The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner…the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it.
Mill [] , Ch. In defending exhaustiveness, Mill does not argue that other things, apart from happiness, are not desired as such; but while other things appear to be desired , happiness is the only thing that is really desired since whatever else we may desire, we do so because attaining that thing would make us happy. Finally, in defending impartiality, Mill argues that equal amounts of happiness are equally desirable, whether the happiness is felt by the same person or by different persons.
We may wonder, however, whether this last argument is truly adequate. Utilitarianism claims that we should thus calculate, to the best of our ability, the expected utility that will result from our actions and how it will affect us and others, and use that as the basis for the moral evaluation of our decisions.
But then we may ask, how exactly do we quantify utility? Here there are two different but related problems: how can I come up with a way of comparing different types of pleasure and pain, benefit or harm that I myself might experience, and how can I compare my benefit and yours on some neutral scale of comparison?
Suppose the following are the case:. Since, on all of these measures, drinking a pint of beer is more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , it follows according to Bentham that it is objectively better for you to drink the pint of beer and forget about reading Hamlet , and so you should. Of course, it is up to each individual to make such a calculation based on the intensity, duration, certainty, etc. This brings us back to the problem we mentioned before that, realistically, we cannot be expected to always engage in very difficult calculations every single time we want to make a decision.
In an attempt to resolve this problem, utilitarians might claim that in the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions, the application of the principle of utility can be backward-looking based on hindsight or forward-looking based on foresight.
That is, we can use past experience of the results of our actions as a guide to estimating what the probable outcomes of our actions might be and save ourselves from the burden of having to make new estimates for each and every choice we may face. Mill, for example, would respond to our claim that drinking beer is objectively more pleasurable than reading Hamlet by saying that it overlooks an important distinction between qualitatively different kinds of pleasure.
Mill justifies this claim by saying that between two pleasures, although one pleasure requires a greater amount of difficulty to attain than the other pleasure, if those who are competently acquainted with both pleasures prefer or value one over the other, then the one is a higher pleasure while the other is a lower pleasure.
For Mill, although drinking a pint of beer may seem to be more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , if you are presented with these two options and you are to make a choice—each and every time or as a rule—you should still choose to read Hamlet and forego drinking the pint of beer. Reading Hamlet generates a higher quality although perhaps a lower quantity of pleasure, while drinking a pint of beer generates lower quality although higher quantity of pleasure.
In the end, these issues may be merely technical problems faced by utilitarianism—is there some neutral scale of comparison between pleasures? The more serious problem, however, remains, which is that utilitarianism seems willing in principle to sacrifice the interests and even perhaps lives of individuals for the sake of the benefit of a larger group. And this seems to conflict with our basic moral intuition that people have a right not to be used in this way.
While Mill argued that the notion of rights could be accounted for on purely utilitarian terms, Bentham simply dismissed it.
Let us conclude by revisiting the question we started with: can the ends justify the means? I stated that as far as utilitarianism is concerned the answer to this question is in the affirmative.
While the answer is plausible and right for utilitarians, it is implausible for many others, and notably wrong for deontologists. As we have seen in this chapter, on a close examination utilitarianism is less persuasive and less reasonable than it appears to be when it is far away.
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Anarchical Fallacies. In The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed.
John Bowring. Vol 2. Edinburgh: William Tait. Driver, Julia. Edward N. Hooker, Brad. Macleod, Christopher. Mill, John Stuart. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Singer, Peter. Smart, J. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
An act is right if in a particular situation it produces a greater balance of well-being over suffering than any alternative acts; determining rightness is a matter of weighing the effects of each possible act. A presentation of rule-utilitarianism: Avoids judging rightness by specific acts and focuses instead on rules governing categories of acts.
It says a right action is one that conforms to a rule that, if followed consistently, would create for everyone involved the most beneficial balance of well-being over suffering. A discussion of euthanasia in terms of act- and rule-utilitarianism.
A discussion of some of the appeal of utilitarianism: Its simplicity, its straightforward application to moral problems, and its insistence on moral impartiality have helped to make it one of the most influential moral theories in modern history. A discussion of at least one criticism of utilitarianism: Most serious criticism is that the theory flies in the face of our considered moral judgments, especially regarding issues of duty, rights, and justice.
Our considered moral judgments, what some call our moral common sense, are our moral opinions that we arrive at after careful deliberation that is as free of bias, self-interest, and other distorting influences as possible. Moral philosophers grant them considerable respect and try to take them into account in their moral theorizing.
These judgments are fallible, and they are often revised under pressure from trustworthy principles or theories. We are entitled to trust them unless we have good reason to doubt them. Therefore, any moral theory that is seriously inconsistent with our most basic considered judgments must generally be regarded as flawed, perhaps fatally so, and in need of revision. Our considered judgments, for example, tell us that slavery, murder, rape, and genocide are wrong. A moral theory that implies otherwise fails this criterion and is a candidate for revision or rejection.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Whose Well-being? Utilitarianism: Overall View Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. What is Good? Individual Self-interest See egoism.
Actual Consequences or Foreseeable Consequences? How Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Differ Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to create the best results possible, but they differ about how to do that.
Act Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons Act utilitarianism is often seen as the most natural interpretation of the utilitarian ideal. Arguments for Act Utilitarianism i. Why Act utilitarianism Maximizes Utility If every action that we carry out yields more utility than any other action available to us, then the total utility of all our actions will be the highest possible level of utility that we could bring about.
Why Act Utilitarianism is Better than Traditional, Rule-based Moralities Traditional moral codes often consist of sets of rules regarding types of actions. Why Act Utilitarianism Makes Moral Judgments Objectively True One advantage of act utilitarianism is that it shows how moral questions can have objectively true answers.
Arguments against Act Utilitarianism i. The following cases are among the commonly cited examples: If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person of a crime and imposing a severe punishment on that person, act utilitarianism implies that the judge should convict and punish the innocent person.
See Rawls and also Punishment. If a person makes a promise but breaking the promise will allow that person to perform an action that creates just slightly more well-being than keeping the promise will, then act utilitarianism implies that the promise should be broken. See Ross The general form of each of these arguments is the same. Possible Responses to Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism There are two ways in which act utilitarians can defend their view against these criticisms.
Rule Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons Unlike act utilitarians, who try to maximize overall utility by applying the utilitarian principle to individual acts, rule utilitarians believe that we can maximize utility only by setting up a moral code that contains rules. Arguments for Rule Utilitarianism i.
Rule Utilitarianism Avoids the Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism As discussed earlier, critics of act utilitarianism raise three strong objections against it. Judges, Doctors, and Promise-makers Critics of act utilitarianism claim that it allows judges to sentence innocent people to severe punishments when doing so will maximize utility, allows doctors to kill healthy patients if by doing so, they can use the organs of one person to save more lives, and allows people to break promises if that will create slightly more benefits than keeping the promise.
Maintaining vs. Undermining Trust Rule utilitarians see the social impact of a rule-based morality as one of the key virtues of their theory. Impartiality and the Problem of Over-Demandingness Rule utilitarians believe that their view is also immune to the criticism that act utilitarianism is too demanding.
Arguments against Rule Utilitarianism i. Wrong Answers and Crude Concepts Although rule utilitarians try to avoid the weaknesses attributed to act utilitarianism, critics argue that they cannot avoid these weaknesses because they do not take seriously many of our central moral concepts. Conclusion The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important issues about how we should make moral judgments. References and Further Reading a. Classic Works Jeremy Bentham.
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , available in many editions, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism , available in many editions and online, See especially chapter II, in which Mill tries both to clarify and defend utilitarianism. Passages at the end of chapter suggest that Mill was a rule utilitarian.
In chapter V, Mill tries to show that utilitarianism is compatible with justice. Henry Sidgwick. The Methods of Ethics , Seventh Edition, available in many editions, Sidgwick is known for his careful, extended analysis of utilitarian moral theory and competing views.
Principia Ethica, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Mostly focused on utilitarianism, this book contains a combination of act and rule utilitarian ideas. More Recent Utilitarians J. Cambridge University Press, Richard Brandt. Ethical Theory. Prentice Hall, Chapter Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. Brandt developed and defended rule utilitarianism in many papers. This book contains several of them as well as works in which he applies rule utilitarian thinking to issues like rights and the ethics of war.
Moral Thinking. Oxford University Press, An interesting development of a form of rule utilitarianism by an influential moral theorist. John C. Reprinted in Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds. Harsanyi, a Nobel Prize economist, defends rule utilitarianism, connecting it to a preference theory of value and a theory of rational action. John Rawls. Before becoming an influential critic of utilitarianism, Rawls wrote this defense of rule utilitarianism.
Brad Hooker. In this 21 st century defense of rule utilitarianism, Hooker places it in the context of more recent developments in philosophy. Peter Singer. Writings on an Ethical Life. HarperCollins, Singer, a prolific, widely read thinker, mostly applies a utilitarian perspective to controversial moral issues for example, euthanasia, the treatment of non-human animals, and global poverty rather than discussing utilitarian moral theory.
This volume contains selections from his books and articles. Reprinted in Peter Singer. Harper Collins, This widely reprinted article, though it does not focus on utilitarianism, uses utilitarian reasoning and has sparked decades of debate about moral demandingness and moral impartiality. Robert Goodin. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. In a series of essays, Goodin argues that utilitarianism is the best philosophy for public decision-making even if it fails as an ethic for personal aspects of life.
Derek Parfit. On What Matters. In a long, complex work, Parfit stresses the importance of Henry Sidgwick as a moral philosopher and argues that rule utilitarianism and Kantian deontology can be understood in a way that makes them compatible with one another. Overviews Tim Mulgan. Understanding Utilitarianism.
Acumen, This is a very clear description of utilitarianism, including explanations of arguments both for and against. Chapter 2 discusses Bentham, Mill, and Sidgwick while chapter 6 focuses on act and rule utilitarianism. This article gives a good historical account of important figures in the development of utilitarianism.
This very useful overview is relevant to utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism. William Shaw. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Blackwell, Shaw provides a clear, comprehensive discussion of utilitarianism and its critics as well as defending utilitarianism.
John Troyer. The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Hackett, Ben Eggleston and Dale Miller, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism.
This collection contains sixteen essays on utilitarianism, including essays on historical figures as well as discussion of 21 st century issues, including both act and rule utilitarianism. Mill and Utilitarian Moral Theory J. Roger Crisp. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Routledge, West, ed. Henry R. A clear discussion of Mill; Chapter 4 argues that Mill is neither an act nor a rule utilitarian. Chapter 6 focuses on utilitarianism and justice.
Dale Miller. Polity Press, Miller, in Chapter 6, argues that Mill was a rule utilitarian. Stephen Nathanson. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge University Press, , — David Lyons. Oxford, Critics of Utilitarianism David Lyons. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Lyons argues that at least some versions of rule utilitarianism collapse into act utilitarianism. Morality, Rules, and Consequences.
Rowman and Littlefield, In a challenging essay, Lyons raises doubts about whether there is any coherent version of utilitarianism. Judith Jarvis Thomson. Reprinted in Judith Jarvis Thomson. Rights, Restitution and Risk.
Edited by William Parent. Harvard University Press, ; Chapter 7. An influential rights-based discussion in which Jarvis Thomson uses hypothetical cases to show, among other things, that utilitarianism cannot explain why some actions that cause killings are permissible and others not.
Collections of Essays Michael D. Bayles, ed. Contemporary Utilitarianism. Garden City: Doubleday, Ten essays that debate act vs. Samuel Gorovitz, ed. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Thirteen essays on utilitarianism, many focused on issues concerning rule utilitarianism. Samuel Scheffler. Consequentialism and Its Critics.
This contains a dozen influential articles, mostly by prominent critics of utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism. Amartya Sen, and Bernard Williams, eds.
Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, This contains fourteen articles, including essays defending utilitarianism by R. Hare and John Harsanyi, As the title suggests, however, most of the articles are critical of utilitarianism.
0コメント