|
|
Use the DARM approach below to really ensure an A grade! 1. DERIVATION - how do utilitarians derive the idea of goodness? They seem to move from a psychological fact, a given of human nature, to the idea that this fact (eg we pursue pleasure) is good. The theory is empirical, based on a calculation, can you explain how? (eg bentham maximises pleasure using the calculation of the felicific or hedonic calculus). They have a thoery of intrinsic goodness - pleasure or happiness are good in themselves. But what of duty? 2. APPLICATION - remember Jim and the Indians? Bernard Williams argues when we try to apply utilitarian ethics we become cold, caluclating machines, without moral integrity. Would I really choose to save a drowning scientist rather than my own rather dull child? What about my loyalties and duties? Maybe it works better lookign backwards than forwards, as Tony Blair found over the Iraq war. Claire Rayner's testimony is useful here - she tells us what it was like before the Abortion Act of 1967 - human misery caused by illegal abortions was considerable. Add a comment
ROADMAP: hyperlinked ► Issues ► Podcast
I ____________________________________________ I I I pleasure calculus equality happiness qualitative justice interests persons universal
♦ PPT Act ♦ PPT Rule Roger Crisp on the origins of utilitarianism? Gordon Preece critique of Singer? Bentham full reading list? Brilliant article on the philosophical meaning of happiness? Add a comment
Utilitarian ethics is an empirical theory which aims to measure the likely future consequences of an action (hence consequentialism) in terms of pleasure (hedonic utiliarians), or happiness. These are intrinsic goods - everything else is relative to one of these two measures of goodness. So the good action is one that maximises pleasure over pain for the most people, or happiness over misery. Bentham's utilitarian ethics judges actions by the balance of pleasure over pain. Here is a brilliant summary of the logic of his book The Principles and Morals of Legislation. But do we really think it's morally right to pop soma pleasure tablets (extract 1) or hook up to JC Smart's pleasure machine? Bentham believed pleasure could be measured by a seven-fold criteria he called the hedonic calculus, and even composed a little poem to help you and me remember it.
Mill's view of happiness was much closer to the Aristotelean emphasis on character (see extract Secondly, Mill was very aware of the criticism that utiltarianism tramples over individual rights. See, for example, the story of the Ones who Walk Away from Omelas (a supposed utilitarian paradise with echoes of the novel and film The Beach). He was keen to demonstrate that if the Government, to take a contemporary example, pursued a rendition policy, such that any terror suspect would be removed to Egypt for a painful torture, it would diminish society generally because we would all be nervous in case I was the next one on the plane. So certain rules of justice needed to be put in place to guarantee a happy society. Mill is known as a weak rule utilitarian because although he argues for rules to guarantee a feeling of security, he nonetheless allows us to break rules when there is a strong act utilitarian case for it in these particular circumstances. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism acknowledges that both happiness and pleasure are hard to define and measure - so why not take a vote on what you prefer? Maximise people's first preferences as far as possible and you escape the measurement problem - you just need to be able to count. Article 1 explains in summary some of Singer's views. A more detailed critique is given by Mark Oppenheimer in Article 2. Mill claimed his life was saved from a nervous breakdown in his twenties by reading Wordsworth, so I've included Wordsworth's Happy Warrior to see if it would save your life (extract 6). Can utilitarian ethics escape the two major criticisms, that it tramples over individual rights and that future consequences are impossible to predict? Add a comment
ISSUES: use the DARM approach below to ensure an A grade! 1. DERIVATION - How do utilitarians derive the idea of goodness? They seem to move from a psychological fact, a given of human nature, to the idea that this fact (eg we pursue pleasure) is good. The theory is empirical, based on a calculation, can you explain how? (eg Bentham maximises pleasure using the calculation of the felicific or hedonic calculus). They have a theory of intrinsic goodness - pleasure or happiness are good in themselves. But what of duty? 2. APPLICATION - Remember Jim and the Indians? Bernard Williams argues when we try to apply utilitarian ethics we become cold, caluclating machines, without moral integrity. Would I really choose to save a drowning scientist rather than my own rather dull child? What about my loyalties and duties? Maybe utilitarianism works better looking backwards than forwards, as Tony Blair found over the Iraq war. Claire Rayner's testimony is useful here - she tells us what it was like before the Abortion Act of 1967 - human misery caused by illegal abortions was considerable. We can know that: we were looking backwards. 3. REALISM - Am I really motivated by pleasure alone? Is it realistic for me to make an on the spot calculation of likely consequences? What if I lack wisdom and experience? Is Mill's attempt to get round this by arguing for rules of thumb that I generally follow, satisfactory? Is it realistic to expect me to place my interests behind the majority interest, if a utilitarian case requires it? Should all of us really be expected to give away to the poor 25% of our income (Singer's argument)? 4. MOTIVATION - Why should I be moral? For a utilitarian, being moral means adopting a neutral, impartial, spectator viewpoint, what Singer calls the "universal viewpoint". Mills seems to argue I will do this out of sympathy for my fellow human beings, that "in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth is the whole principle of utility" . Mill concedes this will require a certain "nobleness of character". In the end, do I have the motivation to seek the universal common good of maximising social welfare? Add a comment
Click here for Roger Crisp's excellent podcast on Bentham and Mill, explaining the hedonistic view of Bentham and Mill. Can we measure pleasure? How did Bentham's pupil, Mill, react against this view? Note: Roger Crisp maintains Mill always remained a hedonistic act utilitarian whereas many would argue, following J.O. Urmson, Mill moves on to become a eudaimonistic rule utilitarian, with views nearer to Aristotle. In my handout I side with Urmson - I think Mill was a eudaimonistic rule utilitarian. A finite amount of intellectual pleasures are better, Mill believed, than a lifetime of eating Mars Bars. (13 minutes) Add a commentMore Articles... |
"I just want to say, again, a heartfelt thank you to you for all the hard work you have done to create the Philosophical Investigations website. Your generosity in sharing these fantastic resources is quite humbling. My teaching (and my students' learning) will benefit greatly and the resources will, I'm sure, have an impact on re-invigorating the popularity of the subject beyond AS and A2. Well done." Helen Latham, RS teacher
© PhilosophicalInvestigations.co.uk