Greg Detre
Thursday, May 17, 2001
Jeremy Watkins, Hertford
Ethics IV
Does any form of
consequentialism escape fatal criticism?
John Stuart Mill � Utilitarianism
David Ross � The Right and the Good, ch 2
Samuel Scheffler
Jonathan Dancy � Moral Reasons, ch 13
Derek Parfit � Reasons and Persons, sections 10-18, 24-29
Peter Singer
contrary to moral intuitions
infeasible to calculate; pleasures are incommensurable, incomparable between people
aren�t some actions inherently more valuable than others (quality, not just intensity/degree)
distributive - rights, justice, fairness, inequality < expedience
integrity (personal priorities, commitments)
ignores motive
can�t distinguish/recommend good preferences vs bad preferences
treats people as just vessels of utility
requires people to be saints
experience machine
no room for social reform for better preferences
Bentham separated what he considered legalistic notions of duty and rights from morality � an action was right (or at least not wrong)
Some theories disconnect the criterion for right action and the decision procedure.
Alternatively, we might argue that there are indeed quite different types of pleasure, but that they can all be mapped onto a basic, universal scale of intensity, like Bentham�s. However, we might find that the law of diminishing returns redresses the balance between different pleasures, giving rise to a natural mix of the sensual, artistic and intellectual. After all, although base pleasures can be amusing, they can also become tiresome. Although Mill�s strict Victorianism might refuse to yield to the idea of pleasures as qualitiatively identical, if we were to simply rank pleasures on the basis of how pleasurable they are, a balance between different types of pleasure would emerge, as
not be happy to� by incorporating satiety with one type of pleasure over time
no mention of motive, rather than just consequences
is there any way that utilitarianism can accommodate morally indifferent acts, e.g. watching the TV, even though we could be out there doing something for charity with the time
could you not have a threshold � actions of a certain, insignificant badenss are fine, e.g. watching the TV, and but all actions worse than that consequentially are very bad, while all actions better than that are at least ok or even very good
how important is justice??? might it not be just how our moral system usually, but not necessarily always, works, that we have got very used to, i.e. a sort of rule utilitarian shortcut??? can justice be incorporated into utilitarianism without leading to conflict principles???
what about a consequentalist theory that maximises justice � is that what Rawls� theory does???
what is Preference Utilitarianism???
is the �greatest good for the greatest number� a Bentham or Mill quote???
how were we supposed to judge which pleasures were most qualitatively valuable???
consensus of judges in a position to decide
how does a single person judge two pleasures???
Finally, utilitarianism suggests a mediation between
our selfish and altruistic ideals. Some utilitarians argue that our public and
private lives are so entwined, that when we pursue our selfish interests, we
are at the same time pursing the interests of others. J.S. Mill also argued
that, although humans are selfish, we also have an instinctive feeling of unity
which helps expand our private interests.
Finally, problems arise with utilitarianism because
of its emphasis on public benefit. According to utilitarianism, it would be
morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television,
since our time could be spent in ways which produced a greater social benefit,
such as charity work.
Finally, all of the above versions of
consequentialism leave open the possibility that a heinous action, such as
torture or slavery, could be morally permissible if its benefits outweighed its
disbenefits. However, our common moral intuitions tell us that such actions are
unjust regardless of the beneficial consequences produced. Consequentialism,
then, appears to be flawed at its very root since justice can be dispensed with
if it produces the appropriate benefits. In view of the above problems,
consequentialist principles have been modified to bring these theories more in
line with our common moral intuitions. This is especially so with
utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a simple theory and its results are easy to apply. It also allows for degrees of right and wrong, and for every situation the choice between actions is clear-cut: always choose that which has the greatest utility.