HUMANITIES- BENTHAM Flashcards
Premise 1: Second argument in favor of cultural relativism.
Promotes tolerance amongst cultural groups & forbids one from being arrogant about their own ideologies.
- No superior truth.
Counterargument to Premise 1
- Should tolerance tolerate intolerance?
- Ex: If a majority of people in a country believed that we must kill everyone that is ethnically different, as cultural relativists, we would have to tolerate their intolerance. However, cultural relativism does not invite to intolerence. (Discrepancy)
Premise 2: Second argument in favor of cultural relativism.
Tolerance is good. It encourages accepting cultural differences.
Counterargument Premise 2
The statement that tolerance is good in itself presents our reality as objective.
- Implies that tolerance is good to everyone REGARDLESS of context, traditions and other personal factors.
- Should be presented as “tolerance is good if a majority in my group believes it is.”
-In relativism, everything is relative.
-This is in fact, a paradox: use of objective claims as a description to cult. rel.
In Bentham’s perspective, what is 1 absolute idea that reunites every human being?
Regardless of any ulterior factor, humans are driven by a desire to be happy and to minimise pain.
- Meaning: Humans are fundamentally selfish. (all we think about is to minimize our pain and maximize our happiness.)
- Pursuit of hedonism (happiness).
What is utilitarianism?
“We should always do what promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people , knowing that everyone counts for one.”
- Belief that altruism -doing things in the interest of others by sacrificing ourselves- doesn’t exist.
Exercise: How would Bentham argue that immigration is selfish?
- Parents would suffer more if they stayed in their country.
- Happiness is tied to their children’s.
- If children grew up unhappy because their parents stayed in their country, their heart would ache.
- Therefore, leaving everything behind results in a selfish choice of sacrificing their immediate life for greater pleasure later on.
Exercise: How would Bentham prove that soldiers are also motivated by selfishness & the desire to minimize pain and maximize pleasure?
- Would live happiest as soldiers.
- Most are patriotic; not sacrificing would cause them more pain.
- Desire to serve a community- accomplishes a sense of purpose that increases happiness.
- In Canada, since it’s a pacifist country, SLIM chances of endangering one’s self for a HIGH salary, free education
Exercise: Is suicide a challenge to Bentham’s perspective?
- Not necessarily
- Those people are in severe pain; therefore, believe that not feeling anything is better than feeling so much pain.
- Some also believe in a better world after death- pursuit of happiness by minimizing pain.
Exercise: How would giving up one’s seat still be selfish?
- Makes us feel better about ourselves
- Guilt of not doing so (long-term pain) surpasses the instant comfort (short-term pleasure).
Consequentialism
- Ideology following which consequences matter.
- Most decisions implicate consequences.
- When analysing ethical dilemmas, we should consider who people are and the consequences our choice would hold on them.
- Bentham’s theory is a great tool to analyse consequences.
- Example: If beating one’s dog gives us less pleasure than it pains it, it should be considered morally evil to do so.
4 Factors to Evaluate Consequences
1) Scope: Nb of affected individuals (individuals that may feel pleasure and pain).
2) Duration: How long would each effect last- short-term VS long-term.
3) Intensity: How painful/happy it is- experiences are different in degree of intensity or force…
4) Probability: We should focus on the most probable outcomes.
Strenghts of Bentham’s Utilirianism
1) Impartiality: Treats everyone impartially: Everyone is considered equally.
Ex: Our society lacks impartiality: White ppl considered more important than natives. Hydro-Quebec wants to instore new electric infrastructures at the risks of flooding native territories- (part of their identity). Bentham would argue it is ethically immoral.- we are already swamped by goods- their pain would surpass our pleasure.
2) Scientific accuracy: Most theories tend to have abstract principles, which makes them hard to apply. Here, it is a question of numbers. It also yields to ONE answer- right decision.
3) Objectivism: “We should always do what optimizes the outcome for every implicated being.”
- We all have to abide by this principle.
- Coherent, clear instruction.
4) Simplicity- Intuitiveness: No need to be taught utilitarianism to reason like a utilitarian. - the way even kids reason.
Ex: “If I steal chocolate, it would taste good, but mom would punish me.” - decision relying on how much chocolate and consequences of their action (how strict mom is).
5) Inclusivity of the scope: scope includes every being able to feel pain and happiness.
- considers animals & babies.
- Ex: Bentham suggests we eat less meat: Pain of animals surpasses pleasure of humans (short-term) while eating- 20min.
Moral Permissiveness objection
- any action could be considered morally right regarding its context
- may justify even the most problematic behaviors such as rape, genocide.
- from perspective of action themselves.
Ex: Case of Angela (native) who was abused by a policeman.- we should consider desires and likings of the policeman following HIS OWN perspective. and clearly that is problematic.
Ex 2: Racist society implementing slavery would benefit pleasure of most of its people if slaves represented solely 1%. It would be considered a MORAL DUTY!
Ex 3: Patient in a vegetative state can’t feel pain or pleasure, therefore do not count under scope.
Justice/human rights objection
- receiving end of action: perspective of people to whom those actions are done.
- concept of fundamental human rights makes no sense.
- no protection since utilitarian bases on consequences.
Ex: right to life, right to express.
