utilitarianism Flashcards
define consequentialism
an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences it brings
what is psychological vs moral hedonism
- hedonism = an act is considered good or bad depending on the extent to which it promtes pleasure or avoids pain
- moral = it is our fundemental moral obligation to maximise pleasure
- psych = pleasure/pain is the only thing that motivates us
what is benthams quantitative act utilitarianism and how are acts measured
- an act is considered good or bad depending on the extent to which it promtes pleasure or avoids pain
- an act can be measured by the utility calculus
what are the 7 criteria of the UC
PRRICED
- purity = how free the action will be from causing pain to those involved
- remoteness
- richness = if the happiness caused by the action will lead to more happiness
- intensity = strenght of pleasure
- certainty
- extent
- duration = length the pleasure lasts
what are the strengths and weaknesses of AU
- simple
- intuitiuve
BUT - pleasure is not the only good
- bad outcomes
- how do we judge the difference between pleasures - higher/lower in RU fixes this but still a problem for this type
- impractical to calculate
How might AU lead to tyranny of the majority
- value is determined externally, by its consequences
- a moral action is one which maximises happiness for the most amount of people
- this means that if the majority are happy then a minority arent and this would be morally justified when it seems unreasonable in theory
what is mills solution to the problem of tyranny of the majority —> the harm principle
- higher vs lower pleasures
- mills harm principle = a state is only ever justified in restricting the feedom/rights of individuals if it is to prevent them from causing/inflicting harm
BUT this still leads to TotM anyways —> this is just an explanation as to when it is needed rather than a solution
what is the omilas thought experiment and how does it link to tyranny of the majority in AU
- Omilas is a utopian city which is prosperous, there are no rulers or a hierchey
- in order for the citizens to live in harmony, one child must be kept perminantly trapped in misery, darkness and filth
- any act of kindness to the child will turn Omilas into a nightmare society
- at a certain age you are told about the child and given the option to leave or remain in blissfull ignorance
how might the utility calculus be impractical and how might bentham respond
- too complex
- time consuming
- not everything can be quantified
- different people experience different levels of happiness and will scale it differently
- bentham claimed it was not essential to stick to the UC but to just bare it in mind to help us make the right decisions
bentham also claimed that a being is morally relevant if it feels pleasure/pain and each morally relevant beings happiness is equal. what are the issues with this?
- all non human mammals and maybe insects should be bought into consideration when making a decision
- makes calculating harder because
1) more things to consider
2) we cannot communicate with non human animals as we can with humans
what is mills solution to the problem of calculation —> secondary principles
- we often rely on secondary principles when making moral decisions bc theyre accepted values and ways of acting that most people in society were raised to believe in
BUT then what is the point in having rules in the first place if theyre just a guide and you arent expected to stick to them —> leads to rule worship if followed exactly
what is mills qualitative rule utilitarianism
- only happiness is good and the right act is one which is in accordance with rules which if everyone followed, would increase the general happiness
what is the difference between a strong and weak rule + examples
strong = can never be broken, no exception —> do not murder, rape, torture
weak = can be broken if justified using the utility principle, can only be broken if breaking the rule will cause more happiness than following it —> do not lie, cheat, steal
what is mills proof of the utility principle P1, P2, P3, C1, C2, P4, C3
P1) Utilitarianism is true iff happiness is the only thing desirable for its own sake
P2) the only proof that something is desirable is that people do desire it
P3) each person desires their own happiness for its own sake
C1) therefore each person (humanity as a whole) desires happiness for its own sake
C2) therefore happiness is desirable for its own sake
P4) other things desired such as power, wealth, virtue, health and truth are desired as parts of happiness
C3) therefore, happiness is the only thing desirable for its own sake and utilitarianism is true
Mill commits three fallacies in his proof of utilitarianism what are these
- fallacy of equivication —> mistake of using the same word with two different meanings leading to an invalid argument
- fallacy of composition —> the mistaken claim that the properties of one part are also the properties of the whole group —> sheet of paper is light but a stack is heavy
- naturalistic fallacy —> mistake of claiming that just because something is natural, it must be good/permisible
define higher and lower pleasures with examples
higher = intellectual pleasure, higher quality in the long term —> poetry, philosophy, reading
lower = physical, bodily, animalistic pleasures which are less valuable and of a lower quality in the short term —> push pin for mill (pool) lust, drinking alcohol
- seems quite elitest the higher pleasures are often what a member of the aristocracy would be doing in britain in the 1800s
what is mills test to determine if a pleasure is higher or lower
- a competant judge
- someone who has experienced both types and is familliar with them
how might rule utilitarianism lead to rule worship and why is this an issue
- if we accept there are some strong rules then these cant be broken under any circumstance
- this means that rules are likely to increase pain in some instances
- so we would become irrational in our decision making because strong rules cannot be justafiably broken
how might RU collapse into AU and why might this be an issue
- if we accept that there arent strong rules and there are always exceptions then this is just AU
- so RU is pointless
give two reasons why AU is convincing and three reasons why it is unconvinving
- gives us a way of making mostly right decisions
- treats peoples pleasure equally
BUT - tyranny of the majority
- problem of calculation
- problem of partiality and moral integrity
give three reasons each why RU is convincing/unconvincing
- quicker + more practical that AU
- can avoid issues with AU
- acknowledges that some pleasures are better than others
BUT - hedonism is false
- rule worship/collapse into AU
- higher/lower pleasure distinction is elitist
are we morally obliged to plug into the experience machine according to hedonistic and non-hednistic utilitarianism
- according to hedonistic utilitarianism (RU/AU) we are morally obliged to plug in because it is the best way to maximise happiness
- according to non-hedonistic utilitarianism (preference) we are not morally obliged to plug in because we may simply have a preference for our actual life/reality
if we arent morally obliged to plug into the experience machine, what is the implication for hedonistic utilitarianism
- if people chose contact with reality over happiness then happiness is not the most desirable thing
- so it cannot be the ultimate good
so utilitarianism cannot be proved true by his proof and hedonistic utilitarianism is false
what is preferance utilitarianism
- only happiness is good
- right act is that which maximises happiness for the greatest number
- happiness is understood as the satisfaction of the preferances of morally significant beings
how can PU avoid nozicks objection - happiness is not the only good
- as a non hedonistic version of U it claims that to maximise happiness we should satisfy our preferances
- so not morally obliged to plug in if we do not have the preferance to do so
how might PU avoid the problem of tyranny of the majority
- PU considers the intensity of preferances along side the amount
- it could therefore provide strong justifications for protecting individual liberty, rights, and treating others fairly as most people would have a strong preferance for these
how might the possibility of bad preferances pose as an issue for PU
- people can have preferances for things we think are bad —> torture, murder, lying
- as a U theory, PU still thinks there is no inherent value to any given act
- and so there may be instances where preferances for things we consider bad/immoral are morally justified
what is bernard williams’ thought experiement about and what should he do? - problem of moral integrity and intentions
- George has a PhD in chem but is struggling to get a job. his family is relying on him
- george is told he can work at a lab developing chemical and biological weapons
- if he does not accept someone else will do it. george has a moral commitment against chem and bio weapons
- U = he is morally obliged to take the job, ignoring his own moral integrity. if he doesnt take the job he is doing something morally wrong
what is moral integrity and how might U ignore it
- a commitment to moral values
- U claims there is no intrinsic value in acts/people/beliefs
- so in order to max. happiness you may be morally obliged to go against your beliefs
why might impartiality be an issue sometimes and is it right to be partial in our moral decision making
- related to the claim there is no intrinsic value
- U = remain impartial even to family and friends
- seems to go against our intuitions about morality
