in cases of violence if we consider the consequences of the action. Kant affirms that living selfishly cannot be universalized because we all need affection at some time or another. According to Mill this argument is based on consequences. It can be seen that some forms of utilitarianism are potentially compatible with Kantianism and other moral philosophies.

R. M. Hare is another example of a utilitarian who has adapted his philosophy to Kantianism. He does not base his theory on the principle of utility. He believes that we can make utilitarian considerations when making universal judgments. He calls this philosophy universal prescriptivism.

Contenido

El utilitarismo como posición ética distinta surgió a principios del siglo , y aunque generalmente se piensa que comenzó con Jeremy Bentham, hubo escritores anteriores que presentaron teorías que eran sorprendentemente similares.

Premodern formulations

The importance of happiness as an end for human beings has long been recognized. Aristippus and Epicurus proposed forms of hedonism; Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is the supreme human good; and Augustine wrote that "all men agree in desiring the ultimate end, which is happiness." Happiness was also explored in depth by Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica. future."[12]​.

Different varieties of consequentialism also existed in the ancient and medieval world, such as the state consequentialism of Moism or the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli. Moist consequentialism defended communal moral goods, including political stability, population growth, and wealth, but did not support the utilitarian notion of maximizing individual happiness.[13]

18th century

Francis Hutcheson first introduced a key utilitarian phrase in An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1725): In choosing the most moral action, the amount of virtue in a particular action is proportional to the number of people to whom it brings happiness.[14]​ Likewise, moral evil, or vice, is proportional to the number of people who suffer. The best action is the one that brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, and the worst is the one that causes the greatest misery. In the first three editions of the book, Hutcheson included several mathematical algorithms "for calculating the morality of any action." In doing so, he prefigured Bentham's hedonic calculus.

Some claim that John Gay developed the first systematic theory of utilitarian ethics.[15]​ In Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality (1731), Gay maintains that:[16]​.

This search for happiness receives a theological basis:[17]​.

In his work *An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), David Hume writes:[18]​.

Gay's theological utilitarianism was developed and popularized by William Paley. It has been claimed that Paley was not a very original thinker and that the philosophies in his treatise on ethics are "a set of ideas developed by others and presented for students to learn rather than debate among colleagues".[19] However, his book The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785) was a required text at Cambridge University[19]​ and Wilson Smith (1954) says that Paley's writings were "once as well known in American universities as were the readers and spellers of William McGuffey and Noah Webster in elementary schools."[20]​ J.B. Schneewind (1977) writes that "utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the work of William Paley."[21]​.

The now-forgotten importance of Paley can be judged from the title of Thomas Rawson Birks' 1874 work Modern Utilitarianism or the Systems of Paley, Bentham and Mill Examined and Compared.

In addition to reaffirming that happiness as an end is based on the nature of God, Paley also analyzes the place of rules and writes:[22]​.