Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Problems with calculation Can we know the consequences of an action? Bentham: –the principle of utility ‘approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish … happiness’ –It is much easier to work out the consequences that actions ‘tend’ to have –We needn’t pursue the felicific calculus every time
Citation preview
Hedonist act utilitarianism
• Act consequentialism: Actions are morally right or wrong depending on their consequences and nothing else. An act is right if it maximises what is good.
• Value theory: The only thing that is good is happiness.
• Equality: Everyone’s happiness counts more than anyone else’s.
Problems with calculation
• Can we know the consequences of an action?
• Bentham: – the principle of utility ‘approves or
disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish … happiness’
– It is much easier to work out the consequences that actions ‘tend’ to have
– We needn’t pursue the felicific calculus every time
Mill’s secondary principles
• Mill: happiness is ‘much too complex and indefinite’ a standard for us to apply directly to actions in many cases
• But humanity has worked this out over time, giving our moral rules (‘secondary principles’)– ‘Don’t steal’: because it tends to produce more
unhappiness than happiness• If two secondary principles conflict, then we
should appeal to the greatest happiness principle
Individual liberty and rights
• No type of action is ruled out as immoral– Torturing a child for fun is wrong,
even in circumstances where this gives more happiness than not torturing the child
– What makes it wrong is not that this balance of happiness is unlikely
• Happiness isn’t always good?
Individual liberty and rights
• Moral rights place restrictions on how people can treat each other– Right to life: other people mustn’t kill
me– Right to liberty: I may act as I choose
as long as this respects other people’s rights
– Rights must be respected even when this does not maximize happiness
• But do we have any moral rights?
The value of motives and character
• Utilitarianism doesn’t recognize the moral value of either our motives for acting or virtuous character traits
• Mill’s reply: utilitarianism says these are not relevant to whether an action is right, but that does not mean they are morally irrelevant
• A good motive or virtue is one that tends to produce morally right actions
• It is important to be made happy by maximizing happiness
Particular relationships• Everyone’s happiness counts equally.
My happiness, and the happiness of those I love, has no special weight in guiding my actions– This is too idealistic (demanding)– This wrongly condemns partiality
• Visiting a friend in hospital; rescuing one’s wife from drowning – just a means to maximize happiness?
Particular relationships• Friendship requires that the friend
is valued as the individual person that they are, and that we act out of love for them
• Benefiting a friend is morally good• Therefore, utilitarianism is false – it
is not wrong not to maximize happiness
