Summary
Summary AQA Philosophy - Moral Philosophy notes, Applied Ethics
- Course
- Institution
Moral Philosophy notes on Applied Ethics. Helped me to get an A* at A Level.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
MorganR
Reviews received
Content preview
Applying utilitarianismStealing
For an act utilitarian, stealing would be morally good if the happiness gained from the theft
outweighs the pain caused.
For an act utilitarian, the end can justify the means, even when the ‘means’ is illegal.
In general, theft is wrong, as the pain caused to the victim far outweighs the pleasure gained by the
thief.
Stealing is nearly always illegal and when others break the law, this adds to the total pain caused.
Having laws around property ownership is a large source of background happiness. Because of the
strong disapproval of law-breaking, the default position of an act utilitarian is that law-breaking is
morally wrong.
Mill comments that justice is the ‘most sacred and binding part of all morality’. This suggests that
we should never violate someone’s rights for some other purpose and so we should never steal.
Example: Robin Hood
An individual steals £10 million from a wealthy landowner (who never finds out). He uses the
money to fund an orphanage in Lithuania.
An act utilitarian might say that this is a good act as it adds happiness to the world. However, were
the thief to be caught, it would become a bad act as the money might be reclaimed and the victim
and the criminal might suffer. The moral worth of the act depends on the thief getting away with it.
Mill argued that stealing is wrong and that, to maximise general happiness, we should always follow
the rule that we should not steal. For a strong rule utilitarian, the only time it might be right to steal
is if you think the law protecting the property was unjust.
- For example, in 1930 Mahatma Gandhi encouraged thousands to march with him in
India and extract salt directly from the sea, without paying salt tax to the British, which
he thought unjust.
- This is stealing from the state, but because the law mainly benefited the wealthy,
imperialist rulers, then breaking this law could be morally justified.
A weak rule utilitarian might argue that stealing is wrong, apart from those few occasions when
happiness will clearly be gained by theft – in the Robin Hood case it is morally right to steal.
Heinz dilemma:
- A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctor’s thought might
save her. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what
the drug cost him to produce. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of
what it cost. The druggist refused to sell him the drug for the money Heinz had. So,
Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?
From an act utilitarian perspective, this act could be justifiable if the happiness that Heinz and his
wife receives from her survival outweighs the pain felt by the druggist.
A strong rule utilitarian would still argue that stealing is morally wrong, as we should follow the rule
that we should not steal. Furthermore, Heinz should not place his wife’s life above anyone else’s –
others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Simulated killing
, What determines whether it is a good or bad thing overall is whether the sum total of pleasure
outweighs the pain, or whether pleasure is maximised.
Simulated killing is hugely popular and does create happiness, whether it be in the short-term.
However, simulated killing has been weakly linked to aggressive and antisocial behaviour in the
short and long term.
Higher/lower distinction
For Mill, the sorts of pleasure produced by simulated killing may well be the wrong sorts of
pleasure. These entertainments may be classed as lower pleasures which are of lower worth.
A competent judge may prefer other sorts of higher pleasures and Mill thought that we should
prioritise these. Mill wanted utility not just to be about physical pleasure but ‘utility in the largest
sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’.
Mill may argue that the pleasures gained from simulated killing appeal to our baser, animal side
and not to our progressive, intellectual side. Maximising lower pleasures such as simulated killing is
not as morally good as enjoying higher pleasures.
However, it is questionable whether these pleasures are in fact lower pleasures. They are cultural,
engage the brain and so are not just the equivalent of, say, drinking gin.
Additionally, some competent judges who can appreciate both video games and literature and
prefer the former.
Liberty
Many people are offended by simulated killing. Should their displeasure (or their preferences) be
taken into account in the utility calculation? Moreover, it could be argued that the same amount of
pleasure could be gained by alternative methods of entertainment that offer less offence/harm.
Mill argued that the secondary principle of liberty should play a central role in utilitarianism.
- We should all be free to pursue our own pleasures, as long as we do not harm others.
A society committed to liberty, freedom of expression and the pursuit of different goals will be
happier in the long-term. This is a society that does not allow the moral sentiments of some to
dictate the non-harmful pursuits of others.
So, for Mill, allowing people to play video games is a good thing, as this follows the rule of liberty,
which is the rule that will enable utility to be best maximised.
In summary, for a utilitarian, simulated killing is morally good so long as the pleasure outweighs the
harm. The distinction between higher and lower pleasures is ambiguous, both in general, and in its
specific application to the case in question.
Mill would claim that pursuing pleasures that are not harmful to others is, in general, a good thing.
Simulated killing is a clear source of happiness for millions; for a utilitarian, such things are morally
good.
Eating animals
Peter Singer claims that eating meat is not always wrong.
Singer is a preference utilitarian, meaning that we should try to maximise preferences. Animals are
limited in their rationality and do not hold specific hopes and thoughts about the future. As such,
animals do not have conscious preferences.
What makes killing humans morally wrong is not specifically the potential loss of pleasure, but that
the killing goes against the preferences of the victim. Staying alive (generally) is the strongest
preference that anyone has, and this is what makes murder wrong.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller MorganR. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.92. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62890 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now