Greg Detre
18/5/01
self-interest � incorporate morality + altruistic values inside
e.g. actually being someone�s friend, valuing their well-being
what if genuine love = need for companionship, avoid loneliness, need love
paradox of hedonism � aim to promote pleasure, but the worst way to do this is to have this as conscious aim
in order to achieve aims, cannot have that aim as motive, e.g. insomnia
God as moral law enforcer � being self-interested will get you sent to hell
consequentialism agent-neutral
ethical egoism � non-impartial assessment of consequences
multi-level utilitarianism
you don't think as a utilitarian, but utilitarian results (e.g. Smith)
how meet integrity objection???
act utilitarianism � might stumble across right action
morality need deliberation
act with utility might �/span> max utility???
violation of agent integrity comes from his having to think + deliberate consequentially
requires him to regulate his own priorities in his deliberations
multi-level utilitarianism = think at different levels
egotistical perhaps or family/career-orientated way on a daily basis
but think consequentially in my philosophical reflections
or even not at all � govt(???) house utilitarianism
trust the mandarins, or rules of thumb
why isn't Williams happy with multi-level???
can't have integrity with any utilitarianism at all
distributive � not consequentialist, right/justice-maximising??? � no
possible: act to avoid violating rights whenever possible, though there may be exceptions
qualitatively different types of rights
Jon + the Indians � deontologist says that my killing one person is wrong, despite the other ten dying (e.g. intentions)
deontological � right/wrong in itself, regardless of consequences, cf agent-relative/neutral
it�s my killing the person, makes referece to me and the wrongness of the act
equality-maximising form of consequentialism
to what extent �/span> equal distribution of well-being?
act + rule � share same criteria for right action � NO
multi-level act utilitarianism � only the criterion for right action matters
rule utilitarianism � if everyone followed the rule, e.g. charitable donations
rule � everyone gives 5% (assuming everyone�s a utilitarian)
act � most people won't do that, so I should give 95%
multi-level rule � same criterion (act is right if in conformance with a rule that would maximise utility if everyone followed), but my intention for doing that might be separate
act utilitarianism can be too demanding without levels
is rule utilitarianism a form of consequentialism?
not really in some respects
because certain acts will always be prohibited, like deontolog
e.g. if everyone followed the rules, there would never be reason to kill
still no intention/motive � only whether I follow the rule
but some critics (e.g. Kantians/Catholics) think that intention is a factor in the criterion for right action
doctrine of double effect � that intention matters in determining right action
Philippa Foot � Virtues + vices, abortion + double effect (medical ethics),
also euthanasia
mingle consequentialism with intentions