Ethical Theories
UTILITARIANISM--2019
KANTIAN ETHICS-2021
AVE- 2023/2020
Applied Ethics
LYING
SIMULATED KILLING
EATING ANIMALS
STEALING
Meta Ethics
MORAL REALISM
MORAL ANTI-REALISM-2022
is utilitarianism a successful theory of ethics? (25)
Intro:
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory- only happiness is the good, and the right act (or
rule) is that act (or rule) that maximises happiness. The utility principle argues that actions
are to be judged by their usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce pleasure, good
or happiness.
A: Bentham’s felicific calculus is used to calculate moral worth- aspects of happiness are
taken into account such as intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity and
extent. Qualitative- the total amount of happiness generated is the sum total of everyone’s
pleasure minus the sum total of everyone’s pains. It is impractical to use every time one has
to make a decision.
Leads to counter-intuitive results (e.g killing and harvesting organs from an innocent person
to save multiple people)
Long term consequences can never be known
Takes too long to calculate moral worth
R: rule utilitarianism overcomes these issues- follow general rules (secondary principles
according to mill) e.g ‘don’t kill’ or ‘don’t steal’. For mill, secondary principles are moral ‘rules
of thumb’ which, if followed, generally produce happiness e.g tell the truth. Mill argued that
we learn secondary principles through human history, through trial and error.
An act is good if it follows a suitable rule, and a rule is good if it maximises happiness.
Counter intuitive results: rule utilitarianism establishes general rules/ secondary principles
that prevent counter intuitive results- follow rule ‘do not kill’.
Rule utilitarianism relies on historical evidence and collective human experience to form
rules which generally lead to beneficial outcomes- mitigates uncertainty in predicting long-
term results.
Rule allows for quicker moral judgements rather than calculating specific moral worth of
each possible action.
An act is good if it follows a suitable rule, a rule is good if it maximises happiness.
C: rule collapses into act
Most basic rules are too general- have legitimate exceptions. ‘don’t lie’ is a rule but ‘do not
lie, unless to a potential murderer’ is a better rule. Every time there is a case in which lying
produces more happiness, we could make another amendment. Smart argues that, taken to
its logical conclusion, this would end with a version of act utilitarianism but with rules which
apply to very specific set of circumstances.
Lying may generate more happiness
It depends on the individual situation or specific circumstance (making it a version of act)
A:
,Bentham’s quantitative approach makes utilitarianism a ‘doctrine of swine’ in that it reduces
the value of human life to the same simple pleasures felt by pigs and animals.
Act is bad as it advocates pursuit of mindless drinking as a morally permissible thing to do
(generated pleasure).
Bentham’s time- overcrowding in London and many sought comfort in drinking gin.
Utilitarianism denied mindless drinking to be morally correct as it granted pleasure.
R: mill’s higher/lower pleasure distinction
mill thought that pleasures of the mind were superior to physical pleasures as they were
likely to last longer and so give more pleasure
qualitative > quantitative
humans would prefer the pleasures of the mind over those of the body even if the pleasures
of the body were more pleasurable: ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied’
mill argue that someone who has experienced both would value higher pleasures more,
even though sometimes they may be less pleasant- competent judge.
Mill argues that people who have experienced higher pleasures of thought, feeling and
imagination always prefer them to the lower pleasures of the body and the senses. Humans
prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures because they value dignity- and dignity is an
important component of happiness.
C: is this even hedonistic utilitarianism anymore?
Mill’s distinction means that some pleasures could be better even if they generated less
pleasure- seems that if something is less pleasant, yet better, then we are no longer seeking
to maximise pleasure.
Mill’s qualitative approach loses simplicity of quantitative approach (weighing up quantities of
pleasure involved).
Council deciding between building a gym or library- is library (higher pleasure) infinitely
better than gym (lower pleasure)?
Does one library= ten gyms?
A: some argue pleasure isn’t the only good/ goal people aim for
Paints unpleasant view of human condition- that of pleasure seeking animals with brains
acting as a computer to calculate pleasure.
Religious doctrine condemns pleasure seeking. E.g some religious sects use self-
chastisement as part of philosophy of avoiding pleasure
Nozick’s pleasure machine- scientists develop pleasure machine- plugged into hyper-real
virtual reality machine- guaranteed a pleasurable life- memory is tinkered so you won’t know
you’re in the machine- if plugged in, seems to prove truth of psychological hedonism.
Perhaps it is other things we seek e.g state of affairs, relationships, a sense of reality, justice
(for children to be happy, for people to think well of them) not just for the sensations. Many
would reject the machine- what they seek is in the external world, not sensations.
R: utilitarian would respond saying these things lead to happiness- they are a means to
happiness/ a version of happiness
Bentham claims people still driven by pleasure/ pain- (self-chastisement example) perhaps
by prospect of pleasure in the next life, avoidance of pain through the punishment of god.
Mill, in his ‘proof’ recognises that people desire other things (e.g virtue or money) even as an
end in themselves (not as a means to happiness) as these things are a part of what
happiness means to that person. But this only happens over time (for baby, money is mere
paper, only through culture/ socialisation that we come to view money as a means to
happiness and then constitutive of happiness)
Therefore, happiness is the ultimate end.
C: people die fighting against injustices, to gain the right to vote etc
, very few people would put their life on the line for mere pleasure. There are situations where
we might prefer something even if it makes us less happy, and situations where we might
prefer something don’t happen even though it would make us happier.
e.g you are collecting hello kitty stickers and really want the final sticker. Bentham claims
that sticker is a mere means to gaining pleasure. However, you may feel strongly that what
you want is the sticker, not pleasure. If you were offered the equivalent amount of pleasure
from another source, you may still claim it’s the sticker you want, not just a quantity of
pleasure.
R: preference utilitarianism accounts for this
Recognises that pleasure is not always what should be focused on- instead maybe the part
that minimises pain (the injustice of not being able to vote)
Preference utilitarianism suggests an action should be judged by how it conforms to the
preferences of all those affected by the action (and its consequences). A good act
maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.
Preference utilitarianism accounts for utilitarianism being counterintuitive at times
e.g gruesome killings entertaining people hundreds of years ago (the preference of those
being killed is more intense than the temporary pleasure created for those watching)
the preference to be pain free is stronger than the preference for gaining pleasure- therefore
morally better to help those suffering/ maximise their pleasure than to satisfice the desires of
those causing pain.
C:
Preference utilitarianism has negatives e.g bad preferences and the fact that it’s hard to
weigh up/ calculate the pleasures of everyone affected
Surely we don’t want to maximise bad preferences? Imagine David has become increasingly
psychotic and wants to punch strangers. Is it right to help him?
e.g some people are for, some against, building an airport, what is the morally right thing to
do? Is it a question of numbers or does the strength of preferences make a difference? What
are the preferences of people not directly affected by the airport, or the expressed
preferences of the dead, should these count?
CONC:
Impractical theory, counterintuitive
Doctrine of swine
Pleasure not the only thing that’s desired/ good, however preference utilitarianism, however
bad preferences
Overall, unsuccessful theory of ethics
to what extent is an deontological ethics a successful normative ethical theory? (25)
Kantian deontological ethics posits that the only thing that is good without qualification is
good will. Good will means acting for the sake of duty. You have a duty to follow the moral
law. Moral laws are universal. You can tell if a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical
imperative, which is divided into two tests: contradiction in conception and contradiction in
will. He also believes that you mustn’t treat people as a means to an end (humanity
formulation), because to do so is to undermine their autonomy as a rational being. Kantian
ethics places more value on the motive underlying an act, therefore, for kant, acting out of
duty holds more moral value than acting in accordance with duty. For kant, a categorical
imperative is the only moral ought, it is obligatory to follow this imperative, regardless who
you are, and without exception. A hypothetical imperative is a statement about what you
ought to do on the assumption of some desire/goal. I will be arguing that it is partially
successful. Isn’t infallible to weakness so should be used in conjunction with other normative
ethical theories.
A: simple to use
