Utilitarianism

Question 1

What is ACT utilitarianism

Answer 1

from BENTHAM
form of ethical naturalism grounded on the basis of pleasure and pain which he describes as two ‘sovereign masters’ (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

Question 2

Principle of utility

Answer 2

we should always seek to achieve the ‘greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people’

Question 3

RULE utilitarianism

Answer 3

from MILL
quality of pleasure rather than the quantity of it.
believes that certain actions produce more pleasure than others and sorts them into higher and lower pleasures

Question 4

Hedonic calculus

Answer 4

ACT UTILITARIANISM
7 factors considered before making a decision to calculate amount of pleasure that will be produced
intensity (how strong will the pleasure be?),
duration (how long will the pleasure last?),
extent (how many people will be affected),
uncertainty and certainty (how likely or unlikely the pleasure will occur?),
fecundity (will it lead to more pleasure),
remoteness (how soon will the pleasure occur)
purity ( will the decision lead to pain or be accompanied by pain?)

Question 5

Trolley problem

Answer 5

Philippa Foot’s Trolley Problem
Trolley- person has the choice to save close family (less amount of ppl tho) by pulling the lever or unknown ppl (greater number of ppl)
ACT utilitarianism- save unknown lot

(write her argument)

Question 6

Bentham beliefs abt human nature+ counter

Answer 6

human nature can be taught

BUT those who escaped North Korea even though they have be indoctrinated to believe it is the best country in the world due to their innate desire for freedom and autonomy

Question 7

Mill beliefs on pleasures

Answer 7

acknowledges that not all pleasures are equal.
categorises pleasures into higher pleasures- intellectual activities-> (e.g. studying philosophy) and lower pleasures- pleasures of the body-> (e.g. drinking/eating)

Question 8

Mill quote+ explanations

Answer 8

it is better to be a human dissatisfied then a pig satisfied”
as humans have are capable of doing more things than a pig which can only enjoy basic pleasures- have the ability to understand complex information and strengthen our cognitive abilities
intellectual pleasure> physical pleasures

Question 9

Bernard Williams Jim and Indians scenario

Answer 9

have the choice to kill 1 to save 19 indians or let 19 ppl die
RULE- argue against taking an innocent life even if it creates the highest immediate pleasure
ACT- kill 1 creating greatest number of happiness

Question 10

Thomson’s transplant surgeon dilemma

Answer 10

kill man with no value in life to give organs to ppl that have value/ purpose to more ppl
RULE- stick to the principle that murder is wrong in all circumstances
ACT- kill him to provide greatest number of happiness

Question 11

ADV of ACT utilitarianism

Answer 11

adv
- EQUALITY AND UNIVERSALITY​
perfectly consistent with the golden rule in christianity- ‘So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them’ (Matthew 7:12)
forces ppl to treat everyone equally so removes bias and hypocrisy
counter- is the really ideal everyone living in constant fear of being used as a means to create more happiness or becoming really competitive to add value in their life so they survive in society- creates unhealthy society
ev-

• INTUITIVE TO UNDERSTAND AND APPLY​
  central claim- happiness is good suffering is bad is somethign most ppl undertsnad and agree with
  Richard Chappell- ‘if anything matter morally human well-being surely does’
  ACT ensures people can easily protect the human well-being for the majority as there r no exception for different circumstances- the goal of utilitarianism always remains with trying to make the greatest number of ppl happy
  intuitive as it serves as the basis for much of our day-to-day decision. Bentham- ‘there is not a human being… who has not… on most occcassion of his life defferred to it’. we have all, conciously or unconsciously followed the principle of utility e.g. comprimising on a TV show due to the interests of the majority
  counter-argued it isn’t as easy- what one person thinks would produce the most happiness may differ from another persons’ opinion causing them to make the wrong decision-
• ETHICAL DECISIONS ARE OBJECTIVE
  ethical facts are discoverable and approachable through empiricall methods

Question 12

DISADV of ACT utilitarianism

Answer 12

too much emphasis on individual action​
focuses too much on the act itself instead of the intention. doesn’t allow ppl to understand the true meaning behind a good act but only that it is their duty-> focusing on only consequences problematic as doing an act just to cause immediate happiness can result in bad long-term consequences. E.g. lying to someone saying they look good in an outfit as to not hurt their feelings as oppose to telling them the truth as a result hurting their feelings but allowing them to avoid embarrassment in the future.
Moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to that which is beside the intention- good acts done with the wrong intentions are not truly moral- undermines human responsibility and leads to unjust judgements
Bernard Williams- utilitarianism makes integrity as a value more or less unintelligible.​
- IGNORING JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
blurs the line between right and wrong
van from Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: through his example of making poeple happy on the conditions of torturing one child argues utilitarianism reduces individuals to means to an end and therefore violates individual rights and dignity. using mindset of utilitarianism, heinous crimes could be justified if it provides happiness for the majority of ppl
- IGNORES HUMAN RELATIONS- ignores human nature- altho Bentham thinks human nature can be taught… (North Korea example abt how somepeople act differently from the way they’ve been taught)
counter- can be useful in some cases- e.g. doctor- intentionally ignoring the severity of multiple patients conditions to save someone close to him in a lss severe condition= wrong and goes against hippocratic oath- intentional killed life
EV- used in evryday- lawyers r not allowed to represent family members

Question 13

ADV of RULE utilitarianism

Answer 13

-considers long-term consequences of actions

By categorising good into higher and lower goods can be argued long term goods are considered as improving cognitive ability encourages personal growth and development for the individual, providing them with skills necessary for the future improving their quality of life.

considerate of human dignity-
Mill uses harm principle- individuals should be allowed to do what they want as long as they weren’t harming others, arguing that each individual is in the best position to make themselves happy so if we all allowed each other to do what we want, society would be overall the happiest it could be

Easier for Societal Application-
More practical to apply to society

Question 14

DISADV of RULE utilitarianism

Answer 14

-elitist as the value of pleasures are subjective

physical pleasures may produce more happiness than intellectual ones. e.g. ppl who are illiterate, reading literature may not produce as much happiness as eating their favourite food. so- wrong to consider intellectual pleasures as higher pleasure -> Mill’s approach on Utilitarianism is only valid for those who are educated in society

Conflict between rules- Rules in rule utilitarianism may conflict with each other or produce contradictory outcomes in certain situations. Resolving conflicts between rules can be challenging, as there may not be a clear hierarchy or guideline to determine which rule takes precedence. This ambiguity can lead to confusion and inconsistent moral decision-making e.g. stealing is wrong but if the person is stealing out of desparation is it truly immoral as their protecting their life

-Lack of precision
requires the formulation of general rules that maximise overall utility. However, determining the precise formulation of rules can be difficult and subject to interpretation. The clarity and specificity of rules can vary, leading to differences in understanding and application among individuals.

Having rule based principles can make it absolutist

It is impractical-> many rules conflict so rule Utilitarianism cannot be applied to society e.g. using Kant’s axe murder dilemma, would it be right to uphold the rule to not lie or prevent a human from harm by lying to prevent them from being murdered by the axe murderer
-> does it make sense to allow someone to die in order to uphold rules?

Question 15

Utilitarianism

Answer 15

moral theory that suggests all actions should aim to achieve the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.

Question 16

Crisp’s Haydn and the oyster dilemma

Answer 16

Questions whether we should have a we should value a short but fulfilling life (like haydn’s) or a long pleasureless existence (like the oyster)
-> shows how quality (Mill’s arguement) is more valuable than quantity

Question 17

Harm principle

Answer 17

The harm principle is a secondary principle

->People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others

Question 18

City of Omelas

Answer 18

(book) the ones who walk away from Omelas- Le Guin
->social contract in fictional city where one child suffers so that the rest can be happy
-> act-> no problem with contract provides greatest happiness for the majority
-> rule-> disagree with contract- in long-term parents are constantly worried their child might be chosen to suffer
if fairness is upheld and no child is ever subjected to suffering this worry wouldn’t exist

Question 19

The blacksmith and the baker

Answer 19

(book) The Moral of the Story- Rosenstand
->oldest out of the 2 bakers killed (as punishment) for the blacksmith’s crime since there is only 1good blacksmith but 2 bakers
act-> agree- considers value of life and so provides greatest happiness for majority-> short term
rule- disagree- upholding justice result in a long-term benefit as ppl have the confidence that they will not punished for crimes they didn’t commit