- Utilitarianism is hard universalism – that is that there is an absolute, universal principle of morality which is not subject to cultural interpretation.
- Utilitarianism is also a consequentialist theory – in that only the consequences of an act count – not the intentions which precipitated the act.
- Utilitarianism asks us to consider the total good or bad which will obtain from any given action. In other words, consequences count and individual desires may be subordinated for the good of the majority of the members of society!
Bentham’s Utilitarianism:
The Goal: To derive a quantifiable, inclusive and universalizable standard for moral decision making.
Good = Pleasure
Pleasure includes: › Physical › Moral
› Political › Religious
- P1) All people desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain
- P2) This principle does not depend on societal contexts – it is universal
- P3) The power to maximize this good lies within the position of the legislator within a society
- C) The sole duty of that legislator is to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people
The Moral Universe:
How should people’s pleasure or lack thereof be counted?
Answer: Equally – we cannot count the pleasure of the Covent Garden flower girl with her bottle of Gin as no more nor no less worthy than that of the wealthy couple on their way to the Opera.
Whose pleasure should be included in the calculus?
Answer: Every being who is capable of suffering, … including animals.
The Hedonic Calculus
- Intensity
- Duration
- Certainty – how certain are we that the act will generate pleasure
- Propinquity vs. remoteness(whether it is easy/near or difficult/far to achieve)
- Fecundity (capable of being followed by similar sensations – e.g. tequila shooters are not terribly fecund!)
- Purity (mixed or unmixed with pleasure)
- Extent – how many people will be affected by our action
Strengths of Bentham’s Utilitarianism:
- Objective & universalizable – One does not assign priority of concern for others based on one’s own subjective definition of pleasure. The calculus requires one to act with consideration for others regardless of whether one actually does take pleasure in what others value. Pleasure is a product of sentience thus all sentient beings are included in the moral deliberations.
- Quantifiable/measurable – specific values are assigned to outcomes.
- Democratic – One’s own ends do not outweigh the ends of others nor is one necessarily required to constantly sacrifice one’s own ends.
Challenges to Bentham’s Utilitarianism:
- Values assigned to outcomes must always reflect a bias within a particular operating system – i.e. the test will be rigged & thus not as objective as it might appear.
- Process is unwieldy – there’s rarely sufficient time to perform the calculus thoroughly for every moral decision – or even for big moral decisions
- Future will always be uncertain – we don’t know for sure which outcome we intend will actually produce greatest good. Further, those consequences for even small acts may reverberate throughout generations – going well beyond what may be reasonably foreseen.
- Problem of sheer numbers – if pleasures and pains are not qualitatively ranked then it seems justifiable to torture one person for the amusement of the many
John Stewart Mill: “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Mill’s Argument:
- P1) Actions are to be judged solely in virtue of their consequences
- P2) The only consequence which matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness produce by the actions
- P3) In calculating the amount of happiness produced, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.
- C) Therefore the correct moral act is that which maximizes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Good = Happiness
Happiness involves:
› Pride (as in Aristotle not the Christian version) › A love of liberty & personal independence › a love of power (empowerment) & excitement › dignity – the ―most appropriate appellation
Qualitative and quantitative, unlike Bentham.
On Tyranny of the Majority, Rights and the Harm Principle:
Mill feared that the central problem of Utilitarianism would become the ―tyranny of the majority that egregious harms to the minority would be justifiable by the benefit to the majority.
Mill proposed the institution of rights to protect the minority from being tyrannized and to protect the majority from becoming tyrants – an end inconsistent with the good as Mill had defined it.
However, rights were not meant to be absolute or completely inalienable. Mill established the limitations of rights based on what he called, the ―harm principle.
Mill argued that ―the only purpose of interfering with the life of someone is to prevent harm to others.This position has been called ―classical liberalism because of its emphasis on personal liberty However, these rights do not extend to ―children and idiots – because they are not sufficiently able to make proper decisions for themselves.*
*AUTONOMOUS; or capable of autonomy
KANT: Kantian deontology
- Utilitarianism takes no account of integrity – the accidental act or one done with evil intent if promoting good ends is the good act!
- Utilitarians hold the moral agent responsible for outcomes that are neither foreseeable nor controllable.
Kant’s Objections to Utilitarianism:
- Utilitarianism takes no account of integrity – the accidental act or one done with evil intent if promoting good ends is the good act!
-
Utilitarians hold the moral agent responsible for outcomes that are neither foreseeable nor controllable.
Kant provides a moral system based on reason alone.
Kant‟s Argument:
- 1) There is a purpose for the existence of things – that is the world is ordered and has ultimate principles.
- 2) Happiness is for the lesser creatures not gifted with rationality.
- 3) Because we are rational we are capable of something beyond mere happiness.
- 4) That ability to be rational allows us to discern right from wrong apart from considerations of pleasure or happiness.
- C) Morality lies in the domain of rationality not happiness and we as rational creatures are designed to be capable of discovering principle guidelines for moral behavior.
Intentions count and the only intention that counts is “the good will.”
What is the Good Will?
It is not just any good intentions – for example, it is not the utilitarian intention to have the best outcome from one‟s actions.
It is the will to do one‟s duty without contradiction of reason – regardless of outcome!
The good will has three distinguishing features:
- The good will is the indispensable condition for the value of other kinds of goods.
- The good will is the only kind of thing that is unconditionally good.
- The value of a good will is incomparably higher than the value of any other kind of thing whether in isolation or aggregate.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.
Two tests for the morally praiseworthy action:
- Ask yourself if it is ok for anyone else to act in the same way (morally permissible)
- Ask yourself if it would be a good rule so that everyone else must act in the same way (morally imperative) Can you conceive of a world in which everyone acts thusly?
A few important points:
- The categorical imperative is not predicated on a conditioned outcome as with a hypothetical imperative –“if you want x do y”
- Universalizing the categorical imperative asks not about probable benefits or costs in a consequentialist calculus – as with Mill or Bentham but with the idea of logical contradictions as a consequence, (ie. of the lying promise to repay a loan – it represents a contradiction of one‟s own intentions to obtain a loan.)
- Universalizing one’s actions does not require everyone else to agree with you or to obey your will – it does not affect your duty even if no one else acts morally. In this way, Kant is emphasizing the importance of autonomy as well as integrity.
Respect for Persons:
“So act as to treat humanity,
whether in thine own person or
in that of any other in every
case as an end withal, never
as means only.”
Who is a Person?
- Persons include “man and any rational being”
- Beings who can act only in accordance to their natural inclinations and wants are not persons.
- Rational persons have a freedom of will
- Persons are ends in themselves – they have interests and projects (their own goals) that are important to them by virtue of their rational nature – their value is intrinsic
- Children, though not fully rational are still potential persons so though we may make decisions for them, we cannot use them as tools or objects, nor can we dispose of them or fail to provide sufficient care for them.
Ok so, why? Two Reasons:
1. Lying is a contradiction of the categorical imperative: it cannot be universalized as it would render the very act of communicating, wanting to be understood and believed, meaningless.
2. Lying is a contradiction of the practical imperative: it is inconsistent with treating persons with respect; it is a form of manipulation.
Kant argues that morality must be derived from “pure practical reason.”
Kant also argues that it is more important to be morally worthy of being happy than to be merely happy.
A Kingdom of Ends is composed entirely of rational beings, whom Kant defines as those capable of moral deliberation (though his definition expands in other areas) who must choose to act by laws that imply an absolute necessity. It is from this point of view that they must judge themselves and their actions.
i.e. If everyone stole, if everyone lied, if everyone cheated, etc.
Problems with Kant
- Leads one to suppose that one must act even if consequences are monstrous. – i.e. consequences have no reference to the moral worth of an act.
- Duties could conflict – e.g. prisoner of war not lying vs. not permitting the murder of his troop. For Kant they are both moral commands and yet it is impossible to do both – no way to resolve the conflict.
- Temptations to write loopholes in for ourselves –“ those persons whose name is Cameron and has grey hair may do x…”
- Difficulty of having clear criteria for what counts as rationality
- Kant allows no exceptions – even when it might be “rational” to do so.
Philopasta 