Moral Philosophy - Normative ethical theories

Question 1

State what Utilitarianism is

Answer 1

Utilitarianism states that actions are morally right or wrong depending on there consequences alone.
An Act is morally right if it maximizes happiness and what is good.
Utilitarianism claims that happiness (pleasure+ absence of pain) is the only good.
It also states that no ones happiness counts for more than anyone else’s.

Question 2

What is meant by ‘Utility’?

Answer 2

What is in your best interest ( happiness and what is good)

Question 3

What is Consequentialism?

Answer 3

an acts right or wrong depending on the consequences

Question 4

What is Hedonism?

Answer 4

Happiness is pleasure + the absence of pain. Hedonism is happiness is the only good.

Question 5

State what is meant by ‘Morality’

Answer 5

a set of principles which are the same for everyone/apply to everyone.

Question 6

Explain Act Utilitarianism

Answer 6

Act utilitarianism, as articulated by Bentham is the quantitive hedonistic utilitarianism which states;

• For an action to be morally right it has to lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
• Just creating some / a lot of happiness isnt morally right unless it wad the best possible action you could have taken.
• Happiness (absence of pain) is the only good
• Governed by two ‘sovereign masters’ Pain and Pleasure.
• Can use felicific calculus to work out what action to take

Question 7

Who is the key Philosopher who defends Act Utilitarianism?

Answer 7

Jeremy Bentham

Question 8

Who are the two key Philosophers who criticise/ challenge Act Utilitarianism?

Answer 8

Mill and SMART

Question 9

Explain Bentham’s argument for Act Utilitarianism.

Answer 9

• Bentham states we have two Sovereign masters
  ‘Pain + Pleasure’ which Govern us as humans.
• He claims happiness is the only motivation for people as we always want to maximise pleasure + avoid pain.
• Bentham states we can use the ‘ Felicific calculus’ ( Total amount of pleasure minus total amount of pain added together) in order to judge whether actions are morally right.

Question 10

Explain Mills Objection/ Criticism to Act Utilitarianism

Answer 10

Mill disagrees with Benthams quantitive hedonistic utilitarianism + argues for qualitative utilitarianism as; pleasure and happiness is not the only good and is what solely governs us.

Mill states;

• we have to Distinguish between Higher + Lower pleasures. (Higher pleasures; spiritual, moral etc Lower pleasures; emotional, body, money etc).

He states people value/prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures.

By claiming all pleasures are equal it would mean we would be happy/rather be a Happy Pig than a Content human. Not all values are worth same + rejects the Felicific calculus.

Question 11

Explain Smart objection to Act Utilitarianism

Answer 11

Smart agrees with Mill + he’s correct to distinguish between pleasures as they aren’t all of equal worth + thus agrees with Mills qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism

(because if they were we would rather be a happy pig than a contented human being)
He argues most people prefer higher pleasures of thought, feeling + imagination and we should focus less on the’ Quantity’ of happiness and more on ‘Quality’.

• SMART brings in Moore’s idea that many states of mind are of higher value as well like ‘knowledge’ rather than overall pleasure like Act states.

Question 12

State the 6 Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism

Answer 12

• SMART electrode + Nozick’s experience machine
• Problems with the Calculation
• Intentions
• Mill on Individual Rights + Liberties
• Partiality
• Moral Integrity

Question 13

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism ‘SMART’s Electrode machine’

Answer 13

To help understand certain pleasures further, SMART askes us to imagine a scenario where someone’s hooked up to an electrodes on there brain, so just by pressing a button, could give themselves intense sensual pleasure reliably + with no ill effects.

• Smart says what if he came to prefer this to anything else + thus real life and soon everyone did and we were al wired up. Is this the picture of a happy and good life? because if it is we would have to do tat cause it would ‘maximise happiness’

Smart argued, while we understand wed be happy, we simply do not want to be electrode operated arguing its noting to do with quality of pleasure but our attitude towards it. To say someone’s happy , not just contented we have to express our approval of the pleasure. We cant do that plugged into a machine

Therefore not about Quality/Quantity of happiness but our approval of it.

Question 14

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism ‘Nozick’s Experience Machine’

Answer 14

Nozick askes us to imagine being able to plug into a virial reality machine where the machine will produce the experience of a very happy life. However we would not know that we are plugged into the machine once were in ( we’d believe it was reality

Nozick argues majority of us would NOT plug in because regardless of amount of happiness wed get to experience we value other things such as; being in contact with reality, achievements, knowledge even if not plugging in would make us less happy.

Therefore what we want is not a psychological state at all, its in relation to something outside of our minds, we don’t want fake virtual happiness it has to be real.
Rejecting concept of Hedonistic utilitarianism

Question 15

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism ‘Problem with the calculation’

Answer 15

It is not always possible to work out the overall consequences of each of our actions to judge if its morally acceptable/ right

• It is also too time consuming and challenging to to. Bentham’s Felicific calculus makes it difficult to always get the relevant information to do the calculation eg abortion who do u include? the mother , the unborn child? the father? parents of the girl? comparing each individuals references would be too long and difficult and sometimes impossible to work out.

Counter: It’s easier to work out the concequences actions tend to have through experience - we don’t have to necessary do it very time but ultimately it helps guide us + our action.

Question 16

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism of Intentions

Answer 16

Act states that actions = morally right/wrong solely dependant on consequences.

Act thus doesn’t recognise the moral importance of intentions which is problematic.
Eg attempting to harm or even murder someone according to Act wouldn’t be immoral unless it was successful because despite the intentions, the consequences/outcome was not bad

Intentions are significant and even by law attempted murder is still a crime and morally wrong regardless of outcome.

Question 17

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism of ‘Individual rights + liberties

Answer 17

Individual rights are duties of justice which are perfect + we have a moral duty/obligation to fulfil them.

• Mill argues Act can give a plausible account of Justice however what about in cases of conflict with the greatest happiness?

Suppose situation where violating my rights + liberties as an individual may cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In cases where for example a certain race would prefer a minority race to be inferior, that would produce the greatest happiness for the most amount of people wile directly violating my/another race or minorities rights. Therefore in that case my rights aren’t protected, but how can we justify violating my rights. We cant.

Question 18

Explain the criticism against Act Utilitarianism of ‘Partiality’

Answer 18

Partiality is a bias for one person/s

Act would argue we always have to do/actions that will produce greatest happiness for greatest number and not value one individual or peoples happiness higher than others.

• However Act is far too Idealistic.
  Things we do to make people happy are usually aimed at family or friends, as human beings we favour people we love and so are partial towards them. Eg we would rather save 4 family members over 5 complete strangers or try to make sure friends are happy rather than put all our time into random people.

Therefore Act misses something incredibly important and moral when claiming we should count every single individual equally. Human nature + emotions themselves counter act this + Act is too Idealistic + demanding.

Question 19

Explain the criticism of Act Utilitarianism of ‘Moral Integrity’

Answer 19

Act seems to miss something significant about Moral Integrity and importance of individual peoples morals + values and why they will stick to them despite various temptations.

• Eg A man struggling to feed his family gets rejected from every job other than one were he gets offered a job at a chemical weaponry lab. He is strongly opposed to the use + construction of chemical weaponry + wants to refuse the job but a colleague points abut that if he doesn’t take the jo , someone more committed to making them will get it and only make more + do better job. He also has his family to provide for and cant really refuse the pay.

Act Utilitarianism would require him to take the job as his integrity is merely a preference, it would amount in most happiness if he does take it and if he doesn’t someone occur cause more significant harm instead.

• But can he really be held accountable /responsible for someone else’s actions. Act would treat them both the same and represses personal values + expressions if it conflicts w greatest happiness.

Question 20

State what Preference Utilitarianism argues.

Answer 20

Preference is the non-hedonistic utilitarianism which states;

• We should satisfy peoples preferences + desires instead of just pleasures.
• Doesn’t claim happiness is ‘the only good’
• Preference states people prefer other things such as being in touch with reality and whatever people prefer is of more value to them regardless of ‘higher or lower pleasures’

Question 21

Explain what Mills argument that ‘Happiness is the only good’

Answer 21

Mill argues we can’t strictly prove that something is good or not. What is good we should aim at in our lives (so what’s good is an ‘end’ what we strive for). We aim at what is desirable; happiness is desirable + ultimately only happiness is desirable.

Since we can’t deduce what is good we have to appeal to evidence

Given evidence demonstrates that majority of people all aim for what is good rather than what is bad - thus theres evidence that happiness is desirable + worth desiring. Everyone wants happiness so its reasonable to infer that happiness is desirable.

Question 22

What is meant by ‘an end’?

Answer 22

Ends are wat you wanna do and you use means in order to achieve your ends.
Ends are just the purpose of our actions - the end result we want.

Question 23

Explain the Criticisms to Mills proof that ‘Happiness is the only good’

Answer 23

The fact hat happiness is good is generally uncontroversial but claiming it is the ONLY good is controversial.

• Not everyone desires happiness - if they did it would be easier to claim it was the only good. Eg buying a car generates happiness but obviously isn’t everything we desire.
• Happiness isn’t the only good as people value tings lie beauty, freedoms etc arguably more/find them more valuable.
• Nozick’s experience machine shows happiness + pleasure isn’t the only good as we could be offered all happiness yet wed would generally refuse because there are other things we value such as being in touch w reality.
• Moore objected to Mill as Mill claims that something desirable is ‘worthy’ of being desired et Moore claims people desire all sorts of rubbish and bad tings not worthy of being desired/morally right.

Question 24

State 2 criticisms against Preference Utilitarianism.

Answer 24

‘Tyranny of the Majority’

Question 25

Explain the criticism of Preference Utilitarianism ‘Tyranny of the Majority’

Answer 25

Mill was concerned that in democracy , policies leading to ‘greatest happiness’ often actually result in a negative overlook and disregard for minorities and can lead to overruling the interests of minorities.

• Utilitarianism itself states that we need to create greatest happiness for greatest number, so equally it would be justified for people to ignore minorities plainly because it would result in more happiness. Eg even in cases of different races.
• The ‘Tyranny’ gives majorities the option to exercise control and social power over minorities. Everyone thinks that there own opinions are right.

Question 26

Explain Rule Utilitarianism.

Answer 26

Rule claims that an action/rule is right if by following it , leads to the greatest happiness out of all the possible choices and if morally right.

Rule increases happiness in the long term rather than short term because if everyone followed the rules set out, then they would maximise happiness.

Question 27

What is SMARTS objection to Rule utilitarianism and how would Rule respond?

Answer 27

Smart objects to Rule claiming it is ‘Rule worship’ as if a situation where breaking a rule would equal more happiness what is the purpose of having rules in the first place.

• Rule would respond by saying we can ‘amend rules allowing exceptions in cases such as eg ‘don’t lie’ can be amended to ‘don’t lie unless telling the truth would cause deadly harm’

Question 28

Give an advantage of Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 28

Many of the problems which may undermine Act + Preference don’t undermine Rule eg

• Problems w calculation - no need to use felicific calculus or work out consequences each time.
• Fairness + liberties - His rules forbidding torture + ensuring individual rights
• Partiality - a rule allowing partiality creates more happiness in long term rather than forcing impartiality.

Question 29

Explain The 2 objections to Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 29

• Rule doesn’t understand what is important about partiality.
  Rule permits + encourages it yet mainly only if contributes to happiness. However people do things in order to make themselves happy (importance of the individual) seems to still be missing.

A Rule protecting Integrity could prove problematic
- If what someone values goes strongly against promoting the greatest happiness eg someone’s ends are t make as much money possible (without any constraints) should we respect individuals rights or should morality be separate. They often conflict.