More Related Content
Similar to Utilitarianism Ethics (20)
Utilitarianism Ethics
- 2. At the end of this module, you should be able to: present the basic idea of Utilitarianism; and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Utilitarian Theory. 1. 2.
- 3. Classical Utilitarianism Is Pleasure All That Matters? Criticism Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? Are Consequences All That Matter?
- 4. The Classical Version of the Theory (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration.”
- 5. The Classical Version of the Theory An action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of happiness over unhappiness.
- 6. Is Pleasure All That Matters? The question "What things are good?" is different from the question "What actions are right?" and Utilitarianism answers the second question by reference to the first. Right actions are the ones that produce the most good. But what is good? The utilitarian reply is: happiness. But what is happiness? According to the classical utilitarians, happiness is pleasure. Utilitarians understand “pleasure” broadly, to include all mental states that feel good.
- 7. Is Pleasure All That Matters? The thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate good— and pain the one ultimate evil—has been known since antiquity as Hedonism. We value things other than pleasure. For example, we value artistic creativity and friendship. These things make us happy, but that’s not the only reason we value them.
- 8. Is Pleasure All That Matters? G. E. Moore (1873–1958), have compiled short lists of things to be regarded as valuable in themselves. Moore suggested that there are three obvious intrinsic goods—pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment— and so right actions are those actions that increase the world’s supply of these things.
- 9. To determine whether an action is right, utilitarians believe that we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. This idea is central to the theory. Are Consequences All That Matter?
- 10. Here are three arguments that attack the theory at just this point: Are Consequences All That Matter?
- 11. Justice. Utilitarianism is incompatible with the idea of justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to the merits of their particular situations. (H. J. McCloskey) Rights. Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipates good results. On Utilitarianism, an individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if enough people benefit from the trampling. 1. 2. Are Consequences All That Matter?
- 12. Utilitarianism has thus been accused of supporting the “tyranny of the majority”: if the majority of people would take pleasure in someone’s rights being abused, then those rights should be abused because the pleasure of the majority outweighs the suffering of the one. 3. Backward-Looking Reasons. Utilitarianism makes the past irrelevant, and so it seems flawed. The fact that someone committed a crime is a reason to punish him. The fact that someone did you a favor last week is a reason for you to do her a favor next week. The fact that you hurt someone yesterday is a reason to make it up to him today. These are all facts about the past that are relevant to determining our obligations. Are Consequences All That Matter?
- 13. We must treat each person’s happiness is equally important. This has troubling implications. One problem is that the requirement of “equal concern” places too great a demand on us; another problem is that it disrupts our personal relationships. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone?
- 14. The Charge That Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding. Faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard would require you to give away your wealth until you’ve made yourself as poor as the people you’re helping. Utilitarianism seems unable to recognize the “supererogatory” moral category. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone?
- 15. The Charge That Utilitarianism Disrupts Our Personal Relationships. In practice, none of us is willing to treat everyone equally, because that would require giving up our special ties to friends and family. We are all deeply partial where our family and friends are concerned. When you are impartial, you miss out on intimacy, love, affection, and friendship. At this point, Utilitarianism seems to have lost all touch with reality. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone?
- 17. Utilitarianism seems unconcerned with both justice and individual rights. Moreover, it cannot account for backward- looking reasons. If we lived by the theory, we would become poor, and we would have to stop loving our family and our friends. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 18. Most of the arguments against Utilitarianism go like this: a situation is described; then it is said that some particular (vile!) action would have the best consequences under those circumstances; then Utilitarianism is faulted for advocating that action. These arguments, however, succeed only if the actions they describe really would have the best consequences. Would they? According to the first defense, they would not. The First Defense: Contesting the Consequences. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 19. Theories like Utilitarianism are supposed to apply to all situations, including situations that are merely hypothetical. Thus, showing that Utilitarianism has unacceptable implications in made-up cases is a valid way of critiquing it. The first defense, then, is weak. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 20. The Second Defense: The Principle of Utility Is a Guide for Choosing Rules, Not Acts. The new version of Utilitarianism modifies the theory so that individual actions are no longer judged by the Principle of Utility. Instead, we first ask what set of rules is optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint. In other words, what rules should we follow in order to maximize happiness? The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 21. Individual acts are then assessed according to whether they abide by these rules. This new version of the theory is called “Rule- Utilitarianism,” to distinguish it from the original theory, now commonly called “Act-Utilitarianism.” In shifting emphasis from the justification of acts to the justification of rules, Utilitarianism has been brought into line with our intuitive judgments. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 22. However, a serious problem with Rule-Utilitarianism arises when we ask whether the ideal rules have exceptions. Must the rules be followed no matter what? What if a “forbidden” act would greatly increase the overall good? The rule-utilitarian might give any one of three answers. First, if she says that in such cases we may violate the rules, then it looks like she wants to assess actions on a case-by-case basis. Second, she might suggest that we formulate the rules so that violating them never will increase happiness. Finally, the rule-utilitarian might stand her ground and say that we should never break the rules, even to promote happiness. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 23. The Third Defense: “Common Sense” Is Wrong. This defense is given by hard-nosed and unapologetic utilitarians. The First Response: All Values Have a Utilitarian Basis. Utilitarianism is not incompatible with common sense; on the contrary, Utilitarianism justifies the commonsense values we have. Apart from the utilitarian explanation, common sense duties would seem inexplicable. What could be stranger than saying that lying is wrong “in itself,” apart from any harm it causes? And how could people have a “right to privacy” unless respecting that right brought them some benefit? The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 24. The Second Response: Our Gut Reactions Can’t Be Trusted when Cases Are Exceptional. Why do we immediately and instinctively believe it to be wrong to bear false witness against an innocent person? The reason, some say, is that throughout our lives we have seen lies lead to misery and misfortune. Thus, we instinctively condemn all lies. However, when confronting unusual cases, such as McCloskey’s (where lies that increase happiness), perhaps we should trust the Principle of Utility more than our gut instincts. The Defense of Utilitarianism
- 25. The Third Response: We Should Focus on All the Consequences. When we’re asked to consider a “despicable” action that maximizes happiness, the action is often presented in a way that encourages us to focus on its bad effects, rather than its good effects. If instead we focus on all the effects of the act, Utilitarianism seems more plausible. Concluding Thoughts Our “common moral consciousness,” many considerations other than utility seem morally important. But Smart is right to warn us that “common sense” cannot be trusted. The Defense of Utilitarianism