Talk:Two-level utilitarianism

Article created
Hi there. If you have just stumbled across this article, you may have noticed that it is in a very poor state. I have just created it, and will be working on it for the next few days, adding bits here and there. If I may, I would like to ask if you could please refrain from adding or changing things (other than correcting typos and spelling) for the next week or so, as I have not yet finished with it. If you have any change proposals or advice, could you instead please post them here. When I am done with getting the article into a passable state (which shouldn't be longer than a couple of weeks), I will add a new note here, and you may then feel free to modify my work to your heart's content. Thanks! --Stringman5 06:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I have effectively finished with the initial creation of this article. You may now edit away to your heart's content with my blessing. "Be bold". --Stringman5 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article is stable, neutral, and quite well written. But it is not sufficiently broad in its coverage of the topic and more content is needed.

I think the first section (after the lead) should be "Utilitarianism" which should explain some basic ideas such as maximising utility. This section could have two sub-sections: "Rule utilitarianism" and "Act ultilitarianism" where, again, some of the basic ideas are explained. Then the article could move on to the "General idea" of combining the two types of utilitarianism. All of this would provide context for the general reader. The other thing that is needed is a substantive example of how Two-level utilitarianism works in practice. This would probably be best placed before the "Criticism" section, and would illustrate in concrete terms how someone would use the Two-level approach on an everyday basis. The other suggestion I would make is that more in-text citations are needed to support what is being said, especially in the lead section, and a consistent referencing style should be used throughout. At present there are several lapses into the Harvard system (eg., Hare 1981:26). I've decided to put this article on hold as the article has the potential for GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 05:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers Johnfos. As you can see, Anarchia and I have been putting in a bit of work to try and get the article up to scratch. In answer to your comments:
 * 1) The Utilitarianism section has been created, and gives a basic overview of the background ideas. I am not in favour of putting in more info than is already there, primarily because it is already available in the other articles. All that is really needed is a basic run-down of the background knowledge needed to understand the theory; if anyone needs more explanation they can go see the act, rule or main utilitarian articles. To put in more than is already there would, I believe, draw away from the focus of the article and create an unnecessary distraction. Furthermore, I don't think there is enough relevant material to merit putting in act and rule utilitarian subheadings. The third paragraph from the introduction could be moved down if you want, but I think it works better where it is, and if it was moved down then the intro would be pretty short.
 * 2) As for how the two-level theory works in practice, that is already (more or less) in there: see paragraph 2 under the heading 'two level utilitarianism'. Hare did not give more practical information than that really, so I don't know what else it would be possible to add. Remember that Hare was primarily writing for other philosophers - he wasn't intentionally writing a Biblical Ten Commandments or any public moral code like that for people to base their lives on (although if people choose to base their moral thinking on his writings then I am sure he would have been delighted). My point is that his ideas were primarily theoretical, rather than practical, and so it is best to focus on the theoretical angle. (Would you agree with this point, Anarchia?)
 * 3) I have had a good go at making the referencing consistent, and Anarchia has added some extra references. I think it looks pretty well-referenced now, don't you think?


 * Finally, I understand your view that the article is "not sufficiently broad in its coverage of the topic and more content is needed". However, this is a relatively niche (low-importance) topic in philosophy with (as far as I know) only one well-known outspoken advocate, so the amount of published material related to it is small. I can think of one more objection to the theory that is not included in the article, but I could not find it anywhere in the published material so I have omitted it in the interests of excluding original research.
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. -- Stringman5 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Good article nomination
Hi Stringman, I'm pleased that progress is being made with this article, but it is still not worthy of GA status at this time. More references are needed to support what is being said and I've added a couple of {fact} tags. If you do happen to find some material dealing with practical application, it would make the article less academic. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Whilst I am naturally a little dissapointed that it did not make the grade, I shall persevere, and hopefully get it up to standard. On the topic of the practical side of the theory, I have been doing a bit of reading and it turns out that Hare (1981:46) says 'I have, then, sidestepped the issue of when we should engage in these two kinds of thinking; it is not a philosophical question'. This seems to support what I was saying above.

I would include this quote from Hare in the article.
 * I've thought about it, but I don't think it would flow that well, nor would it be necessary. I just don't feel that there should be any more discussion of the practical side of the theory than is already in there. Unless a majority disagrees with me, I plan to leave this aspect out of the article. Stringman5 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be a pain (sorry) I quite like the idea of putting something about practical applications in - I think it would help people understand the position. I do think it will be hard to do well, though. Anarchia 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well ok, but how and where? Do we really need anything more than what is already there in para 2 of 'Two-level utilitarianism' section? (i.e. the following:
 * Hare proposed that on a day to day basis, one should think and act like a rule utilitarian and follow a set of intuitive prima facie rules, in order to avoid human error and bias influencing one's decision-making (thus avoiding the problems that affected act utilitarianism). However, sometimes one would encounter an unusual situation, either where two rules contradict each other or where the normal rules would specify a course of action that is obviously not the most beneficial. In such a situation, Hare advocated that one change one's mode of moral thinking to a second 'critical' level, and behave like an act utilitarian.)
 * Would you add anything to this, and if so, what? I don't understand how you can get any more practical than this, and/or I don't see what this account is missing. -- Stringman5 02:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also dealt with all the {fact} tags you left, so the references are looking pretty comprehensive now. Come to think of it, what else needs to be done? -- Stringman5 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You just need to re-submit the article when you are ready. All the best. -- Johnfos 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article looks good. I believe the previous issues have been addressed. Dr. Cash 03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! :) Cheers Dr. Cash. -- Stringman5 00:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RMHare.jpg
The image Image:RMHare.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dammit. I believe the image was relevant, given that Two-Level Utilitarianism was developed by R.M. Hare. However I borrowed it from the page on Hare, and never bothered to have a look at whether it had all the fair-use documentation and fine print as I don't know the first thing about that stuff. Now the picture appears to be permanently gone, and I don't know where to find it again. Thanks a freakin' bunch, Fairusebot. Stringman5 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

=Reply to criticism= I have never come across the reply that a two-way utilitarian should hide and deny her utiltarianism when questioned by others. Though I consider myself far from an expert on the subject and have not read the cited source text this reply sounds especially weak, and perhaps borderline straw-man of the two-way utilitarian's reply to any criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.122 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a frequent wikipedia editor so I am not really sure how to use the talk pages, but there is something incorrect in this article. It states that utilitarianism is an inherently hedonistic theory, caring only about pleasure. However, this is not true of all utilitarianism, just "hedonistic utilitarianism". Ideal utilitarianism, on the other hand, does not state that pleasure must be the definition of utility. Instead utility could be whatever is objectively good in the world, whether that is pleasure, knowledge, some kind of spiritual experience, etc. 107.15.49.122 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

=Government House Utilitarianism= As far as I am aware, the term "Government house utilitarianism" was coined by Bernard Williams as a criticism of Henry Sidgwick's utilitarianism and has little to do directly with what Hare means by two-level moral thought (or two-level utilitarianism). I discovered that Government House utilitarianism leads to this article in the course of my present efforts to improve the Sidgwick article. Skimming Hare's Moral Thinking, he alludes very rarely to Sidgwick, and in the book by David McNoughton from which this article's use of the term seemed to originate (which use I have deleted, because it took the wording so closely from the source that it would constitute plagiarism), it is not entirely clear which view he is referring to in using the phrase.

It seems to me that some ambiguities in McNoughton's book can draw the reader to believe he's talking about Hare's two-level utilitarianism when he uses the phrase "Government House utilitarianism" due to resemblances between the views discussed and Hare's views, but I'd hypothesize this is because Sidgwick's views really do happen to resemble Hare's in important respects. But I think ultimately the reason the phrase "Government house utilitarianism" is used at all is fundamentally due to Sidgwick's suggestion it could be, on utiltiarian grounds, morally wrong for anyone but a governing elite to actually be utilitarians. This view clearly has some interesting relation to the levels of utilitarianism discussed in this article, but I do not believe that it's plausible to treat it as an identical view, nor do I think the sources cited support treating the phrases "two-level utilitarnaism" and "Government House utilitarianism" as synonyms.

Anyways, to make a long story short: It is not at all clear to me that "Government house utilitarianism" is at all a synonym for "two-level utilitarianism", and unless I hear a good reason not to, I'm going to do something about that claim in the article and about the redirect - But: I am open to being challenged on this, because I do not know some of the sources involved here that well (I'm not particularly confident about my familiarity with Hare in particular). Keegan.Landrigan (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)