- Korsgaard, Christine: Creating the Kingdom of Ends
(Esp. Chs. 3&4. Korsgaard gives an interpretation of the different formulas of the Categorical Imperative, discussing - among others - how we should understand the notion of the "contradiction"; logical, teleological or practical)
- Smart, JJC/Williams, Bernard: Utilitarianism for and against
(Esp. Williams' critique of Utilitarianism. The small volume consists of Smart's defense and Williams critique of Utilitarianism and will help better to understand the pros and cons of this ethical theory)
Both readings can be found in the reserve section of the library.
Showing posts with label Utilitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utilitarianism. Show all posts
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Utilitarianism Beyond Bentham and Mill
1 Negative Utilitarianism...
... claims that instead of focussing on pleasure (or equally on pleasure and pain), Utilitarianism should concentrate on avoiding pain and suffering. Two arguments speak in favor of negative Utilitarianism: - “From the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man’s pain by another man’s pleasure.” (Karl Popper: The open society and its enemys, London 1945)[1] - “It adds to clarity in the fields of ethics, if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness.” (ibid.)
2 Hedonistic vs. Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
1.1 Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Utility is conceived entirely in terms of happiness or pleasure. Pleasure and the freedom from pain or the only things desirable as ends. (e.g. Bentham)
2.2 Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
There are different goods that should be maximized and that are desireable as ends, such as friendship, knowledge, courage, health, beauty, some states of consciousness. All these goods have intrisic value, ie. are desirable as ends. An action than has to be measured in terms of intrinsic values it produces. (e.g. Georg Edward Moore)[2]
(Mill might be seen as a philosopher, who is somehow between the two forms, as J.J.C. Smart points out.)
3 Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
3.1 Act Utilitarianism...
... considers the consequences of each particular act. In order to decide, what we should do, we have to apply the principle of utility to individual actions. Question to ask: “What good and evil consequences will result from this action in this circumstance?”[3]
3.2 Rule Utilitarianism:
According to rule utilitarianism, one has to act according to rules, which bring about the best consequences. “The conformity of an act to a valuable rule makes the act right.”[4]
4 Preference Utilitarianism
What should be maximized are the preferences or interests of persons. People (and other sentient beings) have interests various as not feeling pain, increasing one’s reputation and becoming more knowledgable. Intrinsically valuable is what people prefer to obtain. Preference Utilitarianism avoids the dispute between hedonistic and pluralistic utilitarianism and makes utilitarian calculations easier. (e.g. Peter Singer)
[1] See: http://www.socrethics.com/www.negutil/www.monuism/NU.htm
[2] For a short account of hedonistic and pluralistic Utilitarianism see: Beauchamp, Tom and Childress, James: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 23f.
[3] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 27
[4] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 30
... claims that instead of focussing on pleasure (or equally on pleasure and pain), Utilitarianism should concentrate on avoiding pain and suffering. Two arguments speak in favor of negative Utilitarianism: - “From the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man’s pain by another man’s pleasure.” (Karl Popper: The open society and its enemys, London 1945)[1] - “It adds to clarity in the fields of ethics, if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness.” (ibid.)
2 Hedonistic vs. Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
1.1 Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Utility is conceived entirely in terms of happiness or pleasure. Pleasure and the freedom from pain or the only things desirable as ends. (e.g. Bentham)
2.2 Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
There are different goods that should be maximized and that are desireable as ends, such as friendship, knowledge, courage, health, beauty, some states of consciousness. All these goods have intrisic value, ie. are desirable as ends. An action than has to be measured in terms of intrinsic values it produces. (e.g. Georg Edward Moore)[2]
(Mill might be seen as a philosopher, who is somehow between the two forms, as J.J.C. Smart points out.)
3 Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
3.1 Act Utilitarianism...
... considers the consequences of each particular act. In order to decide, what we should do, we have to apply the principle of utility to individual actions. Question to ask: “What good and evil consequences will result from this action in this circumstance?”[3]
3.2 Rule Utilitarianism:
According to rule utilitarianism, one has to act according to rules, which bring about the best consequences. “The conformity of an act to a valuable rule makes the act right.”[4]
4 Preference Utilitarianism
What should be maximized are the preferences or interests of persons. People (and other sentient beings) have interests various as not feeling pain, increasing one’s reputation and becoming more knowledgable. Intrinsically valuable is what people prefer to obtain. Preference Utilitarianism avoids the dispute between hedonistic and pluralistic utilitarianism and makes utilitarian calculations easier. (e.g. Peter Singer)
[1] See: http://www.socrethics.com/www.negutil/www.monuism/NU.htm
[2] For a short account of hedonistic and pluralistic Utilitarianism see: Beauchamp, Tom and Childress, James: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 23f.
[3] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 27
[4] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 30
Reflections about the Film "Can the End justify the Means?"
One would expect utilitarianism to come up with a clear answer on the question whether to build the dam or not. However, it gives raise to many different questions:
- Who should be part of the cost/benefits or maximization of happiness calculus? Human Beings? All sentient beings? Or do other values matter too like biodiversity?
- Do we have to take into consideration just happiness or do other things have intrinsic value as well (like art, love, friendship and wisdom) as ideal/pluralistic utilitarianism suggests?
- Jonathan Glover: We actually do make choices weighing costs and benefits, e.g. when parents decide whether to send one child to a better school or the other to a holiday. However, incertainties remain about the precision and the prognosis
- Utilitarianism gives an account of when a sacrifice of one group of people can be justified, which is one of its harsher aspects. What are the implications of that?
- Utilitarianism can be understood as research project: Long and thorough investigations only will provide an adequate answer (which is the result on the emphasis utilitarians put on the consequences).
- Who should be part of the cost/benefits or maximization of happiness calculus? Human Beings? All sentient beings? Or do other values matter too like biodiversity?
- Do we have to take into consideration just happiness or do other things have intrinsic value as well (like art, love, friendship and wisdom) as ideal/pluralistic utilitarianism suggests?
- Jonathan Glover: We actually do make choices weighing costs and benefits, e.g. when parents decide whether to send one child to a better school or the other to a holiday. However, incertainties remain about the precision and the prognosis
- Utilitarianism gives an account of when a sacrifice of one group of people can be justified, which is one of its harsher aspects. What are the implications of that?
- Utilitarianism can be understood as research project: Long and thorough investigations only will provide an adequate answer (which is the result on the emphasis utilitarians put on the consequences).
Monday, September 1, 2008
Mill's Utilitarianism (II)
„Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.“ (p. 278)
Traditionally: mental pleasures higher than bodily ones, because the former have “greater permanency, safety, uncostliness” (p. 279)
Mill: “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.” (p. 279)
How can we find out which pleasure is more valuable?
“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference ... that is the more desirable pleasure.” (p. 279)
Preference to the pleasures related to the higher faculties: “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into anyof the low animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool” (p. 280)
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (p. 281)
Occasional choice for the lower pleasure: “Men often, from the infirmity of character, make their election to the nearer good.” (p. 281)
-> e.g. “sensual indulgences to the injury of health” (p. 281)
The “ultimate end ... is an existence exempt ... from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, ... being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.” (p. 283)
-> this should be the end of human action; to be “secured to all mankind” and “to the whole sentient creation”.
But: Is happiness unattainable?
a) Even if, utilitarianism would still be able to advocate the “prevention or mitigation of unhappiness” (p. 284)
b) But, by happiness is not meant “a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a dediced predominance of the active over the passive.” (p. 284) -> such a life merits to be called “happy”
“The present wretched education, and wretched social arrangements, are the only real hindrance to its being attainable by almost all.” (p. 284)
“Poverty ... may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals.” (p. 284)
Traditionally: mental pleasures higher than bodily ones, because the former have “greater permanency, safety, uncostliness” (p. 279)
Mill: “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.” (p. 279)
How can we find out which pleasure is more valuable?
“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference ... that is the more desirable pleasure.” (p. 279)
Preference to the pleasures related to the higher faculties: “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into anyof the low animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool” (p. 280)
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (p. 281)
Occasional choice for the lower pleasure: “Men often, from the infirmity of character, make their election to the nearer good.” (p. 281)
-> e.g. “sensual indulgences to the injury of health” (p. 281)
The “ultimate end ... is an existence exempt ... from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, ... being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.” (p. 283)
-> this should be the end of human action; to be “secured to all mankind” and “to the whole sentient creation”.
But: Is happiness unattainable?
a) Even if, utilitarianism would still be able to advocate the “prevention or mitigation of unhappiness” (p. 284)
b) But, by happiness is not meant “a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a dediced predominance of the active over the passive.” (p. 284) -> such a life merits to be called “happy”
“The present wretched education, and wretched social arrangements, are the only real hindrance to its being attainable by almost all.” (p. 284)
“Poverty ... may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals.” (p. 284)
Mill's Utilitarianism (I)
1 John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873):
English philosopher and political economist, member of parliament,
2 Utilitarianism: General Remarks
2.1 Difference science and ethics: In science “particular thruths precede the general theory” (p. 273). The actions in ethics are done “for the sake of some end”; they take their character “from the end” (p. 273)
2.2 Against Intuitionism: If there is a moral instinct (of which we are not sure), then it cannot be the faculty that tells us what is right and wrong; for that, reason is required.
2.3 Morality to be deducted from principles: Whether morality is seen as something a priori, or something gained through experience. It is certain, that “morality must be deduced from principles.”(p.274) What is required is a first principle as the “root of all morality” (p. 274).
English philosopher and political economist, member of parliament,
2 Utilitarianism: General Remarks
2.1 Difference science and ethics: In science “particular thruths precede the general theory” (p. 273). The actions in ethics are done “for the sake of some end”; they take their character “from the end” (p. 273)
2.2 Against Intuitionism: If there is a moral instinct (of which we are not sure), then it cannot be the faculty that tells us what is right and wrong; for that, reason is required.
2.3 Morality to be deducted from principles: Whether morality is seen as something a priori, or something gained through experience. It is certain, that “morality must be deduced from principles.”(p.274) What is required is a first principle as the “root of all morality” (p. 274).
Bentham's Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham: From An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legisation
1 Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832):
British jurist, philosopher and social reformer; political radical in favor of equal rights for women, abolition of physical punishment and slavery, and for animal rights
2 Bentham’s Utilitarianism
2.1 Empirical claim as starting point: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” (p. 65) They govern our thinking and acting.
2.2 Principle of Utility: is “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or dininish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” (p. 65) Three points have to be noted:a) the principle of utility is an ethical principle that judges actions (i.e. not intentions)b) what is at stake is the happiness, which is interchangeable with pleasure, c) relevant for judgement are the parties involved (or "the community", p. 66)
2.3 Acting according to the principle of utility: An action is conformable to utility “when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than it has to diminish it.” (p. 66)The pleasures of the community, perceived as the sum of the individuals, should be promoted.
2.4 Critical Remarks:
a) How is the transition made from the individual to the community? It might be that the priniple of utility is evident for oneself, but does it have to be for the community?
b) Is-ought-problem: Bentham uses the way the world is, in order to explain how the world should be. But making normative claims on the basis how the world is, undermines the essence of ethics. The question ethics asks is what we should do. – However, Utilitarianism can be founded without concluding from the is to the should. (e.g. Mill)
1 Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832):
British jurist, philosopher and social reformer; political radical in favor of equal rights for women, abolition of physical punishment and slavery, and for animal rights
2 Bentham’s Utilitarianism
2.1 Empirical claim as starting point: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” (p. 65) They govern our thinking and acting.
2.2 Principle of Utility: is “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or dininish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” (p. 65) Three points have to be noted:a) the principle of utility is an ethical principle that judges actions (i.e. not intentions)b) what is at stake is the happiness, which is interchangeable with pleasure, c) relevant for judgement are the parties involved (or "the community", p. 66)
2.3 Acting according to the principle of utility: An action is conformable to utility “when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than it has to diminish it.” (p. 66)The pleasures of the community, perceived as the sum of the individuals, should be promoted.
2.4 Critical Remarks:
a) How is the transition made from the individual to the community? It might be that the priniple of utility is evident for oneself, but does it have to be for the community?
b) Is-ought-problem: Bentham uses the way the world is, in order to explain how the world should be. But making normative claims on the basis how the world is, undermines the essence of ethics. The question ethics asks is what we should do. – However, Utilitarianism can be founded without concluding from the is to the should. (e.g. Mill)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)