Skripta Politika i etika_b83fa6b0-8c41-4325-bd3a-7e37fe271583_acccd0c5-a8f9-47f9-9747-233b68f89662(2).PDF

When people say their moral views come from religion, they may be interpreting religious texts to support opinions they already hold, rather than following the teachings directly. The debate over abortion is a good example. Conservatives often argue that life begins at conception, but the Bible does...

When people say their moral views come from religion, they may be interpreting religious texts to support opinions they already hold, rather than following the teachings directly. The debate over abortion is a good example. Conservatives often argue that life begins at conception, but the Bible doesn’t clearly support this view. In fact, some passages suggest the fetus doesn’t have full moral status. The Catholic Church’s stance on abortion has also evolved over time. Initially, the Church opposed abortion because it interfered with natural processes, but this argument doesn’t explain why abortion is immoral. Today, the Church holds that abortion is murder, despite modern scientific understanding of fetal development. In conclusion, while religion can influence moral views, morality itself is not solely based on religious teachings. It involves reason and conscience, and religious beliefs don't always provide clear solutions to moral issues. Morality and religion, though related, are separate matters. 5.Ethical Egoism 5.1. Millions of people, especially children, die from malnutrition each year, often from preventable causes. While many of us enjoy luxuries, such as gadgets and entertainment, we could use that money to help those in need. The reason we don’t is partly because we don’t think about the problem often, as it feels distant and abstract. If the starving were in our immediate vicinity, we might feel more compelled to act. Morally, we should help others when we can, especially at little cost to ourselves. However, some people believe in Ethical Egoism, which argues that we should only focus on our own self-interest and that others matter only if they benefit us. 5.2. Psychological Egoism Psychological Egoism is a theory that suggests humans always act in their own self-interest. It contrasts with Ethical Egoism, which claims that people should act in their self-interest. While both theories focus on self-interest, they differ greatly: Psychological Egoism is a description of human behavior, while Ethical Egoism is a moral guideline. If Psychological Egoism were true, it would make moral philosophy seem pointless. This is because if humans always act selfishly, then moral discussions about what people "ought" to do would not matter. People would continue behaving selfishly, no matter what moral theory says. The Argument That We Always Do What We Want to Do One argument for Psychological Egoism is that people act based on what they want. According to this view, every action is motivated by a desire that fulfills some personal need or want. For example, if a person helps someone else, they are actually doing it because it satisfies their own desires, such as feeling good or receiving praise. However, this argument is flawed. People often act out of a sense of duty, even when they do not want to. For instance, someone might write a letter to their grandmother because they promised to, even if they don't want to do it. In the case of Raoul Wallenberg, who went to Hungary to save lives during World War II, he might have wanted to stay in Sweden, but he felt a moral obligation to help the Jews in danger. This shows that actions are not always driven by selfish desires. Even if people do act on their strongest desires, it doesn’t mean they are acting selfishly. If someone desires to help others, even at personal risk, their actions are not motivated by self-interest. What matters is what kind of desires drive a person to act. If a person wants to help others, their motives are altruistic, not self-interested. The Argument That We Always Do What Makes Us Feel Good The second argument for Psychological Egoism is that people only help others because it makes them feel good. According to this view, even when we act altruistically, it is because of the satisfaction or peace of mind we get from doing so. Abraham Lincoln is often cited as an example. In a story, he saves some pigs from a slough, and when asked why, he says he did it to ease his conscience. This shows how even seemingly selfless actions could be interpreted as selfish, because they provide a sense of satisfaction. However, this argument is also flawed. While it may be true that some people feel good after helping others, it doesn't mean their actions are selfish. Sometimes, people’s desire to help others is stronger than their desire for personal satisfaction. In cases like rescuing someone from a life-threatening situation, the motive is usually more about saving a life than about feeling good. There are also examples of selfless acts where people don’t gain any satisfaction or benefit. For instance, Wesley Autrey risked his life to save a man from an oncoming subway train without thinking about personal gain or satisfaction. Conclusion About Psychological Egoism Psychological Egoism is not a credible theory. It oversimplifies human behavior and overlooks the complexity of our desires and motivations. While people may gain satisfaction from helping others, it does not mean all actions are selfish. Many acts of kindness are genuinely motivated by a desire to help others, not by a need for personal satisfaction. Therefore, moral philosophy remains important, and discussions about what people "ought" to do are still meaningful. Humans are capable of acting selflessly, and this shows that moral theories based on human compassion and duty are not pointless. 5.3.Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism Ethical Egoism is the theory that each person should exclusively pursue their own self-interest. The core idea of this philosophy is that actions are morally right if they serve the individual's own advantage, not because they benefit others. While it does not forbid helping others, the act is considered morally right only because it benefits the individual, not the other person. There are three main arguments supporting Ethical Egoism, which are: 1. The Argument That Altruism Is Self-Defeating 2. Ayn Rand’s Argument 3. Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality 1. The Argument That Altruism Is Self-Defeating This argument claims that focusing on helping others often leads to negative outcomes. There are a few key ideas here: Self-Understanding vs. Imperfect Understanding of Others: People know their own desires and needs best, but they cannot fully understand the needs of others. Trying to help others often leads to mistakes, which can cause harm. Infringement on Privacy: Helping others is seen as an intrusion into their lives. Offering help may be unwanted and can lead to resentment. Degradation of Self-Respect: Offering charity can undermine the recipient's dignity, making them dependent on others and causing harm to their self-respect. The argument concludes that instead of altruism, individuals should focus on their own interests. By doing so, everyone’s interests will align, making society better off. However, critics argue that this reasoning is not purely egoistic, as it still focuses on the collective welfare. 2. Ayn Rand’s Argument Ayn Rand argues that altruism, which promotes sacrificing one’s own needs for others, is morally and socially destructive. She believes that: Altruism Denies the Value of the Individual: Altruism teaches that an individual’s life should be sacrificed for others. This philosophy undermines the value of the individual, making them live for others rather than for themselves. Ethical Egoism Respects the Individual: Rand asserts that Ethical Egoism is the only philosophy that truly honors individual life. It allows each person to pursue their own self- interest, which is essential for a free and thriving society. Altruism Leads to Exploitation: Rand sees those who promote altruism as parasites, leeching off the hard work of others. She argues that Ethical Egoism avoids this exploitation by promoting self-reliance. While Rand’s argument defends Ethical Egoism, critics argue it presents a false choice between altruism and egoism, ignoring the possibility of a balanced approach where both individual and collective interests are considered. 3. Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense Morality This argument suggests that Ethical Egoism doesn’t reject traditional morality, but rather explains it through self-interest. Key moral duties such as honesty, keeping promises, and not harming others can all be understood as self-interested actions: Not Harming Others: Harming others can lead to personal consequences like loss of trust or legal punishment. Therefore, it is in one’s self-interest to avoid harming others. Being Honest: Lying harms one’s reputation and damages relationships. Ethical Egoism encourages truth-telling because it maintains trust, which benefits the individual. Keeping Promises: Breaking promises leads to a loss of credibility and cooperation. By keeping promises, individuals ensure that others will keep their word, which is in their best interest. This argument presents Ethical Egoism as a way of systematizing commonsense moral rules. However, critics argue that this view does not address extreme cases where one’s self-interest might involve harmful actions, or where helping others may be motivated by genuine altruism. Conclusion These three arguments defend Ethical Egoism from different perspectives, but all emphasize that pursuing one’s self-interest is morally right. Whether by critiquing altruism, defending the value of the individual, or aligning with commonsense morality, each argument suggests that focusing on self- interest ultimately benefits everyone. 5.4.Three Arguments Against Ethical Egoism While Ethical Egoism asserts that individuals should act in their own self-interest, several arguments challenge its validity and moral implications. Here are three key objections to the theory: 1. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Endorses Wickedness This argument highlights how Ethical Egoism could theoretically endorse immoral actions if they serve the individual's self-interest. Examples of wicked actions include:  A pharmacist who dilutes cancer medications to increase profits. A paramedic who sells morphine by substituting it with sterile water. Parents who intentionally harm their baby to fake a lawsuit. A nurse who rapes unconscious patients. The concern is that if Ethical Egoism promotes acting in one’s best interest, it would have to approve of such actions, even if they are morally abhorrent. However, critics argue that the theory's approval of these actions assumes a non-egoistic view of what is "wicked," not necessarily endorsed by Ethical Egoism itself. 2. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Logically Inconsistent Kurt Baier argues that Ethical Egoism is logically flawed. The contradiction arises in a scenario where two individuals, "D" and "R," are running for president. If it benefits D to kill R, Ethical Egoism dictates that D has a moral duty to do so. But it is also in R’s best interest to stay alive, meaning R has a duty to protect herself. The problem is that R’s action of stopping D from killing her is both morally wrong (for preventing D from fulfilling his duty) and morally right (because it serves R’s self- interest). This creates a logical contradiction. However, the flaw in this argument lies in the additional premise that it is wrong to prevent someone from fulfilling their duty. Ethical Egoism does not necessarily require this; instead, it would maintain that whether to prevent someone from fulfilling their duty depends on whether it benefits the individual. This shows that the logical contradiction might be avoidable by rejecting this additional assumption. 3. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Unacceptably Arbitrary This argument questions the arbitrary nature of Ethical Egoism. Ethical Egoism divides individuals into two categories: oneself and everyone else, assigning greater importance to one’s own interests over those of others. The question arises: why is one’s own interest considered more valuable than that of others? Is there a meaningful difference between oneself and others that justifies this preference? This view is analogous to discriminatory ideologies such as racism, which claim that certain groups (e.g., one’s race or nationality) are inherently more deserving of consideration than others. Such views violate the Principle of Equal Treatment, which holds that people should be treated similarly unless there is a good reason for different treatment. Since Ethical Egoism cannot provide a justifiable reason for placing one's own interests above others, it is seen as an arbitrary doctrine. This arbitrariness suggests that we must care about the interests of others, as their needs and desires are comparable to our own. Ethical Egoism’s failure to justify its special treatment of the self, in contrast to others, makes it an unacceptable moral theory. 6.The Social Contract Theory 6.1.Hobbes’s Argument: The Foundation of Morality and the Social Contract Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century philosopher, argued that morality is not based on religion, natural purposes, or altruism. Instead, he believed it arises from the need for a peaceful and cooperative society, where self-interested individuals can coexist. According to Hobbes, morality consists of the rules necessary for people to live together and pursue their self-interest in a stable social order. Hobbes imagined a world without government, laws, or enforcement, known as the “state of nature.” In this state, people would be free to act as they wish, but this leads to conflict as resources are limited and individuals compete for them. The result would be a “war of all against all,” where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes identifies four key facts about human life that contribute to this grim outcome: 1. Equality of Need: Everyone needs the same basic resources to survive, creating common demands among individuals. 2. Scarcity: Resources are limited and not plentiful, leading to competition. 3. Equality of Power: No one has absolute power; even the strongest can be defeated when others unite. 4. Limited Altruism: People are mostly self-interested and cannot rely on others in times of need, especially when interests conflict. These facts lead to an unstable environment where fear and violence dominate. Hobbes proposes the social contract as a solution: an agreement among individuals to follow moral rules for mutual benefit, thus creating peace and stability. By agreeing not to harm others and keep promises, individuals can live cooperatively and safely. In conclusion, Hobbes’s theory shows that morality arises as a practical solution to human needs. The social contract provides the foundation for morality and government, enabling people to live peacefully while pursuing their self-interest. 6.2.The Prisoner’s Dilemma: The Challenge of Cooperation and Self-Interest The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a problem introduced by Merrill M. Flood and Melvin Dresher in the 1950s, highlighting the conflict between self-interest and cooperation. In this scenario, you and another person, Smith, are arrested. You are given a deal: if you confess and Smith doesn't, you go free, but if both confess, you both get a five-year sentence. If neither confesses, you both serve only one year. The dilemma lies in whether to trust Smith and cooperate by staying silent or act in your own self-interest and confess. The solution is simple: regardless of what Smith does, you should confess. This is because, if Smith confesses, you get five years by confessing instead of ten for staying silent. If Smith doesn’t confess, confessing lets you go free instead of serving one year. However, if both of you act selfishly, both end up with five-year sentences when a cooperative approach would have led to just one year. The dilemma presents a key issue: while cooperating would benefit both parties, the lack of trust makes it hard to achieve this outcome. If you and Smith could communicate and agree not to confess, you both would get the best result—only one year. However, for this agreement to be successful, it must be enforceable, as one person could betray the other for a better outcome. This situation mirrors real-life moral dilemmas where individuals have to choose between acting selfishly or cooperatively. The Prisoner’s Dilemma highlights four possible strategies people can adopt: selfishness, benevolence, or a mix of both. 1. Selfish while others are benevolent: You benefit without giving back. 2. Everyone benevolent: You are treated well but lose the advantage of selfishness. 3. Everyone selfish: Similar to Hobbes’s state of nature, where everyone competes without cooperation. 4. Benevolent while others selfish: You’re taken advantage of by others. In each scenario, adopting selfish behavior seems to be the best option for individuals. However, if everyone acts this way, the result is a worse situation, resembling Hobbes’s state of nature. To escape this, an enforceable agreement—such as laws and social rules—is needed to promote cooperation for mutual benefit. This is what David Gauthier describes as "bargaining our way into morality." Ultimately, the Prisoner’s Dilemma illustrates the need for cooperation and mutual respect to avoid a situation where everyone is worse off due to selfish behavior. 6.3.Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory The Social Contract Theory explains that morality consists of rules rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them too. This theory offers answers to some difficult moral questions. Here are the key points: 1. What moral rules should we follow and why? The rules that keep society peaceful and cooperative are morally binding. For example, rules against murder, theft, and lying are essential for peaceful living. These rules are justified because they promote harmony. On the other hand, rules against private actions like consensual sexual activities are not justified by the same reason—they don't harm social living and should not be considered moral obligations. 2. Why is it rational to follow the moral rules? Following the rules benefits everyone because society works better when people cooperate. You follow the rules because they will be enforced, and breaking them leads to punishment. Even if you think you might not get caught, it's still rational to follow the rules. You don't want others to break them, as it would lead to chaos. When everyone agrees to follow the rules, it’s rational for each person to do the same to avoid harming society. 3. When is it rational to break the rules? You agree to follow the rules as long as others do the same. If someone else breaks the rules, they release you from your obligations to them. For example, if someone refuses to help you when they should, you may feel no duty to help them later. This concept also explains why punishing criminals is justified—when someone breaks the rules, they open themselves up to retaliation. 4. How much can morality demand from us? The Social Contract Theory suggests that morality demands impartiality—treating others' interests as equally important as your own. But in extreme situations, like sacrificing yourself to save five people, morality seems to demand more. However, it’s not rational to expect everyone to agree to such a demanding rule. Most people would not willingly sacrifice themselves, even if they promised to do so. The theory explains that while we may admire self-sacrifice, it is not a requirement because rational people wouldn't agree to a rule that demands too much of them. In conclusion, the Social Contract Theory helps answer complex moral questions by emphasizing mutual agreement and rational behavior. It highlights the importance of cooperation, fairness, and realistic expectations in moral decision-making. 6.4.The Problem of Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience involves intentionally breaking laws to protest what are perceived as unjust laws. Famous examples include Mohandas Gandhi's Salt March in India and Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership in the American civil rights movement. Gandhi and his followers broke British laws to protest the control over salt production, while King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott after Rosa Parks was arrested for defying segregation laws. Both used nonviolent resistance but with different goals: Gandhi sought to replace British rule with a new system, while King challenged specific unjust laws but did not question the legitimacy of the U.S. government. King justified civil disobedience as a last resort, arguing that if the legal system is unjust, citizens have a moral obligation to resist even at the cost of breaking the law. 6.5.Difficulties for the Theory Social Contract Theory argues that individuals have an obligation to follow the law as part of a social agreement that brings mutual benefits. However, this theory faces criticism. The first objection is that the theory is based on a historical fiction. It imagines a time when people voluntarily formed a contract to live together under common rules, but this never actually happened. Critics argue that if such an agreement never existed, then the obligations of the theory are not valid. A second objection highlights that the theory fails to account for those who cannot benefit from the social contract, such as infants, nonhuman animals, future generations, and oppressed populations. These groups do not have interests that can be considered in the contract, yet the theory does not provide a moral framework for their protection. Therefore, Social Contract Theory struggles to address moral obligations to those who cannot directly benefit society. 7.The Utilitarian Approach 7.1.The Revolution in Ethics In the late 18th and 19th centuries, many significant changes happened in politics, society, and ethics. The French Revolution and other major events reshaped nations. This time saw the birth of modern concepts like "liberty, equality, and fraternity." As a result, new ethical ideas emerged. One key figure in these changes was Jeremy Bentham, who introduced the idea of Utilitarianism, which focuses on creating as much happiness as possible. According to Bentham, the main goal of morality is to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the most people, not to follow religious or abstract moral rules. John Stuart Mill, Bentham's follower, expanded and refined these ideas. In his book Utilitarianism (1861), Mill argued that morality should aim to increase happiness, not just obey rules. His ideas changed how we think about ethics. Morality, for Mill and Bentham, is not about following divine commands or rigid laws, but about improving human well-being in this world. Practical Issues and Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, as a revolutionary idea, applies to real-life issues. It asks: how can we make the world better by promoting happiness? For example, it challenges us to think about issues like euthanasia, marijuana use, and the treatment of animals. Utilitarians believe in acting to maximize happiness, even if that means breaking traditional rules. Ultraism in Ethics Ultraism is the idea of acting in a way that maximizes the greatest happiness for the most people, which goes beyond individual interests. It's a more extreme form of utilitarianism that can sometimes demand sacrifices or even actions that might not seem "moral" under traditional systems. We'll be focusing on understanding how this principle can influence ethical decisions and the real-world application of these ideas. In applying the principles of Utilitarianism to real-world issues, philosophers have examined how these ideas can influence practices and policies. Some of the most debated topics include euthanasia, the use of marijuana, and the treatment of nonhuman animals. Utilitarianism asks whether actions in these areas promote the greatest happiness and well-being, not just for humans but for all sentient beings. Let's explore how utilitarian thought can be used to address these complex ethical questions. 7.2.First Example: Euthanasia Euthanasia, the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, can be viewed from different ethical perspectives. Sigmund Freud's case, where his physician helped him end his life due to unbearable suffering from cancer, provides a real-world example of euthanasia. Freud, in his final days, was in immense pain and had requested his physician, Max Schur, to assist in his death. Freud’s condition was so severe that he preferred death to continued suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, Schur's actions could be considered morally right because they brought an end to Freud's misery, which outweighed any potential harm caused by the action. In contrast, the Christian moral tradition views euthanasia as wrong because it involves the intentional killing of an innocent person. Christianity teaches that only God has the authority to end life. This is in direct conflict with the utilitarian approach, which focuses on the balance of happiness and unhappiness. From a utilitarian point of view, euthanasia is acceptable when it ends significant suffering and promotes happiness. Bentham, a key utilitarian philosopher, believed that if people viewed God as benevolent, they would agree with the utilitarian approach to euthanasia, as it aims to reduce suffering. While euthanasia remains illegal in many countries, utilitarianism suggests that it should be legalized if it aligns with the goal of reducing suffering. Bentham argued that laws should promote the welfare of citizens without unnecessary restrictions. He opposed laws that prevent activities like euthanasia when no harm is caused to others. Mill, another utilitarian thinker, expressed that laws should only restrict individual freedom to prevent harm to others. Therefore, in the case of euthanasia, if no harm is done to others, it should not be restricted by law. 7.3.Second Example: Marijuana The issue of marijuana use has sparked significant debate, particularly in relation to its morality. William Bennett, America’s first "drug czar," strongly opposed drug use, stating that drug use is wrong by nature. However, from a utilitarian perspective, this view does not consider whether drug use increases or decreases happiness. Utilitarians would focus on whether marijuana enhances happiness or brings harm. The main benefit of marijuana, according to utilitarianism, is the pleasure it provides. Marijuana is known to be relaxing and can enhance the enjoyment of activities like eating, listening to music, and having sex, which contributes to increased happiness. However, there are some concerns about marijuana's potential harms. First, marijuana is not a "gateway drug," nor is it highly addictive, being less addictive than caffeine. Still, heavy use can cause cognitive damage, make individuals unproductive, and negatively affect the respiratory system when smoked. Despite these disadvantages, the casual use of marijuana is not seen as a moral issue for utilitarians, as it brings no significant harm. When it comes to heavy use, utilitarians may disagree on whether the pleasure gained outweighs the disadvantages, as it depends on the individual. Utilitarians also consider the broader societal impact of marijuana use and whether it should be legalized. The fact that many people enjoy marijuana is a strong reason for legalization. If marijuana were legalized, more people would use it, but it might replace alcohol, which has more severe negative effects, including higher levels of violence and health problems. Legalizing marijuana could also generate tax revenue and save money spent on criminal enforcement, which currently costs society billions of dollars. Moreover, legalizing marijuana would prevent the harm caused by arrests and imprisonment for marijuana-related offenses. On the whole, utilitarians favor the legalization of marijuana, as it appears to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. However, they remain open to adjusting their view if new evidence emerges suggesting that marijuana is more harmful than previously thought. 7.4.Third Example: Nonhuman Animals The treatment of nonhuman animals has traditionally been viewed as insignificant. Many Christian beliefs suggest that humans are the only creatures made in God's image and that animals lack souls. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, humans can use animals however they wish, as they are created for human benefit. However, Aquinas also acknowledges that cruelty to animals can be wrong, but only because it may harm humans, not because it harms animals themselves. This traditional view allows humans to treat animals in any way, often using them for food, clothing, entertainment, and experiments. In contrast, utilitarian philosophers like Bentham argue that animals deserve moral consideration based on their ability to experience happiness or suffering, rather than their rationality or status as humans. Bentham famously stated that the ability of animals to suffer, not their reasoning or ability to talk, is what matters morally. For utilitarians, human and nonhuman animals are equally entitled to moral concern. While humans may have unique capacities, such as enjoying intellectual pleasures, animals' suffering should be treated with equal importance. In the 1970s, Richard D. Ryder coined the term “speciesism” to describe the idea that animal interests are less important than human interests. Utilitarians argue that this kind of discrimination is morally wrong. They point out the severe suffering caused by animal experimentation, such as the use of dogs, rats, and chimpanzees in painful studies, and question whether these experiments result in greater happiness or prevent more harm. If the suffering caused to the animals does not lead to significant benefits, then the experiments are morally unacceptable. Moreover, many people unknowingly support cruelty by consuming meat. Farm animals, particularly veal calves, are often kept in cruel, inhumane conditions. These animals suffer greatly before being slaughtered, with no compensating benefits for their suffering. The utilitarian stance is clear: such practices should end. People should either adopt vegetarianism or ensure that animals are treated humanely before being killed. The most revolutionary aspect of this argument is the recognition that nonhuman animals' interests deserve moral consideration. Utilitarianism challenges the common belief that only humans are worthy of moral concern. An adequate morality, according to utilitarianism, must recognize that all creatures capable of suffering should be included in the moral community. In conclusion, utilitarianism advocates for a moral framework that includes the well-being of nonhuman animals. It calls for a shift in how humans view and treat animals, urging a more compassionate approach that considers their suffering alongside that of humans. By expanding moral concern to all sentient beings, we can create a more just and humane society for all creatures. 8. The Debate over Utilitarianism 8.1. The Classical Version of the Theory Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three proposi tions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the con sequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consid eration.” This means that equal amounts of happiness always count equally; nobody’s well-being matters more just because he is rich, let’s say, or powerful, or handsome. Morally, every one counts the same. According to Classical Utilitarianism, an action is right if it produces the greatest overall balance of hap piness over unhappiness. Classical Utilitarianism was developed and defended by three of the greatest philosophers in 19th-century England: Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), and Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900). Thanks in part to their work, Utilitarianism has had a profound influence on modern think ing. Most moral philosophers, however, reject the theory. In what follows, we will discuss some of the objections that have made the theory unpopular. In examining these arguments, we will also be pondering some of the deepest questions in ethical theory 8.2.Is Pleasure All That Matters? The question "What things are good?" is different from "What actions are right?". Utilitarianism connects these two questions by stating that right actions produce the most good. But what is considered good? According to utilitarians, the answer is happiness, which Mill describes as the ultimate goal: “Happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end.” For classical utilitarians, happiness equals pleasure, broadly defined to include any enjoyable mental state, such as a sense of accomplishment or the thrill of a suspenseful moment. This idea, known as Hedonism, views pleasure as the ultimate good and pain as the ultimate evil. While this perspective has historical support in philosophy, it faces criticism. Examples Challenging Hedonism Two examples highlight the flaws in this theory: 1. The Fake Friend: If someone pretends to be your friend but ridicules you behind your back, Hedonism argues that no harm occurs if you never find out and feel no pain. Yet intuitively, we believe something bad has happened because you are being mistreated, regardless of your awareness. 2. The Pianist’s Tragedy: A young pianist loses her ability to play due to an injury. Even if she finds equal pleasure in another activity, like watching hockey, her lost potential to become a great pianist remains a tragedy. The harm exists independently of her feelings about it. Both examples suggest that we value more than just pleasure. Things like friendship and artistic creativity hold intrinsic worth, and their loss is unfortunate even without reduced happiness. Moving Beyond Hedonism Most modern utilitarians reject classical Hedonism. Some avoid defining "good" and simply argue that right actions yield the best outcomes, however measured. Others, like G.E. Moore, propose intrinsic goods such as pleasure, friendship, and aesthetic enjoyment, suggesting that right actions increase these values. Another approach focuses on satisfying people's preferences. While Hedonism has been largely abandoned, contemporary utilitarianism continues to thrive with more nuanced views on what constitutes the good life. 8.3.Are Consequences All That Matter? Utilitarianism evaluates whether an action is right by looking at its consequences. If something other than consequences matters in determining morality, then utilitarianism is flawed. Critics of the theory highlight its shortcomings with three major arguments: 1. Justice Utilitarianism can conflict with the concept of justice, as illustrated by H.J. McCloskey’s example. Imagine a case where falsely accusing an innocent person of a crime could prevent racial riots and save lives. According to utilitarianism, bearing false witness would be justified because it leads to the best overall outcome. However, this violates the principle of treating people fairly based on their circumstances, which is central to justice. Critics argue that utilitarianism fails because it permits unfair treatment for the sake of good consequences. 2. Rights Utilitarianism also clashes with the idea of individual rights, as seen in the case of York v. Story. Police officers violated a woman’s right to privacy by taking and distributing indecent photographs of her. From a utilitarian perspective, if the officers derived more pleasure from their actions than the harm caused to the woman, their behavior could be seen as morally acceptable. However, this conclusion is troubling, as it dismisses her right to privacy. A similar problem arises with a Peeping Tom who secretly photographs a woman without causing her any direct harm. Since only the perpetrator derives happiness, utilitarianism would still deem the action acceptable. Critics argue that this approach enables the “tyranny of the majority,” where the rights of an individual can be ignored if doing so benefits many people. This contradicts the moral importance we place on individual rights. 3. Backward-Looking Reasons Utilitarianism considers only the future consequences of actions, ignoring obligations tied to the past. For instance, if you promised to meet a friend but chose to break the promise because staying home provides slightly more utility, utilitarianism would support this choice. However, most people believe that keeping promises imposes moral obligations that cannot be easily dismissed. This backward-looking perspective applies in other contexts as well: A crime committed in the past is a reason for punishment. A favor received last week is a reason to return the favor. Hurting someone previously creates a moral duty to make amends. By excluding these considerations, utilitarianism appears incomplete, as it fails to account for obligations rooted in past actions. Conclusion These critiques reveal key weaknesses in utilitarianism. Its exclusive focus on consequences overlooks important moral considerations like justice, individual rights, and backward-looking obligations. These limitations suggest that while utilitarianism offers a useful framework, it cannot fully capture the complexity of moral reasoning.