The chief teleological ethical theory today is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is universalistic, not egoistic, teleologi

1. The chief teleological ethical theory today is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is universalistic, not egoistic, teleological ethical theory.

2. Human rights ethics holds that human rights for as many as possible are the standard for judging political action. But rights for as many as possible may not be rights for all. Utilitarian political philosophy holds that the happiness for as many as possible is the standard. But the greatest overall happiness may not be happiness for all.

3. Happiness may mean pleasure, power, aesthetic experience, knowledge, honors, or a balance between these things. Utilitarianism rejects egoism. The standard of individual policy is private self-interest, the standard of public policy is the general welfare.

4. Utilitarianism holds that the happiness of one individual counts no more than the same happiness of another. Thus the happiness of beer is not greater because the President is drinking it.

5. The fact that individuals pursue only self-interest, or that they ought to pursuit self-interest alone, would not show that the state ought not to pursue the general interest. Political ethics may be, and perhaps ought be, different from individual ethics.

6. The state pursues the general good by keeping in mind that individuals pursue their individual goods. (Example: state audits assume that individuals try to pay the least in taxes.) It is in the individual interest of each citizen that the state pursue the common good, not the individual good of anyone.

7. Since the utilitarian standard is the greatest overall happiness, realization of the standard is decreased by the fact that happiness is not shared equally. Not all human beings may be equally capable of happiness.

8. Human beings may all equally capable of pleasure but not of knowledge of aesthetic experience. Thus, after everyone is fed, overall happiness may be increased by museums or concert halls though most people do not attend.

9. The utilitarian standard is not happiness for as many as possible unless the overall amount of happiness in society is not the sole standard, unless the equal distribution of happiness of happiness is part of the ultimate standard. In that case, the standard is beneficence plus justice. The obligation is to distribute the maximum total good, and to do it justly, so that everyone as an equal right to receive good.

10. But beneficence plus justice is no longer strict utilitarianism. Strict utilitarianism is simply maximization of beneficence without consideration of equal distribution.

11. It is unjust for an innocent individual to be convicted just because the public is reassured that the criminal is no longer on the streets. The fact that sacrifice of an innocent person actually advances the general good, the greatest happiness of all does not eliminate the injustice.

12. It is unjust for any individual to be made into a scapegoat. This violates the human right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

13. If you knew you lived in a society in which you could be a scapegoat, you would live in fear. Instead of looking for the truth, would you not try to make others into scapegoats in order to protect yourself?

14. It is unjust for anyone to be sacrificed on the altar of the common good. It is therefore unjust to sacrifice innocent individuals to the general good in the form of national security. But does any injustice occur if you voluntarily sacrifice yourself for the common good?

15. It is unjust to sacrifice lives in war as collateral damage on the pretext that doing so is the most convenient way to pursue world security. This is unjust unless world security could not have been attained with less overall loss of life. However, less overall loss of life might mean a somewhat greater loss of life on our side.

16. So strict utilitarianism�without the addition of an equal human right to whatever good is required to exercise freedom of thought�unjust. This criterion of justice used in human rights ethics supposes that everyone has an equal right to whatever good is needed for freedom of thought.

17. Human rights ethics holds that the only standard for political action is the equal distribution of basic rights. And the only moral standard for individual action is respect for basic rights. Is respect for the basic rights of individuals advanced by promoting special responsibility for individuals by members of their families? If so, do family obligations ever detract from respect for human rights?

18. So if the state does good, doing these good works is justified only because people must enjoy a certain amount of good in order to exercise rights. Any happiness beyond what is needed by individuals in order to exercise human rights is morally unjustified. Luxuries that obstruct the exercise of human rights by others can be morally obscene happiness.

19. Utilitarianism is teleological political ethics: that law or policy is right which which in fact has the best result in general happiness. Human rights ethics is deontological political ethics: that policy or law is right which comes closest to respecting universal right to freedom of thought.

20. In the case of human rights ethics as well as utilitarianism, morally speaking politicians should not decide public policy by themselves. Politicians should make decisions only with the aid of experts, especially socially scientists.

21. Freedom of thought in dialogue intrinsically aims at the discovery of truth, but is not justified by any resulting discoveries. Dialogue is pursued for its own sake.

22. Truth is the intent of dialogue, but dialogue is justified over monologue by the seriousness of its intent of attaining truth even if truth does not result.

23. As utilitarians we would not say that that capital punishment is justified by the intent of reducing crime even if no reduction of crime occurred. It can be justified only by actual results of protecting society from the criminal, deterring future criminals, or rehabilitation.

24. Since doing good is the final standard for strict utilitarians, they have no answer to the question �Why do good?� If they had an answer, doing good would no longer be their ultimate standard.

25. Cost-benefit Analysis The end justifies the means? Yes, IF the end is really attained, IF the good of the end outweighs the evil of the means, and IF no cheaper means are available.

26. Cost-benefit Analysis Applied to Capital Punishment Capital punishment is intrinsically evil. Protecting society from the criminal and deterrence of crime by others are intrinsically good.

27. But does this particular intrinsic good outweigh this particular intrinsic evil? Does capital punishment really protect and deter? And could the protection and deterrence have been achieved at less cost?

28. Jeremy Bentham was a hedonistic utilitarian. He believed that by a hedonistic calculation it was possible to see how much good was produced by each policy. He tried to eliminate laws that did not maximize pleasure. Example: Imposing stiff punishment on starving persons who steal bread deceases pleasure because starving people are still going to steal bread. In fact it is impossible to say how much more or less pleasure is found in poetry than in beer.

29. Pleasures, for Bentham, differ in: Duration Purity Intensity Fedundity

30. PETER SINGER If utilitarians cannot increase happiness, they at least want to reduce suffering. They then pursue the least unhappiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is most persuasive when it takes a stand against pointless suffering that is not a means to any greater good. The conscience of any morally sensitive human being is horrified by pointless suffering.

31. DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? For suffering not to be pointless three conditions are necessary: 1. The suffering must actually produce some good. (It is not enough to say that it does so.) 2. The value of the end/good must be greater than the disvalue of the suffering or means. 3. There must be no cheaper means to that good.

32. Unjustifiable suffering may include the suffering imposed on animals in slaughter houses. If suffering is bad, why is it any less bad when it is the suffering of animals? Thus strict utilitarianism assign to animals an apparent equal right not to suffer. An animal lacks an actual right not to suffer only if its suffering is really necessary to a maximum happiness through all sentient creatures or minimum of overall pain.

33. Feelings of compassion for the suffering of others, including animals, must according to utilitarianism itself be judged objectively maximizes happiness or minimizes general suffering. So feelings of compassion or moral rage establish only our prima face moral duty, not our actual duty. Utilitarianism hold that determining what the state ought to do be depends on investigation, not immediate feeling. But ethics does depend on the immediate feeling that suffering is intrinsically bad.

34. Is the statement �suffering is intrinsically bad� self-evident? Is the truth of any statement self-evident? If it is not self-evident, it is open to discussion. To assert that it is self-evident is then dogmatic.

35. Some forms of low-intensity suffering may be intrinsically good in simultaneously lending depth to certain statements by suffering individuals. So the original �Suffering is intrinsically bad� has to be qualified How do we know that further discussion will not lead to further qualification?

36. John Stuart Mill distinguished between quantity and quality of pleasure. Pleasure from classical music is higher in quality than pleasure from beer, and is morally better. Aristocratic pleasures are superior to common pleasures. But this is to cancel the strict utilitarian standard, since something counts in judging actions other than merely pleasure.

37. Mill advocated freedom of thought because it advanced the greatest general good. Thus the right to freedom of thought became subordinate to utilitarianism. Freedom of thought corrects mistakes that cause human unhappiness. For, Mill, if utilitarianism is not justified, the right to freedom of thought is not justified.

38. CRITIQUE OF MILL�S ON LIBERTY: But what justifies utilitarianism if not a right to freedom of thought that is independent of utilitarianism? The freedom of thought that is used to justify utilitarianism can (without circularity) be the freedom of though that Mill justifies by utilitarianism.

39. WHAT IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD? THE GREATEST COMMON GOOD? OR THE ETHICS OF RATIONAL DISCUSSION?

40. Either utilitarianism is unjustified by any argument or there is a non-utilitarian right to freedom of thought exercised in the justification of utilitarianism. Either utilitarianism is unjustified by any discussion or it is justified by the higher standard of freedom thought guiding all discussion. But then it is not ultimately justified, at least it is not justified as the final standard.