Show Recommended textbook solutions
 Ways of the World: A Global History3rd EditionRobert W. Strayer 232 solutions America's History for the AP Course9th EditionEric Hinderaker, James A. Henretta, Rebecca Edwards, Robert O. Self 961 solutions
The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric2nd EditionLawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses 661 solutions
Music in Theory and Practice, Volume 19th EditionBruce Benward, Marilyn Saker 145 solutions Recommended textbook solutions
Ways of the World: A Global History3rd EditionRobert W. Strayer 232 solutions U.S. History1st EditionJohn Lund, Paul S. Vickery, P. Scott Corbett, Todd Pfannestiel, Volker Janssen 567 solutions The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric2nd EditionLawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses 661 solutions
America's History for the AP Course8th EditionEric Hinderaker, James A. Henretta, Rebecca Edwards, Robert O. Self 470 solutions The Theory of Utilitarianism comes from its name from the Latin word 'Utilis', meaning 'useful'. It was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, Philosopher and legal theorist of the 18th century. Bentham produced a modern approach of morality which would suit the changing world of the industrial age. This was also the era of enlightenment. Utilitarianism can be regarded as a consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, providing no strict moral rules but judging an action by its consequence or end result. The aforementioned Bentham lived in an era of great social and scientific change and unrest. He therefore, because of his social surroundings developed a theory that stated that right actions are those that produce the most pleasure for everyone affected and wrong actions consequently are those that do not. He coined the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' - which summarises his aim which was to iron out the deep inequalities of his time. Bentham, being a Hedonist, believed that all humans naturally pursued pleasure and conversely tried to avoid pain. To measure this pain and pleasure, Bentham created the 'hedonic calculus', in which happiness was measured with seven different elements, including duration of happiness, the intensity of it and the purity of it. However if applying even one of these factors, let alone all seven, it causes a problem. For example it is impossible to know the duration of the pleasure or pain, because we would all quantify it differently, some are more susceptible to feeling pain, unlike others who are much stronger. We can never predict an accurate duration of the pleasure and a some argue that it is not possible for pleasure to be quantified. If the probable pain of an action out weighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong and visa versa Jeremy Bentham originally proposed utilitarianism as an attack on the radical idea of human rights - it was never intended to be a mere 'theory': it's always been an ethical viewpoint that demands to be put in action utilitarianism suggests that it is the job if the government to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number - this supports democracy, where the government is elected based on the wishes of the majority of voters utilitarianism is a radical idea - throughout most of human history, rulers have had little interest in doing things that made the majority of people happy. they were largely interested in making themselves happy. the idea posed by utilitarianism that happiness of everyone counts even a peasants counts for as much as the happiness of a lord was not obvious to everyone this is summed up by the american deceleration of independence: 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all mean are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservations of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness - thomas Jefferson 1776 utilitarianism was used in the 19th century to justify the abolition of slavery by increasing the happiness of former slaves and in the 2th century to support women's suffrage by increasing te happiness of women however it was also used to oppose these reforms warning that the resulting economic turmoil would make everyone, including former slaves more unhappy or that votes for women would ruin marriages ^in these debates , opposition to abolition and women's suffrage turned out to be mistaken but it shows how utilitarianism can be used to argue either side of most social issues and that calculations about future happiness or unhappiness are full of uncertainty which is why many campaigners prefer to couch their demands for change in terms of RIGHTS rather than utilitarianism the main influence of utilitarianism has been as a justification for punishment. in traditional ethics, punishment is RETRIBUTIVE because the offender deserves it. utilitarianism suggests that the aim of punishment should instead be to reduce further crimes this could be through: - deterrence: other people seeing the punishment, will be deterred from offending - protection: while the criminal is imprisoned, the rest of society is safer - reformation: the offender will be rehabilitated and will no longe carry out crimes retributive punishments focus on corporal punishments or capital punishments whereas utilitarian punishment prefers fines, rehabilitation and community service - its pragmatic and focuses on the consequences of an action - for many people 'happiness' is an important part of decision making as it is their main aim in life - theory treats everyone equally regardless of emotional or social attachments - simple to follow the principle of utility; its straightforward - Bentham provided humas with a way to measure happiness through the hedonic calculus - its democratic; greatest good for the greatest number applies to majority of people - consequentialism is natural: we all think of the outcomes when we decide what to do - focuses on human nature: pleasure as everyone wants pleasure and to be happy - maximising happiness and minimising pain is how most people live their lives - act utilitarian's might agree that there are 'rules of thumb' that are the correct course of action most of the time; keeping promises is usually the right thing to do. however, they would break these rules in a heartbeat, and feel no guilt about it, if a particular promise would have bad consequences such as promising to protect the identity of a murderer It has method in its application of the of the hedonic calculus. It is a morally academic approach that seeks the fairest result. The calculus is thorough in its consideration of measuring aspects of pleasure. Democratic - Greatest good for the greatest number applies to majority of people Consequentialism is natural - We all think of the outcomes when we decide what to do Secular - Utilitarianism doesn't rely on specific beliefs about God. In the modern, multicultural society with a range of religious beliefs and a growing number of atheists, a secular theory is most useful It works - If Utilitarianism is properly applied, it works. People criticise it by describing negative consequences of Utilitarianism. However, if there are negative consequences, that just means the theory hasn't been properly applied. 1 . Easy to use - clear criteria and offers a systematic approach to ethics. 2. Utilitarianism cannot be faulted on its morals as it clearly seeks the happiness and fairness for the largest number of people, which has always been an important consideration in the works of government and other major powers, as well as in everyone's everyday life. 3. Designed for global politics unlike Kantian ethics. 4. Also, it encourages a democratic approach to decision making, and minorities are not allowed to dominate. 5. It does not rely on any controversial or unverifiable theological or metaphysical claims or principals, so it is accessible to everyone. - utilitarianism seeks to predict the consequences of an action which is impossible and uncertain - some claim Bentham committed the 'naturalistic fallacy' of deriving an ought to an is - utilitarianism fails to identify that we have certain duties or obligations to others - happiness and pleasure is subjective. whereas someone may find happiness in a cake another may find it in murder - using the hedonic calculus is impractical and subjective - calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion - punishes minority: minority view is not taken into account and they are sacrificed for the greater good - allows cruel or sadistic pleasures as long as it out weight the pain e.g. if then sadists torture one child their pleasure outweighs the pain of the child making the action right in an act utilitarian eyes - too simplistic: one principle isn't sufficient enough for all the complex ethical decisions out there - doesn't consider motives or intentions - happiness is subjective e.g. Vardy says some would be willing to suffer to lose weight whilst others wouldn't - cannot predict the future -lead to the 'wrong answers' e.g. act utilitarianism seems to approve the executing of an innocent man if this satisfies a mob of rioters or deters other criminals; it seems to approve of doctors killing a healthy patient to use the organs to save several other patient - criticised for undermining trust in society: in a society where everyone was a act utilitarian, promises would have no value and you would never know if anyone was telling you the truth or treating u fairly, because everyone including oneself might turn around and behave antisocially if the calculated this would maximise overall happiness People can't be trusted - If you get rid of rules and allow people to choose to act in the greater good, they will actually act selfishly, then try to justify their actions by claiming they were in the greater good. Wrong - Utilitarianism is just wrong about ethics. Eg. a group of policemen passed around photos of an abused woman for their own enjoyment. When it was exposed, the consequences were very bad. But would it have been right if no one else found out? It wasn't the bad consequences that made it wrong, it was the act itself. It is not clear how the hedonic calculus resolves the problem of assessing the quantity of pleasure. For example, how is it possible to quantify and compare intensity of pleasure with duration of pleasure? Listing elements of pleasure does not resolve the problem of quantifying the pleasure. The calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion. Bentham's hedonic calculus could justify immoral acts such as the case of the sadistic guards or gang ****. Can't predict outcomes Difficult to calculate - is it really practical to use a 7 stage hedonic calculus? Punishes minority - minority view is not taken into account and they are sacrificed for the greater good Bernard williams - he disagrees with the principle of utility as he argues that we should never be able to justify killing an innocent life as the most 'moral action' in the situation. He uses the example of the man travelling in south America who is asked to kill one person, or all 19 prisoners will be killed. He criticises utilitarianism as it justifies the killing of an innocent life to save the rest and this should never be justified . Difficult to predict consequences e.g. if you plan to hit someone you might predict that they will be upset because 99.9% of the time this is the result however, what if the person turns out to enjoy it and get pleasure out of pain - all you consequences are wrong! 2.Utilitarianism is a demanding theory as something as simple as buying an ice-cream can be deemed immoral because you know that the money could be spent elsewhere in order to get the greatest good for the greatest number. 3. Some critics argue it is too impartial - if a house was on fire and you could only save your mother or the world's best sergeant you would according to the PoU (principle of utility) have to save the sergeant. No room for emotions. John Rawls advocates this criticisms pointing out that it could support a more dictatorial society just because it produces the greatest amount of pleasure. 4.Utilitarianism is subjective - what is moral for one person isn't the same for another implying that no such universal law system can exist. 5. Utilitarianism implies that everyone has a moral faculty (awareness that gives us a sense of moral judgement) and not everyone has this young kids, disables persons etc. This alienates people from the theory. 6.Bentham and Mill both commit a naturalistic fallacy according to G.E.Moore, just because something is desirable and produces a lot of pleasure does not imply that we ought to pursue that action. key scholar for utilitarianism. His contributions include utilitarianism's focus on happiness and link to rule utilitarianism was the son of philosopher James Mill who was one of Bentham's Philosophic Radicals as well as the god son of bentham Mill restates bentham's principle of utility: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness Mill departs from bentham's ideas in one important way: He argues that pleasure can vary in quality as well as quantity —- this means that there are lower pleasures such as eating, drinking sex and playing video games but also higher pleasures which include friendship, art, reading and conversation Mill argues that if we are interested in ensuring our long term happiness, we will focus on the higher pleasures not the lower pleasures Mill foresees some criticism of utilitarianism and argues against them. Critics complain that it is impossible to calculate all the possible outcomes of every action —- mills teply is that it is not necessary as long experience has thought is that moral rules which he calls 'secondary principles' such as truth telling, promise keeping etc tend to have haply outcomes, so we can follow these principles most of the time —— the principle of utility only has to be used when these second principles conflict or lead to confusion —- e.g. if a utilitarian generally follows the rule of 'keep your promises' but finds they have made the promise to protect a notorious murderer then they can consult the principle of utility which might tell them to break the promise on this occasion Unlike bentham who look 'Pleasure' at face value, Mill understood that in order to be properly happy, people needed to have a certain overall quality of life and that meant living in a certain sort of society he states 'it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others he distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures such as education, art, theatre etc Mill's Higher pleasures imply the hat a person cannot be truly happy in a consistent way unless they have been educated to their full potential, introduced to art and culture etc However, Mills idea of higher pleasures is subjective - not everyone will agree that appreciating Shakespeare is a higher pleasure whereas playing video games is not similarly, mill would put classical music above pop music as a higher pleasure—- critics see this as a reflection of Mill's own biases rather than an objective difference in the type of pleasure a person gets. in ON LIBERTY (1859) mill applies utilitarianism to politics as the Harm principle: ' the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community , against his will is to prevent harm to others ' this is the idea that people should he left free to live as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else by their actions the harm principle has been hugely influential in the 20th and 21st century, supporting the legislation of divorce and homosexuality as well as decriminalisation of drugs on the grounds that these activities do mot cause harm to others Wrote On Liberty in 1859, and wanted absolute freedom of opinion on all subjects. He was an advocate of women's equality and was fond of utilitarianism. Mill went on to develop Benthams theory and he made three alterations. The first alteration was the addition of higher and lower pleasures. He believed that if people continued just to search for pleasures they would tend to choose just lower pleasures because these are easily attainable and it would make Utilitarianism a "Swine philosophy". The higher pleasures were ones of the mind and soul, for example reading, studying and going to the theatre. Whereas the lower pleasures, were pleasures of the body, for example eating, sport and sex. Mill said that if you asked somebody who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures he would say that the higher pleasures are more valuable. He also argued that we should pursue these higher pleasures at the cost of feeling pain. Mill aimed to increase the standard of living so that people were able to feel the higher pleasures such as studying and/or going to the theatre. Secondly Mill introduced the "Theory of Justice", which benefited the individual. Mill believed that we should not cause pain to the individual just to cause pleasure to the majority. For example, bullying a little boy because it gives pleasure to lots of boys is immoral as it creates a tyranny of majority. Mill said that the individual should have freedom to do as he wishes as long as it does not cause pain to others. For example, torturing a suicide bomber could be moral because this person may kill thousands of people in the future. Mills final alteration was the introduction of Rule Utilitarianism. Mill said that Bentham's Utilitarianism wasn't practical as one cannot be expected to measure how much pleasure is produced by using the Hedonic Calculus every time! It's just too difficult. Mill's rule utilitarianism meant that after seeing what an act normally produces, then a rule can be applied. For example, "Adultery" usually causes more pain than pleasure and therefore this makes it immoral to do this. Furthermore, in this type of Utilitarianism there are no exceptions to the rule (unlike Bentham). Higher / lower pleasures: Mill criticised Bentham by saying his definition of "pleasure" failed to recognise higher levels of human experience. Said happiness was much more complex than what Bentham was making out (we have "more than animal desires"). Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are pleasures which help people reach their full intellectual potential, such as art, literature and philosophy. Lower pleasures are pleasures which help people fulfil their basic needs and urges, e.g. sex and drink. Mill states the test for determining whether a pleasure is of a higher quality than another as follow: Pleasure P1 is more desirable than pleasure P2 if: all or almost all people who have had experience of both give a decided preference to P1, irrespective of any feeling that they ought to prefer it. Criticisms of Mill's higher / lower pleasures: •Lower pleasures are far easier to satisfy •Those who are intellectually refined and possess an idealistic temperament are often always the ones who are most likely to succumb to depression •Is it not better to have only those desires which are most easily fulfilled? Mill responds to these criticisms by saying there is a difference between contentment and happiness. They may be less content but they're still happier because they know of a greater happiness which
is unavailable to those who are only satisfied by the lower pleasures: Rule Utilitarianism: Mill said that humans have worked out through trial and error the actions that lead best to human happiness, which are promoted through moral rules. He rejected Bentham's utility calculus. E.g. lying or hitting others nearly always causes unhappiness, therefore we develop the rules 'do not lie' and 'do not hit'. Therefore our actions should be guided by rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to the greatest overall happiness. Strong (rules can never be changed) vs. weak (rules can sometimes be ignored) rule utilitarianism. To ensure those making up the rules did not exercise undue power over the minority, Mill came up with the harm principle. main weakness is that it isn't really utilitarianism at all: it involves following strict rules like a deontologist, often in situations where there is a clear course of action that would maximise happiness by breaking a rule instead -- a rule utilitarian might see that breaking a promise would make lots of people happier and keeping it would lead to disaster , yet still follow the promise keeping rule --- this seems to go against the original spirit of utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethical theory however Brandt defends utilitarianism by distinguishing between: WEAK RULE UTILITIRANISM - In which the moral codes have many exceptions are followed in a flexible way -- this is Brandt's preferred type and resembles Mill's approach to secondary principles which can be abandoned when they conflict or confuse. Brandt's WRU is criticised by David Lyons (1965) who argues that weak rule utilitarianism always collapses into act utilitarianism -- this means that the exceptions and sub rules multiply so much that people cannot keep track of what to do and have to work things out on a case by case basis, which which case they are acting like act utilitarian's and no longer following ethical riles Sidgewick - "In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures." This is due to the subjectivity of "pleasure" and the difficulty of defining happiness. Sidgewick also asks how we distinguish between two higher pleasures, e.g. listening to Bach and watching Shakespeare? WD Ross - "Single-factor" moral theories don't work because life is too complex. He argues that Utilitarianism is counter-intuitive. We have "prima facie" duties, i.e. who would I save - my son or a man with the cure to AIDS? - My son because my prima facie duty is to him. Mill's inclusion of higher and lower pleasures means that it is turned into an elitist theory, and, as many of the higher pleasures are enjoyed by richer people. Rule Utilitarianism, particularly strong, abandons the situationalist appeal of the theory and turns it into an absolutist approach. R. M. Hare has pointed out that Strong Rule Utilitarianism has absolutist rules that cannot be broken. This version of Rule Utilitarianism has all the weaknesses of moral absolutism; e.g. not lying could put a person's life in danger if we don't also consider the situation. Henry Sidgwick: how are we supposed to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? Any categorisation would be subjective Focus on rules removes the benefit of situationalism Difficult to know when rules can be broken to achieve greatest happiness if you plan to hit someone you might predict that they will be upset because 99.9% of the time this is the result however, what if the person turns out to enjoy it and get pleasure out of pain - all you consequences are wrong! 2. Utilitarianism is a demanding theory as something as simple as buying an ice-cream can be deemed immoral because you know that the money could be spent elsewhere in order to get the greatest good for the greatest number. 3. Utilitarianism implies that everyone has a moral faculty (awareness that gives us a sense of moral judgement) and not everyone has this young kids, disables persons etc. This alienates people from the theory. 4. Mill makes several elitist claims e.g. for example it is better to a dis-satisfied Socrates than a satisfied pig (comparing not so intelligent people to pigs), claiming that the higher your moral faculty the more difficult to find pleasure (as not so intelligent people are satisfied with almost anything). Yet what Mill fails to acknowledge is if through utilitarian values a pig can be satisfied then this devalues the intellectual ability of all humans. 5. Mill uses non-utilitarian values such as justice (supreme moral good) and from this we can infer that there are more important things than happiness and this inference destroys the foundation of utilitarianism. 6. As mentioned previously, Mill does not discuss what happens if rules/higher pleasure conflict. Adding to the ambiguous nature of utilitarianism. 7. Furthermore, given that the rules are generalized and formulated through experience this means that they are not absolute and can be broken. But it is difficult to see how one would know when an exception could be added and if we keeping using exceptions and don't make Mill's utilitarianism rigid then this some scholars imply collapse it back to act utilitarianism. E.g. the rule tell the truth unless a lie produces more pleasure isn't that essentially Bentham's form. 8. No two moral situations are exactly the same so how can rules based on past different (Albeit similar) circumstances helps us with new situations? 9. Moreover, Mill argues that a competent judge would always pick higher pleasures over lower pleasures yet this is not true for all circumstances e.g. if Mill was somehow stranded in a desert he would not pursuit poetry or imagination he would pursue drinking water - which is a lower pleasure- doesn't this mean he has an infirmity of the mind? 10. Bentham and Mill both commit a naturalistic fallacy according to G.E.Moore, just because something is desirable and produces a lot of pleasure does not imply that we ought to pursue that action. Jeremy Bentham argued, that when faced with a choice, a utilitarian should reduce pain first then try to increase pleasure eg feeding a starving man (reduces pain of hunger) takes priority over throwing a birthday party for a friend (increasing pleasure) this makes sense as rule of thumb: a moral person will try to help someone in distress before maing the lufe of an already happy person happier KARL POPPER (1902-1994) goes beyond this, arguing that reducing unhappiness should always be the sole focus for a utilitarian and that adding to happiness is unimportant ---- This is NEGATIVE UTILITIRANISM '' it adds to the clarity of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively. I.e if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness''-- KARL POPPER (1952) the term negative utilitarianism was coined by sir karl popper. The concept ot negative utilotaranism was foreshadowed earlier in the works of edmun gurney 1847-88 it has obvious affinity with Buddhism in the sense that the aim of this theory is to produce the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people. We should therefore act to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure. Popper states ''in my opinion...human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who I doing well anyway'' 1952 popper who was a fierce defender of democracy against communism and fascism, believes that utilitarianism supports a 'benign dictator" - who takes away peoples freedom in exchange for making them comfortable, wealthy and safe popper rejects the idea of living under a benign dictator, which is a strength of NU. according to NU, our moral duties extend to removing suffering, hunger and hardship, but we have no moral duty to make people happy: that's up to them to do for themselves popper users the term UTOPIANISM to describe the dangerous attempt by rulers to make people happy: "those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but hell" NINIAM SMART proposed a criticism of NU in a 1958 essay in reply to popper. he points out that a "benevolent word exploder" would have a duty to wipe out all humans, because this would wipe all suffering. it will also wipe out all happiness, but happiness is unimportant for NU ---- even without a "benevolent world exploder", it had been pointed that , if everyone were a negative utilitarian, the best action the human race could take would be to commit mass sucide one response to this criticism is to argue that NU should accept other utilities beside preventing suffering, such as NEGATIVE IDEAL UTILITRIANISM which also values friendship, beauty and knowledge, which would be lost if the human races were wiped out. NEGATIVE PREFRENCE UTILITRIANISM would oppose the world exploder because people are averse to dying strengths = reducing pain and suffering is logical as it results in greater happiness if someone is in pain reducing suffering results in happiness and pleasure weaknesses= raises questions about what suffering is there is not always a solution for everyone's pain and suffering so it is subjective most people feel that its better to be happy than mediocre most people believe in trade off and are prepared to accept a certain amount of suffering in order to achieve some happiness such as going to the gym to lose weight or spending the weekend revising for good exam results --NU seems to suggest that suffering or boredom can never be justified by the happiness it produces later NU suggests that efforts to add to your own or other peoples happiness are not worthwhile R.M
HARE developed the theory of preference utilitarianism. He argues that we need to consider out own preferences and those of others: '' equal preferences count equally, whatever their content'' peter singer contributes to preference utilitarianism. He also argues that everyone's preferences must be taken into account. HE also establishes that everyone's interests are given equal value including all animals s well as human beings. Rather than basing a decision on a calculation of pain vs pleasure., its better to do what best interests the greatest number .which is yo minimise suffering rather than maximising pleasure. another type of non-hedonic type of utilitirsnism which proposes that utility should be defined as maximising the satisfaction of preferences; in other words ensuring that as many people as possible get as much of what they want strengths = listens to equal preferences fees empathy for all people offers a solution to smarts "benevolent world exploder" because people prefer not to die has implications for animal right - psychologist debate whether animals of different types of experience suffering or unhappiness, but there can be no doubt that they have preferences -- they prefer not to be killed or eaten and there are lots of them so their preferences might outweigh the preferences of humans to have meat in their diet gets round the problem of defining "happiness" and higher/lower pleasures because it treats all preferences the same. preference for drugs and violent video games are just the same as preferences for nature walks and classical music. however, preferences for antisocial or destructive things go against the wider perspective of society as a whole, so even if you prefer to lie for example you are outnumbered by your parents, workmates, neighbours, teachers and who would prefer you didn't weaknesses = animal prefrences are different to humans theres no greatest number if everyone has their own individual preferences it seems to dignify perverse or futile preferences just as much as sophisticated high minded ones - strange hobbies satisfy preferences as much as reading great literature. this is linked to the problem that people do not know what is really in their own best interests, so what they prefer might be in conflict with what they really need -- many people refer to eat sugary junk food and gamble but they would be better off following a healthy diet ans saving money --- however this goes against the central appeal of PU which is that it replaces complicated calculations about happiness with a fairly straightforward analysis of what people want other critics focus on the problem of infinite preferences which overrule everything else such as a religious teetotaller has an infinite preference that people do not drink alcohol --- but what if someone prefers to do that, their preference is stopped by the overruling reference It is a utilitarian theory that denies the sole object of moral concern is the maximising of pleasure or happiness g.e mores' version of ideal utilitarianism in principa ethica 1903, it is aesthetic experiences and relations of friendships that have intrinsic value and therefore ought to be sought and promoted some utlitiranisns criticised the idea that utility is the same as pleasure or hedonism, G.E Moore points out that there are malicious pleasures, like spite. Moore proposes that there are non-hedonic goods: things other than pleasure that give value to actions. These are: a utilitarian like Bentham would reply that these experiences are instrumentally good (friendship makes us happy as does art) but Moore argues that these experiences are a different sort of thing from pleasure because they depend on the object of your experience actually existing - friendship can be faked = for Bentham there is no different between the pleasure you get from true friendship or merely believing you have a friend, even though that person secretly despises you or is not what they seem, For MOORE, true friendship has a value of its own - aesthetic enjoyment can be mistaken if your admiring a fake work of art = again this makes no difference on Bentham's view, but Moore argues that it matters that you are enjoying a real mona lisa in the louvre in paris, not a fake printed copy - acquiring knowledge can also be deluded such as fake news on the internet or propaganda from governments. for Bentham believing in comforting lies is better than learning unpleasant truths , but more argues that learning the truth about things has value even if it makes you un happy Strengths: doesn't justify actions preferred by a majority but what the individual thinks not just based on pleasure its based on value more difficult to manipulate or corrupt the theory eg murder would result in pain and hatred it makes a distinction between real versus delusional pleasures as some people live in a 'fools paradise' so its better if they know the truth about their situation e.g. a person may be ignorant that their partner is cheating IDEAL utilitarianism says its better to know the truth- theory also arguyes that its better to experience things for yourself weaknesses = this theory can also be egoistic and selfish as something personal to yourself will have more intrinsic value than something else outdated theory 1903 value changes depending on the reason dont always get value from friendship whiel the value of pleasure is agreed by everyone, the value of non hedonic goods is much more subjective. Not everyone enjoys art and some people dont seem to need friends in their life the central appeal to utilitarianism is that it reduces ethical decision making to a simple calculation about pleasure, but ideal utilitarianism leads to much more complicated decisions involving unclear list of competing goods however, Ideal utilitarianism can be combined with negative utilitarianism. Negative Ideal Utilitarianism argues that, rather than promote friendships, beauty, knowledge and truth, we should work to reduce or remove hatred, ugliness and ignorance/lie. This is a bit easier to define than normal Ideal utilitarianism and it also forms a counter argument to smart's "benevolent world exploder" who would remove all suffering by killing the human race: this mass killing would not remove ugliness/ignorance and would probably increase it RE is the idea that there is no objective right or wrong: morality is relative to each person and in each situation MORAL RELATIVISM = proposes that each individual has their own sense of ethics which is true for them but not for other people CULTURAL RELATIVISM = proposes hat each community or society has its own moral code which is true for its members and not for outsiders in some ways utilitarianism is a relativist theory, because we as individuals find different things pleasurable, what maximises happiness for one person might not maximise it for another happiness is therefore relative similarly, different cultures take pleasure from different things: bullfighting in Spain, baseball in America, cricket in the UK ON THE OTHER HAND, utilitarianism can be seen as non relativist-- for a utilitarian, it is objectively true that "good" means the greatest happiness for the greatest number and this is true to everyone its not the case that happiness is more important to some but not for others, or that there are cultures which value happiness but others dont Bentham states "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure" -- Bentham means that nature has ultimate utility for all of mankind and that this state of affairs is natural not cultural trend that can be changed UTILITILTARIANS DISGAREE ABOUT HOW 'GREATEST HAPPINESS' IS TO BE DEFINED: IDEAL UTILITIRANISM think that there are other goods that have utility besides happiness, but they think these goods are objectively good for everyone all over the world making it non relativist, while admitting that everyone has their own unique set of preferences that are shaped by the culture they live in PREFRENCE UTILITARIANS think that satisfying preferences has utility -- once again they agree that satisfaction of preferences is objectively good for everyone everywhere while admitting that everyone has their own unique set of preferences that are shaped by the culture they live in AN ACT UTILITARIAN would tend towards cultural relativism -- for example, they would oppose female genital mutilation in the UK because the number of people mad happy by it is small compared to the number of people who are out raged by it --------- however they dont olive by a rule NO FGM and if they found themselves in a country where it was popular such as africa then their personal outrage would count for little against the majority who were made happy by the practise, so they would have to approve of it many philosophers opposes relativism in ethics, because it seems to disallow anyone from criticising anyone else - or at least it disallows people from one culture from criticising people from another culture it stands in contrast to the idea of human rights that cuts across all cultures and imposes a standard everyone is expected to live up to the tendency of some utilitarian's to support relativism counts as a criticism of utilitarianism for many people JB and J.S MILL were hostile to religious morality Bentham argues that an all loving God, if he existed, would surely be a utilitarian ( he would want to make all his creatures as happy as possible ) but since there is excessive suffering in the world, this shows that there is something wrong with the concept of god in Christianity BUT Bentham's conclusion is not the only option = its possible that the coexistence of suffering and a loving god shows that there is something wrong with utilitarianism despite this there are clear connection between utilitarianism and religious ethics. Loving someone involves promoting their happiness and Christianity urges this: "love your
neighbour as you love yourself" - Matthew 22:39 ^^these sentiments resemble utilitarianisms principle of counting other peoples happiness as equal to your own HOWEVER, Christian ethics also have a focus on THE SANCITY OF LIFE, with each's person's life having infinite value --- this does not allow the sort of trade offs that utilitarianism can make for example , in the TROLLY PROBLEM a utilitarian calculates that 5 lives are with more than the happiness of one, but a Christian might believe that one persons life to be on infinite value and therefore is wrong to kill the person, even in order to save other people . religions like Christianity also recognise some lives as having special moral value, such as the poor or innocent children -- a utilitarian migh see little difference between adding to the happiness of a beggar or a wealthy person, but for a Christian the beggars happiness is more important than the wealthy persons. religious ethics also stresses the motives of the moral agent . for a utilitarian motives are unimportant and only consequences matter, but for a religious believer, god sees and judges you for your motives: "what good will be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" - Matthew 16:26 from a religious perspective, thought and feelings cant be evil even if you never act on them: '' anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" - Matthew 5:58 whereas for a utilitarian thoughts that never get acted upon don't matter since they don't actually contribute to making anyone happy or sad: because of these differences, religious ethics usually oppose utilitarianism and support deontology, natural moral law and virtue ethics when bentham and mill proposed utilitarian ideals, they were criticised for valuing happiness so highly instead of traditional moral values like justice, mercy, loyalty or freedom —— such criticisms are much less common today: the hedonic basis of utilitarianism has become mainstream for example since 2012, INTERNATIONAL DAY OF HAPPINESS is celebrated annually with a report that measures happiness in 156 countries in 2015 the uk is 15th ahead of germany 17th and the USA 19th but Finland, Denmark and Norway are the happiest nations This concern with maximising happiness can be seen in the growth of WELLBEING as a state that business and schools want to promote in employees and young people there are apps to measure wellbeing and courses for meditation and mindfulness to increase well being in 2014, the uk government began a project to measure the national well being after scientific reports linked happiness to health, long life and more positive social contributions This is linked to increasingly LIBERAL social attitudes, which believe that people should be allowed to do things that make them happy, particularly if those things don't make other people unhappy —- this can be seen in increasing tolerance for recreational drug use, alternative sexual orientations and gender identities that used to be strongly condemned Its not clear whether utilitarianism itself has promoted these social attitudes or whether these attitudes along with utilitarianism are all the result of changes that have been going on since the enlightenment: increasing focus on the individual in society, more leisure time and the decline of religion bringing more of a focus on this life rather than the after life What is the basic belief of utilitarianism?Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce.
What do utilitarians believe quizlet?Utilitarians believe that in order to be moral we should follow certain well-established rules or guidelines that can be relied on to produce the best results, for instance, the Utility Principle or the Hedonic Calculus. an act is morally good when it conforms to a rule that brings about the greatest good.
What is the main meaning of utilitarianism?Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
What principle is utilitarianism based on quizlet?But utilitarianism is based on greatest happiness principle--promoting the greatest happiness overall for the greatest number of people.
|
What is the basic belief of utilitarianism quizlet?
Copyright © 2024 ShotOnMac Inc.
