1 / 18

Utilitarianism

Where are we now?. Moral ObjectivismConsequentialism the moral evaluation of action depends on the consequences of those actions. Non-consequentialism the moral evaluation of action does not depend on the consequences.. Utilitarianism: the Basic Idea. Human happiness is the ultimate moral good.Actions should be evaluated according to their consequences. .

bernad
Download Presentation

Utilitarianism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Utilitarianism Weber State University Spring 2007 PHIL 1000

    2. Where are we now? Moral Objectivism Consequentialism – the moral evaluation of action depends on the consequences of those actions. Non-consequentialism – the moral evaluation of action does not depend on the consequences.

    3. Utilitarianism: the Basic Idea Human happiness is the ultimate moral good. Actions should be evaluated according to their consequences.

    4. On the 1st Basic Idea Why should we think that happiness is the most important good? Smith desires fame. Johnson wants money. Jim Bob seeks the quiet farm life.

    5. It’s what we want… In spite of the apparent variety of desires among different people, all of us ultimately only seek one thing: namely, happiness.

    6. On the 2nd Basic Idea An action is morally right insofar as it contributes to the general happiness.

    7. The Robin Hood Example Robin Hood is an outlaw who lives in Sherwood Forest and who fights against the Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin and his band of merry men steal from the rich and give to the poor.

    8. Are Robin’s actions morally correct? Robin breaks the laws. From a utilitarian’s perspective, it’s not important whether Robin breaks the laws or not. Their only concern is whether his actions contribute to the general happiness. If Robin’s actions do contribute, then his stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is morally justified. If Robin’s actions do not contribute, then his stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is morally impermissible.

    9. Happy v. Miserable People? Is Robin Hood morally justified to make some people happy but others miserable? The poor might be happier, but the rich will be very angry.

    10. Strict Egalitarianism When we calculate the consequences of our actions, we need to take into account the happiness of everybody affected. Every person counts as one person. “Net” happiness = happiness an action causes – the unhappiness an action causes.

    11. So… Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is morally justified only if it produces more “net” happiness.

    12. What is happiness? Happiness is defined in terms of pleasure and pain. If I encounter someone experiencing intense pain, it seems natural to describe that person as unhappy. If I encounter someone experiencing pleasant sensations, it seems natural to describe that person as happy.

    13. Two Versions of Utilitarianism Simple Utilitarianism – authored by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832); he advocated a strict quantitative version of utilitarianism. Revised Utilitarianism – authored by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873); he advocated a qualitative version of utilitarianism.

    14. Simple Utilitarianism We can measure all pleasures and pains according to one scale, the Hedonistic Calculus. (premise) Some actions will be rated higher than other actions. (premise) Thus, one should perform the action that results in the highest net happiness for the greatest number, according to the calculus. (1,2)

    15. Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus Intensity – how intense is the pleasure? Duration – how long will the pleasure last? Certainty – how certain are you that the result will be pleasurable? Propinquity – how remote is the pleasure? Fecundity – will the pleasure be followed by more pleasurable sensations? Purity – will the pleasure be followed by painful sensations? Extent – how many others will be affected?

    16. Objections to Simple Utilitarianism Fit for swine. Takes too long.

    17. Revised Utilitarianism Mill’s version of utilitarianism takes up most of simple utilitarianism, except: He believes that all pleasures are not commensurable with each other. Pleasures do not only differ in quantity, but also in quality.

    18. How do we measure the qualitative differences in pleasure? Chess over checkers: Anything that is more intellectually stimulating is more pleasurable, according to Mill. Since chess requires more skill, the pleasure we gain from chess is qualitatively superior to the pleasure we gain from checkers.

    19. Objections to Revised Utilitarianism Lives for headaches Disrespect for individual rights, i.e., peeping Tom case Deathbed promise

More Related