Utilitarianism Flashcards
What is ACT utilitarianism
from BENTHAM
form of ethical naturalism grounded on the basis of pleasure and pain which he describes as two ‘sovereign masters’ (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)
Principle of utility
we should always seek to achieve the ‘greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people’
RULE utilitarianism
from MILL
quality of pleasure rather than the quantity of it.
believes that certain actions produce more pleasure than others and sorts them into higher and lower pleasures
Hedonic calculus
ACT UTILITARIANISM
7 factors considered before making a decision to calculate amount of pleasure that will be produced
intensity (how strong will the pleasure be?),
duration (how long will the pleasure last?),
extent (how many people will be affected),
uncertainty and certainty (how likely or unlikely the pleasure will occur?),
fecundity (will it lead to more pleasure),
remoteness (how soon will the pleasure occur)
purity ( will the decision lead to pain or be accompanied by pain?)
Trolley problem
Philippa Foot’s Trolley Problem
Trolley- person has the choice to save close family (less amount of ppl tho) or unknown ppl (greater number of ppl)
ACT utilitarianism- save unknown lot
Bentham beliefs abt human nature+ counter
human nature can be taught
BUT those who escaped North Korea even though they have be indoctrinated to believe it is the best country in the world due to their innate desire for freedom and autonomy
Mill beliefs on pleasures
acknowledges that not all pleasures are equal.
categorises pleasures into higher pleasures (e.g. studying philosophy) and lower pleasures (e.g. drinking/eating)
Mill quote+ explanations
it is better to be a human dissatisfied then a pig satisfied”
as humans have are capable of doing more things than a pig which can only enjoy basic pleasures- have the ability to understand complex information and strengthen our cognitive abilities
intellectual pleasure> physical pleasures
Bernard Williams Jim and Indians scenario
have the choice to kill 1 to save 19 ppl or let 19 ppl die
RULE- argue against taking an innocent life even if it creates the highest immediate pleasure
ACT- kill 1 creating greatest number of happiness
Thomson’s transplant surgeon dilemma
kill man with no value in life to give organs to ppl that have value/ purpose to more ppl
RULE- stick to the principle that murder is wrong in all circumstances
ACT- kill him to provide greatest number of happiness
ADV of ACT utilitarianism
adv
- EQUALITY AND UNIVERSALITY
perfecctly consistent with the golden rule in christianity- ‘So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them’ (Matthew 7:12)
forces ppl to treat everyone equally so removes bias and hypocrisy
counter- is the really ideal everyone living in constant fear of being used as a means to create more happiness or becoming really competitive to add value in their life so they survive in society- creates unhealthy society
ev-
- INTUITIVE TO UNDERSTAND AND APPLY
central claim- happiness is good suffering is bad is somethign most ppl undertsnad and agree with
Richard Chappell- ‘if anything matter morally human well-being surely does’
ACT ensures people can easily protect the human well-being for the majority as there r no exception for different circumstances- the goal of utilitarianism always remains with trying to make the greatest number of ppl happy
intuitive as it serves as the basis for much of our day-to-day decision. Bentham- ‘there is not a human being… who has not… on most occcassion of his life defferred to it’. we have all, conciously or unconsciously followed the principle of utility e.g. comprimising on a TV show due to the interests of the majority
counter-argued it isn’t as easy- what one person thinks would produce the most happiness may differ from another persons’ opinion causing them to make the wrong decision- - ETHICAL DECISIONS ARE OBJECTIVE
ethical facts are discoverable and approachable through empiricall methods
DISADV of ACT utilitarianism
too much emphasis on individual action
focuses too much on the acti itself instead of the intention. doesn’t allow ppl to understand the true meaning behind a good act but only that it is their duty-> focusing on only consequences problematic as doing an act just to cause immediate happiness can result in bad long-term consequences. E.g. lying to someone saying they look good in an outfit as to not hurt their feelings as oppose to telling them the truth as a result hurting their feelings but allowing them to avoid embarrassment in the future.
Moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to that which is beside the intention- good acts done with the wrong intentions are not truly moral- undermines human responsibility and leads to unjust judgements
Bernard Williams- utilitarianism makes integrity as a value more or less unintelligible.
- IGNORING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
blurs the line between right and wrong
van from Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: through his example of making poeple happy on the conditions of torturing one child argues utilitarianism reduces individuals to means to an end and therefore violates individual rights and dignity. using mindset of utilitarianism, heinous crimes could be justified if it provides happiness for the majority of ppl
- IGNORES HUMAN RELATIONS- ignores human nature- altho Bentham thinks human nature can be taught…
counter- can be useful in some cases- e.g. doctor- intentionally ignoring the severity of multiple patients conditions to save someone close to him in a lss severe condition= wrong and goes against hippocratic oath- intentional killed life
EV- used in evryday- lawyers r not allowed to represent family members
ADV of RULE utilitarianism
-considers long-term consequences of actions
By categorising good into higher and lower goods can be argued long term goods are considered as improving cognitive ability encourages personal growth and development for the individual, providing them with skills necessary for the future improving their quality of life.
considerate of human dignity-
Mill uses harm principle- individuals should be allowed to do what they want as long as they weren’t harming others, arguing that each individual is in the best position to make themselves happy so if we all allowed each other to do what we want, society would be overall the happiest it could be
Easier for Societal Application-
More practical to apply to society
DISADV of RULE utilitarianism
-elitist as the value of pleasures are subjective
physical pleasures may produce more happiness than intellectual ones. e.g. ppl who are illiterate, reading literature may not produce as much happiness as eating their favourite food. so- wrong to consider intellectual pleasures as higher pleasure -> Mill’s approach on Utilitarianism is only valid for those who are educated in society
Conflict between rules- Rules in rule utilitarianism may conflict with each other or produce contradictory outcomes in certain situations. Resolving conflicts between rules can be challenging, as there may not be a clear hierarchy or guideline to determine which rule takes precedence. This ambiguity can lead to confusion and inconsistent moral decision-making e.g. stealing is wrong but if the person is stealing out of desparation is it truly immoral as their protecting their life
-Lack of precision
requires the formulation of general rules that maximise overall utility. However, determining the precise formulation of rules can be difficult and subject to interpretation. The clarity and specificity of rules can vary, leading to differences in understanding and application among individuals.
