WORKSHEET 2 – DISCUSSION POINTS

1. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for “higher” pleasures. Which pleasures are higher? Explain
your answer through a graphic organizer. 20pts

Lower Higher
Pleasures Pleasures

Mill writes, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they
only know their side of the question." Thus, the people best qualified to judge a pleasure's quality are
people who have experienced both the higher and the lower. Higher pleasures are more valuable than
lower ones. For example, the pleasures of learning things and of helping others are more valuable than
the pleasures of eating and drinking.

Furthermore, Mill observes that even if the possession of a "noble character" brought less happiness to
the individual, society would still benefit. Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the
total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still
desirable by a utilitarian standard.
2. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all
actions are directed toward pleasure? Why? 10pts

The height of personal happiness can only be measured by the depth of personal pain. Happiness is not
a stand-alone feeling. Happiness is a comparative emotion. The measure of happiness a person feels is
judged against the measure of pain a person felt in the past. The greater degree of pain, the greater
degree of happiness. Without pain, happiness has no meaning. Ironically, the fear of emotional pain
often restricts a person’s ability to experience the high heights of happiness. All men seek happiness.
This is without exception. I do not agree that all actions are directed toward pleasure. We do some
things out of responsibility not because of pleasure we feel in doing them. Not all actions are done
because we will experience pleasure as we do them, not all people feel pleasure in doing their work,
some hate doing work, but they need to, because they need to feed their families. People do not always
do what they want because sacrificing immediate happiness is often best to achieve long-term
happiness of themselves and others. The idea that we can achieve happiness by maximizing pleasure
and minimizing pain is popular. The truth is very different. Pleasure alone cannot not make us happy. I
conclude that not all things we do are not ultimately because of pleasure
WORKSHEETS 2 – PROCESSING QUESTIONS

Instructions: Read the questions carefully. Answer the following questions on the spaces provided.
Limit your answers with 4 paragraphs, 5 sentences each.

1. Does utilitarianism question individual rights? What if violating the civil rights of a minority
increases the sum total of pleasure of the majority?

Utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the
one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a
course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the
benefits are produced by lies or manipulation. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify
military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because
of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits. However, because we cannot predict the future,
it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad.

This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such
as justice and individual rights.  For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend
upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into
the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would
arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The end justify the means.

Few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one. So, although
utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has
obvious limitations. Human rights are usually said to be universal, and some even believe that they are
absolute. Such attributes are necessary in order for human rights to protect all humans at all times. A
major motivation for rights in general is to ensure that no-one is subject to unrestrained judgment of
utility, so that a minority do not suffer so that a greater number enjoy some benefit. 

The promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number cannot justify some violation of an
individual's welfare. In the end, it is argued, all the benefits listed as human rights, even life itself, are
subject to the promotion of the greatest good within a society. As such an individual's benefits claimed
as a human right may be compromised, or even completely denied in specific situations where that right
has to be weighed against the claim of another individual or of society as a whole. Human rights become
values that society believes must be consistently respected. Look at the situation of the country, it is the
great example of the challenge in utilitarianism.
2. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans than to build a hospital
because there are fewer sick people?

In my point of view, it is never justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans
than to build a hospital because there are fewer sick people. Who in the right mind would propose this
idea just to satisfy the that it will bring more joy to more people? What about the sick people? Just
because there are fewer sick people, it doesn’t mean that they are least priority. Building a basketball
court instead of a hospital is clearly breaking their rights, their right to live. It is a form of injustice comes
from depriving someone of something he has a moral right to possess.

This situation leads to several problems already for utilitarianism. Is happiness the most important (and
only) thing we want? What about other feelings we can have? Should we always try to maximize our
happiness at all times of the day? One of the biggest barriers to the acceptance of utility has been that it
does not allow for a theory of justice. Utilitarians think that the right thing to do is whatever produces
the greatest amount of happiness.

The principle of utility, tells us that the right thing to do is always whatever will produce the greatest
amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness. But we
should consider how much happiness sports fans would get if we were to build a new stadium, and how
much happiness of a few sick people would be if we were to build a new hospital. An action can be
evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure, distinguishing the pleasures qualitatively and
not only quantitatively. So, it is not justifiable to build a basketball court just because their many
basketball fans. It is more justifiable to build more hospitals even with few seek people because the
pleasure of the few that would relieve from new and advance built hospital it qualitatively greater than
the pleasure gets by basketball fans.

After the basketball game, the pleasure would just go but the duration or length of the experience of
pleasure relieved of the patient is way greater, maximizing the balance of happiness and pain. The
interests of a few sick people who need a hospital outrank the interests of thousands of sports fans. It is
also way better to build more hospitals in case of an epidemic like dengue and etc. since a basketball
court can`t cure them. Not building a basketball court would not cause pain to basketball fans because
they would still be able to watch from television. Just like Mill said, we should seek for the “higher”
pleasures.
Empty Outline 2

Instructions: This space is provided for your 500 words work journal. At the end of

the chapter you need to right 500 words about the things you have learned,

your thoughts and even your questions about the concept being discussed.

Utilitarianism is focused on consequences and results; the sole basis of morality is determined by
its usefulness.  The morally “correct” action is the one the produces the most good (or the most
happiness) and the least amount of suffering for the most people (pleasure over pain). Utilitarians
perform that action which produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness from the
available alternatives. Thus, the first key concept of utilitarianism is that of maximizing utility
or happiness.

Utilitarians reject orders or commands given by religious or political leaders.  Instead, utilitarianism is
considered a form of consequentialism because it is the results of individual actions, laws, or policies,
etc. that determine whether something is right or wrong.  Advocates argue the choice that leads to the
best overall results or maximized utility is best. Utilitarianism can be thought of in terms of the saying,
“the ends justify the means.”  In this way, the means are not as important as the end result.

Unlike egoists, who claim that persons should maximize their own utility. Utilitarians do not place their
own happiness above that of others.  For example, egoism recommends that we insult others if that
makes us happy, but utilitarianism does not. For utilitarians, the happiness we experience by insulting
them is more than balanced by the injury they endure. To put into an analogy, robbing banks, killing
people, and not paying our taxes may make us happy, but these actions decrease the over all benefits.
Therefore, utilitarianism does not recommend any of them.

But utilitarianism still has its criticisms. One of those is that, human happiness is impossible to quantify.
This is one of the primary criticisms of quantitative utilitarianism. Human perception of the same
experience varies greatly among individuals. That fact does not allow for a consistent quantifying
process. In addition, all ethical systems stemming from consequentialism (the belief that actions are
judged on the basis of their consequences) are limited by the ability to guess at the future consequences
of present actions. Another criticism is that the motives behind actions are ignored by utilitarianism.
Consider two individuals, A and B, who donate ₱100 and ₱1,000, respectively, to a charity. Suppose
individual A donated the money because he wanted to help the charity and individual B made the
donation so that he could improve his own standing in society. Utilitarianism would consider individual
B’s donation to be superior to individual A’s donation, despite the fact that it was made with an ulterior,
and less noble, motive.

The two key concepts in utilitarian thinking—happiness and consequences—are problematic. For
utilitarians, the end always justifies the means. Utilitarian’s emphasis on consequences can also be a
weakness. That emphasis can lead to “all’s well that ends well” thinking, allowing people to justify
immoral acts if the outcome is beneficial. One must also ask, can we ever be sure of the consequences
of our actions? If we take an action that we expected would have good consequences, but it ends up
harming people, have we behaved unethically regardless of our intentions?