Ethics-Utilitarianism Flashcards
Utilitarianism
The ethical idea that we should ALWAYS SEEK to ACHIEVE the GREATEST BALANCE of GOOD OVER EVIL
Utility
The idea of ‘usefulness’
That we should do whatever is USEFUL in INCREASING OVERALL GOOD and DECREASING OVERALL EVIL
Jeremy Bentham
First UTILITARIAN THINK
Interested in both what was GOOD FOR SOCIETY and what was GOOD FOR HUMANS as INDIVIDUALS.
Bentham’s MORAL THINKING starts with an OBSERVATION about HUMAN NATURE
Bentham on Human Nature
Bentham suggest that PAIN and PLEASURE are our MASTERS.
WE SEEK PLEASURE and AVOID PAIN. That is OUR NATURE
THAT IS OUR PSYCHOLOGY
Bentham on Utility
Because we are MOTIVATED BY PAIN AND PLEASURE
Bentham proposed that society should adopt the PRINCIPLE IF UTILITY-
The idea that ACTIONS should be carried out if THEY PRODUCE MORE HAPPINESS PLEASURE OR GOODNESS and are LIKELY TO PREVENT PAIN/MISERY
Bentham on Utility Quote
“ It is the GREATEST HAPPINESS of the GREATEST NUMBER that is the MEASURE OF RIGHT AND WRONG”
Bentham Utility of Community
Bentham Rejects any APPEAL to the GOOD of the COUNTRY and COMMUNITY
Communities are just the SUM OF THE INDIVIDUALS
Hedonic Calculus
A SYSTEM for WORKING OUT the amount of PLEASURE or PAIN involved in a COURSE OF ACTION
Hedonic Calculus Bentham
Bentham provides a METHOD OF CALCULATING Which COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE
He suggest that there are SEVEN FACTORS that should be TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT when making a DECISION
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS
PURITY
REMOTENESS
RICHNESS
INTENSITY
CERTAINTY
EXTENT
DURATION
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Purity
How free from PAIN IS IT?
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Remoteness
How Close/ Soon will the PAIN OR PLEASURE will Come
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Richness
To what extent will it lead to FURTHER PLEASURES
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Intensity
How POWERFUL IS IT?
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Certainty
How likely is it to RESULT in PAIN OR PLEASURE
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Extent
How many people will be AFFECTED
Hedonic Calculus Seven FACTORS Duration
How long will the PLEASURE OR PAIN last ?
John Stuart Mill
English Philosopher
The Second Great Utilitarian
Keen to keep the CENTRAL IDEA of UTILITARIANISM but believes that there are ISSUES with BENTHAM’S VERSION
Weaknesses/Issues of Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism
The Focus of pleasure too NARROW-more to life that FOOD SEX and PARTIES
It leads to APPALLING CONSEQUENCES- THEORETICALLY Bentham’s version could JUSTIFY GANG RAPE
The Hedonic Calculus- can be too COMPLEX if it has to be APPLIED in each SITUATION- not QUICK to get DESCIONS
Mill’s Views on Utilitarianism
Mill SUPPORTS/ACCEPTS the PRINCIPLE of UTILITY but REJECTS Hedonic Calculus
Higher and Lower Pleasures -Mill
Mill believed that QUALITY OF PLEASURE is MORE IMPORTANT than QUANTITY.
There are CERTAIN PLEASURES that are HIGHER PLEASURES and OTHER PLEASURES that are LOWER PLEASURES
Mill’s Categorising Higher and Lower Pleasures
For Mill HIGHER PLEASURES are INTELLECTUAL and SOCIAL things HUMANS are ABLE TO EXPERIENCE
LOWER PLEASURES- Food SEX and SLEEP - are pleasure that are NOT AS IMPORTANT
Higher and Lower Pleasures -Mill Example
A pig is a CREATURE EASY TO SATISFY- does NOT CARE about the QUALITY of its FOOD
Humans are capable of GREATER PLEASURES , so even if their LIFE IS NOT BEST they would PREFER IT OVER THE LIFE A PIG
Act Utilitarianism
The Idea that we should always PERFORM the ACT that LEADS to the GREATEST BALANCE of GOOD OVER EVIL
Act Utilitarians beliefs
Believe that DECISIONS should be made on Each INDIVIDUAL SITUATION or ACTION
BENTHAM considered Act Utilitarian- HIS HEDONIC CALCULUS an Example of this.
Act Utilitarianism example
There may be GREATER GOOD brought about by STEALING a LOAF of BREAD to FEED a STARVING FAMILY,
But the same SHOPLIFTER would be WRONG to STEAL MAKEUP from a Wealthy individual
Rule Utilitarianism
The idea we should ALWAYS follow the RUKE that GENERALLY leads to the GREATEST BALANCE of GOOD OVER EVIL
Aims for Balance of Good Over Evil but has the COMMON GOOD of SOCIETY as it’s STARTING POINT rather than INDIVIDUALS
JOHN STUART MILL considered a RULE UTILITARIAN
Rule Utilitarianism Example
a RULE UTILITARIAN would maintain that I MUST ALWAYS DRIVE on the LEFT HAND SIDE of the road in the UK, even in SITUATION were it does not bring THE GREATEST PLEASURE (TRAFFIC JAMS), because that will ENSURE THE GREATEST GOOD FOR EVERYONE
Strong Rule Utilitarianism
Argues once we have DECIDED THE RULES that LEAD to the GREATEST GOOD. These RULES are ABSOLUTE and CANNOT in any SITUATION CIRCUMSTANCE should be BROKEN
Weak Rule Utilitarianism
Would Argue that EXCEPTIONS can be MADE. While the RULES do BROADLY lead to the GREATEST GOOD and should be FOLLOWED.
There can be EXCEPTIONAL CASES that require a RULE to be BROKEN
Strengths of Act Utilitarinism
Allows FLEXIBILITY to the SITUATION
Focuses on the INDIVIDUAL
Weaknesses of Act Utilitarinism
Takes a CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME to WEIGH UP all COMPLEX FACTORS of the SITUATION
Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism
Offers a much QUICKER APPROACH in DECISION -MAKING
Allows us to make RULES that UPHOLD
JUSTICE and RIGHTS
Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism
Can be an INCOHERENT position
With WEAK RULE UTILITARIANISM
Collapsing into ACT UTILITARIANISM-due to them ENABLING EXCEPTIONS
Applying Utilitarianism- Dying Billionaire- Louis Pojman
If a BILLIONAIRE was Dying and Requested for his MONEY to go to his FAVOURITE SPORTS TEAM.
But YOU have the OPTION of GIVING it to CHARITY to Save 1000 STARVING CHILDREN: UTILITARIANISM would say Give to CHARITY
put ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL HAPPINESS
Mcklosey Sheriff Example
A sheriff CHOOSES to ARREST an INNOCENT MAN for the GREATER GOOD of the COMMUNITY
ACT UTILITARIAN: Alllowed
RULE UTILITARIAN : Disallowed UNJUST ACTS WOULD UNDERMINE JUSTICE
Apply in Utilitarianism- Euthanasia
Supports the RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to END THEIR LIVES by EUTHANASIA
UTILITARIANISM favours QUALITY OF LIFE OVER SANCTITY OF LIFE
Strengths of Utilitarianism -Impartiality
Require that we are OBJECTIVE and that we do NOT resolve ETHICAL DILEMMAS by HAVING FAVOURITES or PERSONAL BIAS
Strengths of Utilitarianism Secular
Does NOT RESORT TO RELIGION to JUSTIFY how we SHOULD ACT
Makes it MORE ATTRACTIVE for a more SECULAR AGE
Strengths of Utilitarianism -Maximising Happiness is a good Aim
It would UNCONVENTIONAL to ARGUE that we should NOT value HAPPINESS or That we should do things that CAUSE MORE UNHAPPINESS
Strengths of Utilitarianism -Straightforward theory
Not DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND or APPLY
Offers a Decision PROCEDURE that enables MORAL DILEMMAS to be SOLVED
Strengths of Utilitarianism -Progressive
Challenges OUT OF DATE IDEAS with its PROGRESSIVE MORALITY
(Banning of Gays and Wonens Rights ) have been at the forefront of ideas CHALLENGED by Utilitarians
Strengths of Utilitarianism -Democratic
Everyone’s HAPPINESS is taken into ACCOUNT and EACH PERSON counts as ONE in DECISION MAKING
NO EXEMPTIONS
Criticism of Utilitarianism -Clarity of Measure
It is not CLEAR how we are to MEASURE PLEASURE and PAIN
What pleasure is greater Eating Chocolate
Or eating Celery?
Criticism of Utilitarianism -The Problem of Minority
Though in general REGARDS PEOPLE as EQUAL . there is a POTENTIAL PROBLEM for the MINORITY GROUP
E.G if the MAJORITY of SOCIETY has HOMOPHOBIC VIEWS-what should stop the m from SUGGESTING HOMOSEXUALITY is HARMFUL
Criticism of Utilitarianism -The Swine Ethic Problem
Bentham’s Utilitarianism theoretically seems to PERMIT HORRORS such as GANG RAPE
There are NO ABSOLUTE BOUNDARIES and HORRIFIC ACTS can be PERMITTED in THEORY
Criticism of Utilitarianism -Pleasure and Pain Subjective
DEPENDENT on the INDIVIDUAL
People can have DIFFERENT VIEWS on what LEADS TO HAPPINESS
Criticism of Utilitarianism -Require Future Predictions
In Order toESTABLISH GREATER GOOD, we have e to PREDICT FUTURE CONSEQUENCES
Yet the FUTURE is NOT ALWAYS CLEAR
E.G the Baby we SAVE may be come EVIL DICTATOR
Criticism of Utilitarianism -Pleasure not only Goods
Utilitarianism ASSUMES that PLEASURE OR HAPPUNESSS is the ULTIMATE HOOD
There are OTHER VIEWS on what GOODNESS is -OBEDIENCE to GOD’s COMMANDS
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOD CHARACTER TRAITS
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism -Too Demanding
The theory DEMANDS that we CARE for EVERYONE EQUALLY and do not PRIORITISE our OWN FAMILY when RESCUING PPL FROM BUILDING on FIRE
Can never rest without ABOUT HELPING SOMEONE
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism -Too Demanding Counter
Can Be argued that a RULE ABOUT OVERALL HAPPINESS might involve a BALANCED LIFE
If everyone was CONSTANTLY GIVING and becoming EXHAUSTED FROM IT the WORLD’S HAPPINESS would DECREASE
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism - Moral Agency Bernard Williams ‘Jim and the Indians’
Williams gives Example if you are in a town where TEN INNOCENT PRISONERS are about to be KILLED
But the SHERIFF suggest he will RELEASE ALL if you Kill One
Utilitarianism would say KILL the ONE MAN instead of NINE
However Williams argues Utilitarianism IGNORES ‘the PROBLEM OF MORAL AGENCY’
how will FEEL WITH OURSELVES AFTER the ACT
UTILITARIANISM IGNORES Our INTEGRITY
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism - Moral Agency Bernard Williams ‘Jim and the Indians’ Counter
Can be argued that have to be BRAVE and CARRY OUT the ACT that is the LESSER of TWO EVILS
We are NOT JUSR RESPONSIBLE for our ACTIONS but Also are OMISSIONS
If we VALUE OUR INTEGRITY over the LIVES and HAPPINESS OF OTHERS It’s HARD to ARGUE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism - No Value for Justice Mcklosey example
Does Not Value Justice- The SHERIFF EXAMPLE of framing INNOCENT for ‘GREATER GOOD’
Show Utilitarians do NOT VALUE HUMAN RIGHTS .
Developing Arguments Critic of Utilitarianism - No Value for Justice Mcklosey example-Counter
It can be argued that THOUGH RIGHTS may Have a VALUE
It makes SOCIETY BETTER to ASSUME RIGHTS
UNCONVINCING as Utilitarians will ABANDON THESE RIGHTS if the SITUATION REQUIRES IT
Peter Singer
Modern Utilitarianism
Founder of Preference Utilitarianism
Preference Urilitarinsim
Argues that PEOPLE should be ALLOWED to PURSUE their PREFERENCES as long as it DOES NOT INTERFERE with ANYONE’S PURUIT of HAPPINESS
Manifest and True Preferences Peter Singer
Singer argues individual preferences relate to the need for a good life
This stems from a DESIRE INBUILT IN SOCIETY
MANIFEST AND TRUE PREFERENCES
Manifest Preferences
what YOU prefer based on IMMEDIATE desires and needs
True Preferences
based on REFLECTING on all the information KNOWN and on the LIKELY CONSEQUENCES
Trade-offs Singer
Singer believes that SOCIETY is made up of a COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUALS each with their OWN PREFERENCES Trade-offs have to be made for the GENERAL WELFARE
SOME PREFERENCES have to be REJECTED or DEFERRED so that the GENERAL GOOD is MAINTAINED
