Utilitarianism.docx

Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham Founder of modern utilitarianism Universal principle: ‘It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ o The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do is whatever will prod...

Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham Founder of modern utilitarianism Universal principle: ‘It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ o The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered Happiness defined in terms of the balance of pleasure over pain o ‘Two sovereign master: pleasure and pain; for them alone to point out what we ought to do; on the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects’ Start with factual observation  describe reality as it is (=descriptive statement) o Pain & pleasure are facts of nature (universal), they are immediately understandable by us, we can use them as criterion for moral evaluation  what is right brings more pleasure and less pain, what is bad brings pain  Use pleasure and pain as tools to evaluate what is right and wrong Utilitarianism is centred on a notion of happiness/utility/good and how much of this the action brings to the greatest amount of people, not on the individual human beings o My happiness does not count more than anybody else’s o Rejects natural law Utility = whatever produces pleasure or happiness, and whatever prevents pain or suffering Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality based on measuring, aggregating and calculating happiness o Weighs preferences without judging them – everyone’s preferences count equally o Measure utility on a single scale o ‘cost-benefit analysis’ Natural Law vs. Positive Law Connection to policy making and legal systems Natural law: legal system based on values intrinsic to human nature all people have  inherent rights (natural rights) o Independent of source of natural rights  can be God (religions), nature, reason (Kant), etc. o Aristotle (ex. humas have reason) o Does not depend on circumstances o Bentham: natural laws are nonsense Positive law (law that has been given): law that applies at a certain place and time, obliging or specifying and action o Adopted by proper authority for the government of an organised society o Has specifications  ex. applies at certain time in certain state o It is explicit  written and specified to certain kind of restrictions; concrete o Bentham: only positive rights, i.e. those established and enforced by government, have meaning; rights are the fruits of the law – there are no natural rights Consequentialism The moral quality of an action is to be determined instrumentally  we look at the consequences & evaluate them, relative to circumstances (case by case evaluation) No action is intrinsically wrong by its very nature, regardless of its effects Since the effects of a given policy may change, the moral quality of the policy may change as well lawmakers have to be sensitive to changing social circumstances  o Only positive laws can change  only law system to apply to be able to adjust when circumstance require it Intention and Motive Intention: which consequences the agent wants to bring about o What matters for utilitarianism Ex. ‘saving someone from drowning’ (=intention) because he/she hope to get paid for the trouble intention = what the agent wills to do; it is Mill: motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent. He who saves a fellow from drowning, no matter his motive, does what is morally rights. The morality of the action depends entirely upon the the intention, that is, the foresight of consequences, which constitutes the moral rightness or wrongness of the act’ Motive: what the agent envisions to achieve with those consequences o Ex. saving someone from drowning ‘because he/she hope to get paid for the trouble’ (=motive) o Bentham: from every kind of motive, may proceed actions that are good others that are bad, and others that are indifferent  motive can be good, but consequences can still be bad  this action according to utilitarianism would still be wrong John Stuart Mill Builds on criticism of Bentham: that it seen morally right in utilitarianism to sacrifice people for the sake of greater good Happiness should be looked at more long-term – not case-by-case – and over time respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness o Forcing a person to live according to custom or convention or prevailing opinion is wrong, because it prevents him from achieving the highest end of human life: the full and free development of his human faculties; conformity is the enemy ‘The human faculties of perception, judgement, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preferences are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or in desiring what is best. The mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only by being used … He who lets the worlds, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties.’ Pleasures are not equal – Mill believes it is possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, to asses the quality, not just the quantity or intensity o There are no higher pleasure per se; to determine the amount of pleasure people are asked for example if Queen or Mozart provides more pleasure when listening and see what the most common answer was ‘Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.’ Occasionally we prefer lower pleasure to higher ones: ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig dissatisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.’  the higher pleasures are not higher because we prefer them; we prefer them because we recognise them as higher; We judge Hamlet as great art not because we like it more than lesser entertainments, but because it engages our highest faculties and makes us more fully human The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it o Government may not interfere with individual liberty in order to protect a person from himself, or to impose the majority’s beliefs about how best to live  There is nothing that is intrinsically wrong, ex. homosexuality o Limits of ethics: comes about only when other or the happiness of other people is at stake; but when your are alone & no-one is affected by your actions, you are free to do whatever you want = freedom Criticism Which kind of happiness should we maximise? Immediate? Long-term? Average?... Who do we consider as affected by and action? Where are we setting the boundaries? Does is make sense to add up happiness? How can we share the details & amount of our feelings? Is it possible to capture all values by a common currency of value?  utilitarianism argue that many social choices implicitly trade off some number of lives for other goods and conveniences; human life has its price whether we admit it or not  placing monetary value on human life is a taboo that obstructs clear thinking and rational social choice How do we foresee the consequences? Intension = foresight of the consequences Utilitarianism fails to respect individual right; Individuals matters, but only in the sense that each person’s preferences should be counted along with everyone else’s  even the most ardent advocate of human rights would have a hard time insisting it is morally preferable to let vast numbers of innocent people die than to torture a single terrorist suspect who may know where the bomb is hidden