* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Utilitarianism
Survey
Document related concepts
Humanitarianism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Happiness economics wikipedia , lookup
Contentment wikipedia , lookup
Epicureanism wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
John Stuart Mill wikipedia , lookup
Hedonic treadmill wikipedia , lookup
Jeremy Bentham wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism Bentham’s major work: The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) divided into three sections: 1. Motivation of human beings and the concept of good and bad “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we shall do, as well as to determine what we shall do.” 2. Principle of Utility – The greatest good for the greatest number. The most useful course of action is trying to maximise pleasure and minimize pain. In a given situation, one must examine the consequential pain/pleasure resultant for all concerned. 3. Hedonic Calculus – The Hedonic Calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers several factors: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Intensity Duration Certainty or uncertainty Nearness or remoteness Consequences Purity Extent If the probable pain of an action out weighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong. Weaknesses of Bentham’s utilitarianism Swine Ethic: If 10 rapists were to rape the same woman, then using the Hedonic Calculus, their pleasure could outweigh the woman’s pain. Therefore, it would become justifiable. This is called the Swine Ethic. Measurement: Consequences are not measurable because we do not know how far the consequences will reach. When do we stop? Minorities: There is no protection for the minorities. Pig Philosophy: Bentham counts all pleasures as equal – e.g. couch potato or Mozart. AS Ethics 1 1 Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism Mill preferred quality/happiness to Bentham’s quantity/pleasure based Utilitarianism: To Mill, Bentham’s focus of morality on pleasure alone seemed rather base. Mill replaced pleasure with ‘happiness’: “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” – so he moved away from mere quantity to the quality of happiness as well. Mill defined happiness as something which is cultural and spiritual rather than just physical and distinguished between lower pleasures and higher pleasures. He famously wrote: Although he believed that the wellbeing of the individual was of primary concern, happiness is best achieved when it is subject to the rules that protect the common good. Weaknesses of Mill’s utilitarianism • Sidgewick – “In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.” This is due to the subjectivity of “pleasure” • WD Ross – “Single-factor” moral theories don’t work because life is too complex. We have “prima facie” duties: i.e. who would I save – my son or a man with the cure to AIDS? – My son because my prima facie duty is to him. • RM Hare – you would still have to tell the truth to a mad axe man. It would still be possible to justify slavery – minority rights not protected. Comparing Bentham and Mill Bentham Mill “the greatest good [pleasure] for the “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” greatest number” Focussed on the individual alone We should protect the common good Hedonic Calculus (quantitative pleasure) Higher/lower pleasures (qualitative) Atheistic AS Ethics 1 2 Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism uses the outcome of an action to assess whether it is right or wrong. Thus, there are no necessary moral rules except one, that we should always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number in all situations. Rule utilitarians believe that rules should be formed using utilitarian principles for the benefit of society. Strong utilitarians believe that these derived rules should never be disobeyed. However, weak utilitarians say that although there should be generally accepted rules or guidelines, they should not always be adhered to indefinitely. Act utilitarianism is linked to Bentham’s form of utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is commonly linked with Mill. Weakness of Act utilitarianism Weakness of rule utilitarianism Difficult to predict consequences No defence for the minorities Difficulty in defining pleasure There is potential to justify any act It is impractical to say that we should calculate the morality of each choice Summary Summary Teleological – it is aiming towards a maximisation of pleasure for the majority. It has an end aim or goal. Relative – no notion of absolute right/wrong, no external source of truth. Nothing in itself is right or wrong. Consequential – the consequences of an act alone determine its rightness/wrongness. Strengths of Utilitarianism Supports the notion that human wellbeing is generally good Supports Jesus’ call to treat others as you would have them treat you Consequences affect life, not motives Encourages democracy AS Ethics 1 It is difficult to predict the consequences No defence for the minorities Difficulty in defining what constitutes happiness Deontological – rules take priority. Relative – what is right/wrong is established as the maximisation of pleasure for the particular community/society which it operates within. Consequential – the overall consequences determine its rightness/wrongness. Weaknesses of Utilitarianism Difficult to predict consequences Does not protect the minorities The theory disregards motivation and goodwill Says that the majority is always right (e.g. Nazis in WWII) The single criterion for morality is far too simplistic. Morality cannot rely on pleasure and happiness alone – life is too complex. 3 Utilitarianism Appendix: Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure'). In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "ruleutilitarianism." Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results). • Criticisms of this view point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the consequences of our actions. • It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers. Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules. • Some criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take into account more and more exceptions, RU collapses into AU. • More genearl criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate "unjust rules" according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals. AS Ethics 1 4 Utilitarianism