Issues With Ultilitarianism Flashcards
Utilitarianism issues
Is pleasure the only good? 1
- Paints an unpleasant view of the human condition: pleasures-seeking animals with brains acting as computers trying to calculate maximum pleasure
- Some Religious believers have claimed seeking pleasure isn’t good- actually wrong. These people have chosen to avoid pleasure, some even use self-chastisement: whipping yourself, as part of philosophy of avoiding pleasure
- Despite this Bentham still claims that these people are still driven by pleasure and plan; eg by prospect of pleasure in the next life/avoidance of pain through punishment of God
Utilitarianism issues
Is pleasure the only good? 2- Nozick’s pleasure machine
Nozick’s pleasure machine;
- Suppose scientists have developed a new ‘pleasure machine’, which you enter, plugged into a hyper-real virtual reality machine, guaranteed to live a pleasurable life, memory would be alter so you don’t remember you’re in the machine
- Downside= once your in the machine, you cannot come out, though you are guaranteed to live a healthy, long and pleasurable life
- If you’re happy to be plugged into the machine; seems to prove the truth of hedonist utilitarianism
- On the other hand if you’re not happy to be plugged into the machine; suggests pleasure is not the ultimate goal
Utilitarianism issues
Is pleasure the only good? 3- Nozick’s pleasure machine
It is not pleasure we seek, but things outside our heads:
- Nozick’s thought experiment aims to show the idea that humans just seeking things outside out heads- pleasure- might be wrong
- People often want specific states of affairs in the world; their children to be happy, or people to like them etc
- People want these relationships and specific states; not just the sensations that they could experience in their head (pleasure)
- Many would refuse the machine, what they seek is real things in the world, not just sensations
Utilitarianism issues
Is pleasure the only good? 4- Nozick’s pleasure machine
It is not pleasure we seek, but specific things:
- Eg looking for a missing piece of a puzzle, you really want the last piece of the puzzle
- Bentham would claim that the last puzzle piece= just a means to gaining pleasure
- However you may feel strongly that what you want is actually the puzzle piece, not the pleasure it will bring
- If you were offered the equivalent amount of pleasure, just from a different source, you may still claim you want the puzzle piece, not just the quantity of pleasure
- Eg people have died fighting injustices, to gain the right to vote etc, however very few people would put their life on the line for simply ‘pleasure’
Utilitarianism issues
Fairness and individual rights- Act vs rule
Act
-Is thought act utilitarianism can lead to some counter intuitive moral judgement
Eg is it good to sacrifice an innocent scapegoat to placate the masses
Suppose a rich family kidnaps an orphan boy from a poor country- keep him as their slave. Boy is fed well, not beaten and work gradually increases happiness of the family
Kidnapping= maximised overall happiness- is this right?
Rule
-Avoids these odd conclusions by arguing that following rules/ideals- eg the right to life, liberty and freedom of speech is the best way to maximize happiness
-But utilitarians don’t recognise these rules as having moral worth in themselves, rather useful devices which help bring overall happiness
Utilitarianism issues
Fairness and individual rights- Act vs rule response
- However critics of this approach(utilitarianism in general) would claim ideals such as liberty, honour, justice= have values as ends in themselves
- They’re morally primitive, not deriving their moral worth from their ability to maximise happiness
- The case of kidnapping is wrong because it denies the boy of his liberty: liberty and fairness etc, are worth pursuing as ends in themselves, independently or not of whether they maximise happiness
- People have undergone hardships; eg sacrificing their own lives in the name of liberty, democracy and justice= could be argued that these people were just trying to maximise happiness, but do these people really sacrifice their lives for the ideal of maximising happiness?
Utilitarianism issues
Fairness and individual rights-Mills: risk of ‘Tyranny of the majority’
Mill on liberty;
- Was a passionate advocate for liberty: noted how history is littered with examples of unelected leaders tyrannising the masses, which didn’t end with democracy
- Democracy; though considered ‘the will of the people’ in theory, in practise democracy is in fact only the will of the majority
- There is a potential for the majority to oppress others; ‘the tyranny of the majority’ - this oppression could be through direct legislation, or through the sheer weight of social opinion making it difficult for minorities to exercise identities/freedom
- Mill; The only reason governments and others should interfere in our lives is to prevent us causing harm to other- MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE
- As long as what we are doing, doesn’t harm others, then individuals should be left to pursue their own lives in the ways they see fit
- Mill claims his account on liberty is consistent with the principle of utility- adopting a ‘hands off approach’ will lead to more happiness in the long run
- However, many disputed whether this is the case, would claim that liberty is an end in its own right
Utilitarianism issues
Quantitative utilitarianism- problems with calculating utility
Average or total happiness; should we aim for average/ total happiness?
- A problem for governments- is it better to have a large population who are less happy (eg overcrowding)- if so providing free contraception might be morally wrong.
- Or smaller populations who may be happier per person, but with a lower total happiness?- then providing free contraception might be the right thing to do
Utilitarianism issues
Quantitative utilitarianism- problems with calculating utility
Distribution of happiness; according to utilitarianism, everyone’s happiness counts equally, all count for one
- However, most actions only affect some people, raising some difficult questions in our deliberation
- Is it better to make 1 person 50 pointer happier or 5 people 10 points happier?= total happiness is the same in both cases
- Some may claim a wider, more even distribution is the ideal to aim at
Utilitarianism issues
Quantitative utilitarianism- problems with calculating utility
Do consequences end?
- eg save a drowning boy who later becomes a dictator responsible for the death of millions; is the action good or bad?
- If the moral worth of an action is based on its consequences- then this has to be constantly revised and no ‘final’ moral value can be assigned
- Saving the boy would always be a praiseworthy act, you could not have reasonably foreseen to the long term consequences, however the problem lies in the actions moral worth
- Was it good or bad?
Utilitarianism issues
Quantitative utilitarianism- problems with calculating utility
Whose happiness; humans or animals?
-The basis for moral equality is our sentience- common ability to feel pleasure and pain
-Peter singer argues that as animals also sentient, we should take their interests into account; to not do so= an example of speciesism (treating species differently for no good reason)
Singer’s argument from marginal cases:
P1)If only humans have moral status, there must be some special quality that all humans share
P2)All human specific possibilities for such a quality will be a quality that some humans lack (eg intelligence)
P3)The only possible candidates will be the qualities that other animals have too
C)Therefore, we cannot argue that only human beings deserve moral status
Utilitarianism issues
Issues around partiality
- Bentham= passionate about equality, especially for women and saw everyone as equally important
- His writing was primarily for governments, however does this also apply to individuals making moral decisions? Should utilitarians treat all people equally in their actions?
- If so, seems to imply that we should never be partial; in favouring ourselves or those close to us when making moral decisions
- Makes moral duties far reaching; given that there are starving people in the world, it seems we should give nearly all our money to help these people, do this every time we get the money
- We can question if we really are obliged to treat people we have never met equally with family and friends? eg house is burning and find two people unconscious inside, you can only carry one out: 1 is a brilliant scientist who is working on a cure for cancer, 2 is your son= who should you save?
Utilitarianism issues
Issues around partiality-act vs rule utilitarian response
Act=
- May say saving the scientist is more likely to maximise general happiness, it is the right thing to do
- Understandable to want to save your son, instincts to protect family; but morally wrong, use reason to overcome these
- On the other hand most people would save their son, can be argued to be the right thing to do; we have moral obligations to our family and friends; we have a moral duty to be partial in some circumstances
- Looking after families/caring for others= moral worth in itself
- Utilitarianism= counterintuitive
Utilitarianism issues
Issues around partiality-act vs rule utilitarian response
Rule=
- Might claim saving son is the right thing to do, the rule of looking after family is a good one(ensures everyone is looked after- maximise happiness)
- Requiring everyone to be perfectly impartial would lower general happiness, having friends/family we care for- an integral part of our happiness, giving it up would make us all unhappy
- Rule of partiality is a good one (also long as it doesn’t impact on the rights of others)
Utilitarianism issues
Issues around partiality-Impartiality of governments
- We want governments to be impartial to their own citizens; what about broader world? Eg giving tax money to overseas aid to help others
- Rule utilitarian may argue, best overall rule is every country looks after it’s own population
- However others think this is unfair, rich countries shouldn’t sit back and watch fellow humans stave and suffer
- Within this country, should all people’s happiness be treated equally? Eg some people think its unfair that recently arrived refugees get access to housing (very limited), when they themselves have found it difficult to gain social housing
- Should the government take everyone’s welfare into account equally? Should those who have lived here longer have priority?
