evaluation of utilitarianism

Question 1

what is the main claim of utilitarianism

Answer 1

the morally right action is the action that causes the most overall good effects

Question 2

1st objection of utilitarianism

Answer 2

it ignores fairness/individual liberty/rights and risks ‘tyranny of the majority

Question 3

what are the 2 different types of utilitarianism

Answer 3

• act
• rule

Question 4

what is a rule utilitarianism

Answer 4

• our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to create the bests results possible
• considers the general rules and if those maximise utility instead of particular actions, if they do then people should follow it even if it does not produce maximum utility in every case.

Question 5

what is an act utilitarian

Answer 5

• our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to create the bests results possible
• where they consider actions on a case by case basis. where they look at each individual action separately and consider if the action produces maximum utility.

Question 6

what does the first objection “it ignores fairness/individual liberty/rights and risks ‘tyranny of the majority” mean

Answer 6

• in utilitarianism, action that utilitarians consider morally right because it produces maximum utility may actually be unfair and go against someones rights if it maximises utility.
• this is a problem as we think that rights and fairness is essential
• rights have a role in protecting individual freedom and their interests, even when violating that right would produce a greater good
• e.g. I have the right that no one will tale my organs even if those organs will save the lives of 4 other people.
• utilitarians ignore individual liberty and fairness as they do not consider the restrictions of actions that may maximise utility
• tyranny of the majority proves how utilitarians ignore individual liberty and fairness as the tyranny of the majority is connected to the lack of fairness and the utilitarians failure to acknowledge individual rights.

Question 7

tyranny of the majority

Answer 7

a situation where the minority are oppressed due to the desires and beliefs of the majority.
harper lees ‘to kill a mockingbird’: where a black man, a minority, is falsely accused for committing a crime that he didnt do in a majority white town (the majority). The white town uses this black man as a scapegoat for their desire to be found guilty and sentenced to death regardless of his innocence. According to utilitarians, if using this black man as a scapegoat of their desires to kill him and to be found guilty produce more happiness as opposed to pain (hedonistic utilitarianism), or the white majority would prefer him to be killed (preference utilitarianism) then this action would be morally right.

Question 8

response to Utilitarianism ignores fairness and individual liberty and may risk the tyranny of the majority.

Answer 8

Bentham: act utilitarianism

Question 9

how does Bentham (act utilitarianism) respond to Utilitarianism ignores fairness and individual liberty and may risk the tyranny of the majority.

Answer 9

• moral rights do exist
• There are no a posteriori justifications for the existence of moral rights and we cannot verify them empirically
• There are no observations of them whereas pleasure and pain which is valuable to utilitarians can be verified empirically and observed which would show that that has more value to utilitarians.

Question 10

counter response to Bentham (act utilitarianism) to ignores fairness

Answer 10

• moral rights do exist but they do not require any experience of them
• nozick
• Rawls (veil of ignorance)

Question 11

nozicks response to Bentham act utilitarianism

Answer 11

society should respect these rights and to not treat people as a means to an end and instead should treat them as an ends in themselves rather than a means to someone else, which therefore means that everyone should be treated equally and maintain fairness and individual liberty

Question 12

Rawls response to Bentham act utilitarianism

Answer 12

• ‘veil of ignorance’ thought experiment: prove how we should opt for a fairer society.
• Rawl argues that it would be rational to give everyone rights if we imagine that we are constructing a society behind a veil of ignorance.
• Veil of ignorance: we have no knowledge of anyone behind that veil in terms of gender, race, income, etc; this would mean that it is rational to give everyone rights in order to prevent any sort of oppression that may occur within a group within that society.
• This is because there is a possibility that we would end up in one of the groups that would have some sort of oppression and be seen as a minority.

Question 13

response 2 for utilitarianism ignores individual rights

Answer 13

mill: act utilitarianism - rights are utility maximising rules

Question 14

mill: act utilitarianism - rights are utility maximising rules

Answer 14

• rights can be defended if they are I rules
• rules should respect the rights (e.g. freedom of speech, rights for a fair trial
• this would maximise utility overall
• Mill claims that the idea of rights helps avoid the tyranny of the majority as people would want to follow these rules as they still maximise utility as people are maintaining a fair society
• believe that rights are compatible with utilitarianism.

Question 15

couter-response to rule utilitarianism for utilitarianism ignores fairness

Answer 15

there are 2 problems with rule utilitarianism

Question 16

what are the 2 problems with rule utilitarianism

Answer 16

1. There is no acceptable form of rule utilitarianism as there are 2 types of rule utilitarianism:
   P1: a) Strong: rules are absolute and we must follow them
   P2: b) Weak: rules have exceptions and are not always absolute.
   P3: option a is unacceptable as it would mean that we must follow rules despite it not always maximising utility
   P4: option b is unacceptable as if there are exceptions in rules, it would turn into act utilitarianism as we are now judging actions on a case by case basis.
   C1: Therefore rule utilitarianism is unacceptable
2. only following rules as it maximises utility and produces overall happiness is an unacceptable reason to follow these rules as it would mean that people are following these rules as an end rather than a means.

Question 17

2nd objection to utilitarianism

Answer 17

issues with calculations

Question 18

issues with calculations

Answer 18

• it is beyond our control to know the consequences of our actions
  an action that looks like it would lead to good results may turn out really badly.
• We cannot be certain what results our actions will have and that goes against the utilitarianism belief that the morally right action is the action that maximises utility.
• morally right action is the action that maximises utility.
  This is because we can never be certain what is morally right due to inability to know the results
• If we do not know the consequences of our actions we cannot be certain if it maximises utility and therefore we will be unable to know if it is morally right or wrong.

Question 19

response to issues with calculations

Answer 19

Bentham, act utilitarianism

Question 20

Bentham, act utilitarianism response to issues with calculations

Answer 20

• amend the definition of utilitarianism into ‘foreseeable’ rather than the actual consequences
• then we would be able to have moral knowledge on what action is morally right or wrong.
• This would make the definition turn into ‘the morally right action is the action that foreseeably maximises utility’.
  e.g. Bob does not foresee a bad consequence that his action may have, however he would’ve been able to foresee it if he was paying attention.
• This would mean that we will be able to blame or praise people depending on what action they have done as they would be able to foresee the consequences of their actions

Question 21

counter-response to bentham, act utilitarianism response to issues with calculation

Answer 21

there are 2 problems:
1. goes against the basic definition of utilitarianism:
- now suggests that the morally right action may not maximise utility.
- If we do not focus on the consequences of an action then this won’t be a consequentialist/utilitarian theory as we are now only focusing on the person’s belief about the future rather than the future itself.

2. the ultimate consequence of an action will never be foreseeable.
   - We are not only focusing on the immediate consequences of an action, instead we are focusing on the long term effects over the period of time that sentient beings exist

Question 22

response 2 to issues with calculations

Answer 22

• rule utilitarian response, mill

Question 23

rule utilitarian response, mill issues with calculations

Answer 23

• rules make calculations easier
• we do not have to judge actions on a case by case basis.
• Mill claims that humans have done this over time through trial and error which has made us figure out what action produces happiness which has created our moral rules (i.e. secondary principles)

Question 24

counter-response to rule utilitarian response for issues with calculation

Answer 24

• does not fix the initial issue we have with the calculations.
• This is because it is difficult, even impossible, to know which rules would maximise happiness when followed.
• This would mean that we need to require knowledge about the future and connections of events which no one would actually have.