Assess UtilitarianismEssay Preview: Assess UtilitarianismReport this essayUtilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, is a philosophy that advocates mass pleasure for the majority. Although some utilitarian theories seek to maximise pleasurable consequences, (Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism), others seek to encourage rules that are seen as “right” (Rule Utilitarianism). However, all types of utilitarianism are defined by the principle of utility – “…the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people”.
Two proprietors of utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both having slightly different views on what utilitarianism actually is. While Bentham thought that pleasure itself was intrinsically good, whatever form it may take, Mill argued that cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures were of greater value than mere physical pleasure, because the former would be valued more highly by competent judges than the latter. This separation of views led to the division of utilitarianism into its many sub-categories: Classic/Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Negative Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, Preference Utilitarianism and Ideal Utilitarianism.
Classic/ Hedonistic Utilitarianism states that pleasure/happiness is the only goon thing in itself. All other things are only �good’ as far as they produce pleasure/happiness; they are instrumentally good in that they produce pleasure. However, there are many problems with hedonistic utilitarianism. An argument to be brought forward is that classical utilitarians cannot explain our obligations to keep promises and not to lie when no pain is caused or pleasure is lost. Because of this, hedonistic utilitarians will have no difficulty in lying if it will not diminish their pleasure. If the world followed hedonistic utilitarian values, then deceit will be commonplace, leading to a lack of trust between people, which will eventually lead to absolutely no faith between human beings. This will mean that pleasures cannot be shared, thus pain will ensue. Although this may seem far-fetched, the disvalue of faith/ trust between neighbours can easily be brought up as an argument against hedonistic utilitarianism.
Negative Utilitarianism declares that the primary moral duty is to reduce the total amount of suffering/harm in the world rather than to promote pleasure. The motivation for this view was to avoid the problems with hedonistic utilitarianism, as lies cannot be justified if they promote negativity. One possible problem with this theory is that if the focus of ones life is to eliminate pain/suffering, then the annihilation of the human race would be acceptable, as pollution, destruction of rainforests and consummation of earths natural resources would cease and desist.
Act Utilitarianism establishes the need for the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. In each situation, we calculate which action will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The problem with this is that if one wishes to follow act utilitarianism completely, then the time-consuming calculation of utility needs to be performed for every deed. Rule Utilitarianism was devised in order to combat this problem. We know from experience that certain types of act will promote either pleasure or pain, so the rules devised to diminish pain should be the ones followed. Rule Utilitarianism isn’t without its flaws however; it has been criticised for condemning general rules that in some situations would promote happiness, e.g. killing in self-defence.
In conclusion, the principle of “Act Utilitarianism applies to all cases that involve the elimination of coercion: there are more problems in fact, that’s all.” This is just one of many examples that are of importance. Whether or not you agree with this principle, the fact remains that there are actually two main principles that we need to have in place to provide a reliable standard for deciding which actions provide pleasure and pain in the first place. That is to say, the best rules do all the heavy lifting in determining which actions can be beneficial or painless – if not pain, then that’s because those actions are the most likely to provide pleasure or pain. We should not overlook that some of the best decisions are actually more subjective than others, and that if a rule is too arbitrary or that we were to be wrong, then the rule does not apply. In a similar manner, moral principle in general tends to be wrong; the “pragmatic” moral principle applies to rules that take into account the subjective evaluation, not the scientific principle that you should choose the right “right” action in the right circumstances. For those that feel strongly about the validity of our choices, and the ethical principle of free will, there is no doubt that we should not over-generalize moral principles. Instead, we should be careful to note when we judge our decisions to be very close to moral standards, and also when we are very careful to interpret and apply them in the light of scientific considerations.
Acknowledgements We are very grateful that Dr. G. Stahl for providing me with a free copy of a chapter.
Translated by David S. Ritteri: “Law and Ethics & Principles of Ethical Society for the Philosophers of Moral Philosophy, by David R. Ritteri, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Eton, Stephen D., 1988. The Ethics of Emotions: An Introductory Companion to the Foundations of Moral Philosophy, 6th Edition, Penguin, 2003.
“What is to become of our moral system?” The ethical historian John Gee, writing for the Bulletin of Philosophy at the Society for the Scientific Study of Human Decision Making, has an interesting answer to this question. Gee says that: “If a moral system is to be understood as a system of principles, then its final rule must be that all social forms owe to it such principles as those that can best serve the common good as a means of satisfying each other, and, crucially, to establish an ethics which is truly an ethical life.” It is therefore important to note that some of the ethical system’s principles are quite different than those of many other ethical systems. For example, Gee takes for granted that “the individual ought to take responsibility for his conduct”; that he has responsibility for himself, especially if he acts ethically, and that he is responsible only for the behavior of others.” These ideas stand in stark contrast to certain popular ethical philosophy. While I believe that there are many moral systems in all its aspects, most ethical philosophers think that moral values are a natural state that each individual wants to develop. (
In conclusion, the principle of “Act Utilitarianism applies to all cases that involve the elimination of coercion: there are more problems in fact, that’s all.” This is just one of many examples that are of importance. Whether or not you agree with this principle, the fact remains that there are actually two main principles that we need to have in place to provide a reliable standard for deciding which actions provide pleasure and pain in the first place. That is to say, the best rules do all the heavy lifting in determining which actions can be beneficial or painless – if not pain, then that’s because those actions are the most likely to provide pleasure or pain. We should not overlook that some of the best decisions are actually more subjective than others, and that if a rule is too arbitrary or that we were to be wrong, then the rule does not apply. In a similar manner, moral principle in general tends to be wrong; the “pragmatic” moral principle applies to rules that take into account the subjective evaluation, not the scientific principle that you should choose the right “right” action in the right circumstances. For those that feel strongly about the validity of our choices, and the ethical principle of free will, there is no doubt that we should not over-generalize moral principles. Instead, we should be careful to note when we judge our decisions to be very close to moral standards, and also when we are very careful to interpret and apply them in the light of scientific considerations.
Acknowledgements We are very grateful that Dr. G. Stahl for providing me with a free copy of a chapter.
Translated by David S. Ritteri: “Law and Ethics & Principles of Ethical Society for the Philosophers of Moral Philosophy, by David R. Ritteri, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Eton, Stephen D., 1988. The Ethics of Emotions: An Introductory Companion to the Foundations of Moral Philosophy, 6th Edition, Penguin, 2003.
“What is to become of our moral system?” The ethical historian John Gee, writing for the Bulletin of Philosophy at the Society for the Scientific Study of Human Decision Making, has an interesting answer to this question. Gee says that: “If a moral system is to be understood as a system of principles, then its final rule must be that all social forms owe to it such principles as those that can best serve the common good as a means of satisfying each other, and, crucially, to establish an ethics which is truly an ethical life.” It is therefore important to note that some of the ethical system’s principles are quite different than those of many other ethical systems. For example, Gee takes for granted that “the individual ought to take responsibility for his conduct”; that he has responsibility for himself, especially if he acts ethically, and that he is responsible only for the behavior of others.” These ideas stand in stark contrast to certain popular ethical philosophy. While I believe that there are many moral systems in all its aspects, most ethical philosophers think that moral values are a natural state that each individual wants to develop. (
In conclusion, the principle of “Act Utilitarianism applies to all cases that involve the elimination of coercion: there are more problems in fact, that’s all.” This is just one of many examples that are of importance. Whether or not you agree with this principle, the fact remains that there are actually two main principles that we need to have in place to provide a reliable standard for deciding which actions provide pleasure and pain in the first place. That is to say, the best rules do all the heavy lifting in determining which actions can be beneficial or painless – if not pain, then that’s because those actions are the most likely to provide pleasure or pain. We should not overlook that some of the best decisions are actually more subjective than others, and that if a rule is too arbitrary or that we were to be wrong, then the rule does not apply. In a similar manner, moral principle in general tends to be wrong; the “pragmatic” moral principle applies to rules that take into account the subjective evaluation, not the scientific principle that you should choose the right “right” action in the right circumstances. For those that feel strongly about the validity of our choices, and the ethical principle of free will, there is no doubt that we should not over-generalize moral principles. Instead, we should be careful to note when we judge our decisions to be very close to moral standards, and also when we are very careful to interpret and apply them in the light of scientific considerations.
Acknowledgements We are very grateful that Dr. G. Stahl for providing me with a free copy of a chapter.
Translated by David S. Ritteri: “Law and Ethics & Principles of Ethical Society for the Philosophers of Moral Philosophy, by David R. Ritteri, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Eton, Stephen D., 1988. The Ethics of Emotions: An Introductory Companion to the Foundations of Moral Philosophy, 6th Edition, Penguin, 2003.
“What is to become of our moral system?” The ethical historian John Gee, writing for the Bulletin of Philosophy at the Society for the Scientific Study of Human Decision Making, has an interesting answer to this question. Gee says that: “If a moral system is to be understood as a system of principles, then its final rule must be that all social forms owe to it such principles as those that can best serve the common good as a means of satisfying each other, and, crucially, to establish an ethics which is truly an ethical life.” It is therefore important to note that some of the ethical system’s principles are quite different than those of many other ethical systems. For example, Gee takes for granted that “the individual ought to take responsibility for his conduct”; that he has responsibility for himself, especially if he acts ethically, and that he is responsible only for the behavior of others.” These ideas stand in stark contrast to certain popular ethical philosophy. While I believe that there are many moral systems in all its aspects, most ethical philosophers think that moral values are a natural state that each individual wants to develop. (
Like any utilitarian theory, Preference Utilitarianism claims that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences for the greatest amount of people, and that actions should be defined by choosing something that is defined by ones preferential satisfaction; what somebody wants is more important than what is pleasurable. For example, if rumours were being spread about a person behind their back, destroying their reputation, but not directly affecting them in any way, this (according to a hedonistic utilitarian) would not be wrong, as that person is not receiving any negative backlash from this act. However, a preference utilitarian would declare this wrong, as that persons preference would be to have a good reputation.
Lastly, Ideal Utilitarianism defines “pleasure” as certain ends that are good in themselves and therefore should be promoted. These acts usually include things like acknowledging beauty, fine art, and study.
In order to fully differentiate the differences between utilitarianism, “The Tram Problem” is presented:“A tram is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the tram down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?”
The Hedonistic Utilitarian would choose to flip the switch, as the lives and the future pleasures of the many outweigh the lives and the future pleasures of the few, something the Negative Utilitarian, the Ideal Utilitarian and the Preference Utilitarian would agree with. However, the Act Utilitarian has problems figuring out the choice; during the calculation of utility, the lifestyles