A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 1Harlington School · Philosophy · Moral Philosophy

Utilitarianism

One engine: the right act makes the most happiness. The versions argue about what to count, and how.

The
big
question

Is the right action simply the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The utilitarian line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

PLEASURE, counted act by act · BenthamWANTS, protected by rules · the repairs

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Moral philosophy is one question in three sizes: what makes an act right (normative), what to do in this case (applied), and what 'right' even means (meta-ethics). This unit is the first two, for one theory.

◀ Refer back · The limits of knowledge
Can philosophical scepticism be answered?

Epistemology asked what we can KNOW. Moral philosophy asks what we must DO. Mill proves his answer from what people want — Hume's is-ought gap waits.

Retrieve: Write down one thing you are sure is wrong. Ask: sure the way 2 + 2 = 4 is sure, or the way 'I have hands' is?
The big idea

Going from left to right, each version gives up something Bentham insisted on. First, that all pleasures are alike. Then, that acts are judged one by one. Then, that pleasure is the good at all. In the essay you decide how much can be given up before the theory has become something else.

Look ahead · Kantian deontological ethics ▶
Can an action be wrong even when it produces the best consequences?

Every objection today — the scapegoat, the surgeon, the axeman — is a case where results seem not to be the whole story. Kant says they never were.

Prime: Note which case today you could not accept the utilitarian answer to. Next lesson explains why.
01

The lessons in this unit

6 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Autumn 1 · weeks 1–7. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 1

The map: is the right act the one that produces most happiness?

The three levels of ethics; four versions of utilitarianism; the scapegoat.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 1–2

Bentham: the principle of utility

Hedonism, the calculus, act utilitarianism; the first objections.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 3

Mill: quality, the proof and secondary principles

Higher and lower pleasures, the competent judge, the 'proof', liberty.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 4–5

Rule and preference utilitarianism

Strong and weak rule; the collapse objection; Singer and equal consideration.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 6

The five issues

Pleasure the only good; calculation; fairness and rights; partiality; integrity and intentions.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 6 · week 7

The applied issues

Stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, telling lies — through every version; the ladder.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four versions of utilitarianism, side by side

Why does 'count the happiness' not settle it? But utilitarians deny one thing most of us believe: that some acts are wrong in themselves. For them no act is wrong on its own — not lying, not stealing, not even killing. It is only wrong if it makes less happiness than something else would. This lesson teaches two versions. Version one: Bentham — count each ACT on its own. Version two: count by RULES — follow the rules that make most happiness overall. Then two repairs: Mill's quality of pleasure, and counting what people WANT instead of pleasure.

Version one

Bentham's act utilitarianism

The right act makes the most pleasure and the least pain, for everyone affected, each counted as one.
1Pleasure is the only good thing, pain the only bad thing. Pleasures differ only in amount — a pub game is as good as poetry if it pleases as much.
2To decide, count: how strong, how long, how sure, how soon, what it leads to, how pure, and how many people it reaches. Each person counts for one.
3Judge each ACT by its own results. No act is right or wrong in itself — only in what it causes.
4Motives do not matter. Everyone wants pleasure anyway. Laws exist to make my pleasure line up with everyone's.
Strength It is simple, fair between people and easy to check. It explains why cruelty is wrong without God or gut feeling. And it put animals, the poor and the powerless into the sum long before anyone else did.
Weakness The sum cannot really be done — pleasures do not share one measure, and results never stop. And when it can be done, it says: hand over the scapegoat. Fairness is not in the sum.
Version two

Rule utilitarianism

Follow the rules that make the most happiness when everyone keeps them — even when breaking one would make more here.
1The rule test: 'keep promises' and 'do not punish the innocent' make more happiness as rules everyone keeps than any case-by-case choosing could.
2So the scapegoat is ruled out. A town where the innocent can be sacrificed when the numbers say so is a worse town than one where they cannot.
3Rights come out of rules. A right is a rule so useful that no single gain in happiness is allowed to override it.
4STRONG rule: never break the rule. WEAK rule: break it when happiness clearly demands — that is Mill's position, and it is where the trouble starts.
Strength It keeps the engine and loses the worst verdicts. Justice, rights and promises are protected — because protecting them is what makes most happiness. And it answers the counting problem: you check the rule, not the sum.
Weakness At the axeman's door the rule and the sum pull apart. Keep the rule, and you follow it while knowing it does harm — rule worship. Break it, and you are counting acts again. Smart says a rule version that keeps fixing itself ends up as Bentham.
The repair

Mill's qualitative utilitarianism

Some pleasures are higher in KIND. The judge who has tried both prefers them — even when they are less pleasant.
1Higher and lower pleasures: thinking, feeling and doing right are higher in KIND than eating or drinking. Those who know both prefer them, even at a cost in comfort.
2The 'proof': the only evidence a thing is worth wanting is that people want it. Each wants their own happiness. So everyone's happiness is worth wanting.
3Secondary principles: we do not count every time. Humanity has learnt rules — keep promises, do not lie — that serve happiness. Count only when two clash.
4Liberty: the only reason to stop someone doing what they want is to stop harm to others. A utilitarian case for rights.
Strength It answers the pig and the arena in one move. It fits our sense that a life of poetry beats a life of pub games. And its rules explain why honesty and promises bind even when the sum is close.
Weakness Once quality is allowed in, something other than pleasure is doing the ranking — the theory has quietly stopped being about pleasure. And the proof slides from 'wanted' to 'worth wanting', and from each person to everyone.
The challenge

Preference utilitarianism

The right act satisfies the most preferences — what people actually WANT — not the most pleasure.
1Against pleasure: most of us refuse the machine, so we want more than pleasant feelings. And a cruel pleasure can be bad. The good is getting what you prefer.
2Singer: like interests count alike, whoever has them — human or animal, near or far. Favouring our own species for no reason is like racism.
3The scapegoat is ruled out: the victim's wish not to be punished weighs at full strength, and we all prefer to live where that cannot happen.
4Applied: eating animals is wrong where the animal's interest in not suffering outweighs our taste; lying defeats the other person's wish for the truth.
Strength It survives the machine and the cruel pleasure. It treats people as choosers, not as containers for pleasure. And it gives the best utilitarian answers about animals and about lying.
Weakness Bad and strange wants must be counted or filtered — and filtering needs a standard beyond preference. Wants are as hard to weigh as pleasures. And the few can still be outvoted by the many.
04

Six dilemmas — count, then check your intuitions

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the scapegoat next to the axeman. Both tick the boxes. Say what is DIFFERENT: where does the problem get in each one — in what is counted, or in the rule? Why can one fix not cover both?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the rule version. Say the two ways out aloud: keep the rule, or break it. Which one is Mill's? And is a rule version that breaks its rules still a different version from Bentham's?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Give the preference version the machine. Now say what it costs when wants are bad — the cruel man, the mob. Does filtering wants need a standard that is not itself a want?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Run the four AQA issues — stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, telling lies — through your best version. Where does it give an answer you cannot accept? Say what that case has.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by 'hedonism'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. Pleasure the only intrinsic good, pain the only intrinsic evil
  2. Distinguish psychological from ethical hedonism in half a sentence.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Kinds, not amounts
  2. Which pleasures are higher
  3. The competent judge test
  4. What the distinction is for (the pig).
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain how Nozick's experience machine challenges hedonistic utilitarianism.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. The machine
  2. Hedonism's prediction (plug in)
  3. The intuition (we would not)
  4. The conclusion (pleasure is not the only good)
  5. What else we value.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain rule utilitarianism and the objection that it collapses into act utilitarianism.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. The rule test
  2. What it rules out and why
  3. Strong vs weak
  4. The dilemma (exceptions → act
  5. No exceptions → rule-worship)
  6. A rule utilitarian reply (two-level).
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is utilitarianism the correct account of what makes an action right?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. Bentham stated and tested on the scapegoat
  3. Two repairs tested on the SAME case
  4. The integrity or machine objection
  5. Judgement that names what the losing versions cannot explain.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Apply your best version to all four AQA issues — stealing, simulated killing, eating animals, telling lies — in one sentence each. Where does it give an answer you cannot accept? That is your Q05 paragraph.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Moral Philosophy Companion runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Moral Philosophy Companion — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Moral Philosophy Companion is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan 'Is utilitarianism the correct account of what makes an action right?' — thesis, one case through every version, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying what each version counts, clearly. AO2 is running ONE case through all of them and reaching a judgement. Never judge a version you have not first explained.
09

Watch

Utilitarianism (AQA revision) — watch for the AQA Utilitarianism unit in twenty minutes — AQA A-Level Philosophy Revision, 20:06

▶Utilitarianism (AQA revision) · 20 min
Watch for: the AQA Utilitarianism unit in twenty minutes — AQA A-Level Philosophy Revision, 20:06↗▶Utilitarianism (Crash Course) · 10 min
Watch for: the principle of utility and its critics — CrashCourse, 10:01↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say the principle of utility in one sentence.
  2. Say the difference between counting acts and counting rules.
  3. Give one strength AND one weakness of the preference version.

Challenge

Argue: Which version would you defend in a 25-mark answer — and which single case would you use to test all four?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying what each version counts, clearly. AO2 is running ONE case through all of them and reaching a judgement. Never judge a version you have not first explained.