UTILITARIANISM-UNCERTINITY AND INFORMATION
Introduction
Economists appear to have come face to face with a number of challenging issues in applying what amounts to utilitarian techniques to specific economic problems. Examples of such issues are changing tastes, the valuation of life and limb, uncertainty, and incompletely informed individuals. Perhaps one may say that it has almost become one of the hallmarks of a good economist to try to extend the basic utilitarian framework of welfare economics to treat such issues. Here the writer is an economist so ethical issues that he is discussing here is related to some economic issues.
Static Utilitarianism: objectives and constraints
Utilitarianism involves specifying an objective for society which depends on the utilities of the individuals in society. The social objective is usually to maximise a function which economist called social welfare function. This function as well as each individual’s utility function, is defined on a space of social states or perhaps more precisely, the entire range of possible social outcomes from all sorts of economic and related policy decisions. The author can argue that, when we come to consider more challenging issues such as uncertanity and incomplete information many common mis- concepions have arisen because of confusion of objectives and constraints.
To return to static utilitarinism, it is now widely recognised that utilitarian social welfare functions can be constructed provided that one makes the kind of interpersonal comparisons of utility which economists have so long wished to eschew, although not surprisingly much controversy remains over how to make such interpersonal comparisons. For the purpose of utilitarian welfare economist, an individuals utility should not necessarily corresponds to actual choices. Infact for the purpose of utilitarian welfare economics, at least an individuals utility should correspond to choices based on good self – interested reasons. This seem helpful , although the criterion of goodness here is certainly open to much disagreement , and even the criterion of self interest contains within it some ambiguities
Though this question of what constitutes individual utility is crucially important , it is hard to say much more about it, expect in the context of some of the challenging issues author propose to face in due course.
Rights and Liberalism
Here we are dicussing out how social choice which accords even with only the rather week utilitarian criterion of Pareto efficiency can easily conflict with individual rights. For example the rights to read a book or not, for a girl to wear a dress of the colour she prefers. He suggested that one should therefore restrict the scope of the Pareto criterion in particular and of utilitarianism in general. Infact he suggest that one should construct a social welfare function which respects individual rights. For example that property rights which amount to issues over which the government has no legitimate power to choose or to interfere with the individuals own choice. Such rights seem to take the form of consraints that nobody’s rights are infringed, and each individual chooses what he wants whenever he has right to do so.
John Gray's hostile reading of J.S. Mill's utilitarian doctrine of individual liberty and social authority is rejected in favour of a more sympathetic reading. According to the latter, Mill's doctrine says that every civilized society ought to distribute equal rights to complete liberty of self-regarding conduct. Although clarification of the relevant terms is required, utilitarian calculations are not needed to understand or apply this principle of self-regarding liberty because it is already a utilitarian principle. Mill's doctrine also says that every civilized society has legitimate authority to consider establishing rules of social conduct, although society may rightfully decide to adopt broad laissez-faire policies for some types of social conduct, including trade and expression. In particular, to promote the general welfare, any civil society should enact and enforce a legal code of equal justice which distributes equal rights and correlative obligations designed to protect the right-holder from suffering serious harms without his consent. Although its content may vary across different social contexts, an optimal code must always distribute certain basic human rights, including the right to complete self-regarding liberty. Gray's objection that such a moral and political project is defeated by value-pluralism is not persuasive. Under plausible conditions, any people seeking to promote the interests of all must consent by majority vote to some form of representative government with authority to enact and enforce such a code of justice. Value-pluralism itself, unless it endorses this project at least to the extent of protecting some minimum set of basic human rights, fails as moral and political theory.
The Challenges of Utilitarianism and Relativism
Human rights are usually said to be inalienable and universal, and some even believe that they should are absolute. Such attributes are necessary in order for human rights to protect all humans at all times. A prime motivation for rights in general is to ensure that no-one is subject to unbridled calculations of utility, so that a minority do not suffer in order that a great number enjoy some benefit. If anything is to stand in the way of governments or societies sacrificing individual or minority interests in favour of the collective, it is the bulwark of human rights. Similarly, human rights are argued to be universal and apply across political, religious, and cultural divides. It is tempting in a liberal society such as Canada's to view human rights as both universal and inalienable. After all, so much of our political debate is built upon these suppositions that we take their reach for granted. However, these qualities of human rights may not stand up under the light of probing scrutiny. Human rights are particularly vulnerable to challenges from both utilitarianism and cultural relativism. These challenges relate to the nature of human rights, the choice of benefits that are said to be a matter of human rights, as well as the delivery of these benefits. Further problems emerge when one moves from the abstract right of an individual, to trying to assess the specific benefits any one individual is entitled to in relation to all others trying to exercise the same particular right, but the situation becomes even more complex when the issue involves balancing competing rights or balancing the good of individuals against the good of their community.
At one level rights are those claims which protect individuals from being subjected to calculations of pure utility. The promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number cannot justify some violation of an individual's welfare, if that individual has a right to the benefit in question. The most basic utilitarian critique of human rights lies in the assertion that resources are scarce in any society, and especially limited in some. This scarcity inevitably leads to utilitarian calculations to allocate those resources in a way that will maximize the greatest good. In the end, it is argued, all the benefits listed as human rights, even life itself, are subject to the promotion of the greatest good within a society. As such an individual's benefits claimed as a human right may be compromised, diluted, or even completely denied in specific situations where that right has to be weighed against the claim of another individual or of society as a whole. This critique is not necessarily normative, in the sense that this should be the case, but may also stem from the observation that this is how societies do and will function.
Whether there is an inalienable right to life, safe from the utilitarian needs of the state, is tested most sorely in times of war; but it is also as germane in times of peace. Considerable debate rages over the conscription of citizens to defend the state or pursue the state's interests abroad, but the right to life can be just as endangered for those citizens who voluntarily join the state's police, miliary, fire departments, and coast guard, and who are subject to superiors' orders that might lead to their death. Conscription raises the question whether the state can take control of its citizens lives and send them to their deaths. Voluntary service in the public safety and security services raise the issue whether individuals can contract away control over their lives for the duration of that service. In both instances, the issue is essentially whether the right to life is inalienable and cannot be given up to another’s control.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism has established itself as one of the small number of live options that must be taken into account and either refuted or accepted by any philosopher taking a position in normative ethics. These problems, however, are common to almost all normative ethical theories since most of them recognize the consequences including the hedonic of an act as being relevant ethical considerations. The central insight of Utilitarianism, that one ought to promote happiness and prevent unhappiness whenever possible, seems undeniable. The critical question, however, is whether the whole of normative ethics can be analyzed in terms of this simple formula.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.”Uncertanity and Information.” 01 September 2010. www.sfu.ca
2. “Uncertanity and Information.” 01 September 2010. www.informaworld.com
3. Hammond, J. Peter. “Utilitarianism, Uncertanity and Information” in Utilitarianism
and Beyond, ed. Amartya sen. New Delhi: Mans Saikia for foundation Books, 1999.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
UTILITARIANISM – DIFFERENT FORMS
UTILITARIANISM – DIFFERENT FORMS
Introduction
It is a concept in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). And since the link between actions and their happy or unhappy outcomes depends on the circumstances, no moral principle is absolute or necessary in itself. Proposed by the English philosopher-reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in his 1789 book Principals of Morals and Legislation it was developed by the English philosopher-economist John Stuart Mill (1806-73) in his 1863 book Utilitarianism.Utilitarianism was described by Bentham as "the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle." Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.
Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism.
In general usage, the term utilitarian refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism, however, is a much broader view that encompasses all aspects of people's lives.
Origin
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
Bentham's foremost proponent was James Mill, a significant philosopher in his day and the father of John Stuart Mill. Mill was educated according to Bentham's principles, including transcribing and summarizing much of his father's work while still in his teens.
In his famous work, Utilitarianism, Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote found in Utilitarianism was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied “demonstrating Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures."
Like Bentham's formulation, Mill's utilitarianism deals with pleasure and happiness. However John Stuart Mill made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure; for the naturalistic fallacy made it clear that what one desires and what is good are not always the same thing. For example a pleasure or desire may be to bully a lonely child, which may produce pleasure; however happiness comes from following virtues rather than desires.
The classic utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill influenced many other philosophers as well as the development of the broader concept of consequentialism. As a result, now there exist many different accounts of the good, and, therefore, many different types of consequentialism besides utilitarianism.
Types of Utilitarianism
1. Act vs Rule
Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialists calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules.
Criticisms
Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e., laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not.
2. Strong and Weak Utilitarianism
Within rule utilitarianism there is a distinction between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist theory, which frames strict rules that apply for all people and all time and may never be broken. John Stuart Mill proposed Weak Rule utilitarianism, which posits that, although rules should be framed on previous examples that benefit society, it is possible, under specific circumstances, to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule.
Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with heuristics (rules of thumb), but many act utilitarian’s agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation whose consequences are difficult, costly or time-consuming to calculate exactly. If the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly and without much doubt, however, the rules of thumb can be ignored.
3. Collapse of Rule Utilitarianism into Act Utilitarianism
It has been argued that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, because for any given rule, in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility, the rule can be sophisticated by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. This process holds for all cases of exceptions, and so the 'rules' will have as many 'sub-rules' as there are exceptional cases, which, in the end, makes an agent seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility.
4. Two-level Utilitarianism
Two-level utilitarianism states that one should normally use 'intuitive' moral thinking, in the form of rule utilitarianism, because it usually maximizes happiness. However there are some times when we must ascend to a higher 'critical' level of reflection in order to decide what to do, and must think as an act utilitarian would. Richard Hare supported this theory with his concept of the Archangel, which holds that if we were all 'archangels' we could be act utilitarians all the time as we would be able to perfectly predict consequences. However we are closer to 'proles' in that we are frequently biased and unable to foresee all possible consequence of our actions, and thus we require moral guidelines. When these principles clash we must attempt to think like an archangel to choose the right course of action.
5. Motive Utilitarianism
Motive utilitarianism, first developed by Robert Adams can be viewed either as a hybrid between act and rule or as a unique approach on its own terms. The motive approach attempts to deal realistically with how human beings actually function psychologically. We are indeed passionate, emotional creatures; we do much better with positive goals than with negative prohibitions, we long to be taken seriously, and so on and so forth. Motive utilitarianism proposes that our initial moral task is to inculcate within ourselves and others skills, inclinations, and mental focuses that are likely to be highly useful across the spectrum of real-world situations we are likely to face, rather than the hypothetical situations seemingly so common in philosophical publications (almost as if there were an unofficial rule against real-world examples; and motive utilitarianism is somewhat of a response to this).
6. Preference Utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism is one of the most popular forms of utilitarianism in contemporary philosophy. In the same way as other utilitarian theorists, preference utilitarians define a morally right action as that which produces the most favorable consequences for the people involved. However, preference utilitarians interpret the best consequences in terms of 'preference satisfaction'. This means that 'good' is described as the satisfaction of each person's individual preferences or desires, and a right action is that which leads to this satisfaction. Since what is good depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad except for the resulting state of mind. Preference utilitarianism therefore can be distinguished by its acknowledgment that every person's experience of satisfaction will be unique. Peter Singer is generally regarded as the leading contemporary advocate of preference utilitarianism. He was greatly influenced on this by R. M. Hare.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Utilitarianism.” August 30, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
“Utilitarianism.” August 30, 2010. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm
“Utilitarianism definition.” August 30, 2010. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html
“Preference Utilitarianism.” August 30, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism
A BASIC UNDERSTANDING ABOUT UTILITARIANISM
A BASIC UNDERSTANDING ABOUT UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right or wrong and by which the rules of morality, laws, public policies, and social institutions are to be critically evaluated. According to utilitarianism, an action is not right or wrong simply because it is a case of telling truth or lying; and the moral rule against lying is not in itself correct. Lying is wrong because, in general, has bad consequences. And the moral rule against lying can be subjected to empirical study to justify some cases of lying, such as to avoid a disastrous consequences in saving someone’s life. Utilitarianism is one of the major ethical philosophies of the last two hundred years. Some of the most prominent Utilitarian ethical philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right or wrong and by which the rules of morality, laws, public policies, and social institutions are to be critically evaluated. According to utilitarianism, an action is not right or wrong simply because it is a case of telling truth or lying; and the moral rule against lying is not in itself correct. Lying is wrong because, in general, has bad consequences. And the moral rule against lying can be subjected to empirical study to justify some cases of lying, such as to avoid a disastrous consequences in saving someone’s life. Utilitarianism is one of the major ethical philosophies of the last two hundred years. Some of the most prominent Utilitarian ethical philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
Utilitarianism
The classical formulation of utilitarian moral theory is found in the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is called “the principle of utility” or “the greatest happiness principle.” In Bentham and Mill as well as in utilitarians after them, the formulation of utilitarianism can be summarized in two statements: (a) The morally best (or better) alternative is that which produces the greatest (or greater) net utility where utility is defined in terms of happiness or pleasure. (b) We ought to do that which produces the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. The requirements of utilitarian evaluation can be split into three components. These three components are Consequentialism, welfarism and sum ranking.
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about the action. This aspect in utilitarianism which stresses on the consequences or the fruit of action when we discuss the issue of call centre mangers.
Yet another ingredient of utilitarianism is ‘welfarism’. It restricts judgments of state of affairs to the utilities in the respective states (paying no attention to such things as the fulfilment or violation of rights duties and so on).
The classical formulation of utilitarian moral theory is found in the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is called “the principle of utility” or “the greatest happiness principle.” In Bentham and Mill as well as in utilitarians after them, the formulation of utilitarianism can be summarized in two statements: (a) The morally best (or better) alternative is that which produces the greatest (or greater) net utility where utility is defined in terms of happiness or pleasure. (b) We ought to do that which produces the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. The requirements of utilitarian evaluation can be split into three components. These three components are Consequentialism, welfarism and sum ranking.
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about the action. This aspect in utilitarianism which stresses on the consequences or the fruit of action when we discuss the issue of call centre mangers.
Yet another ingredient of utilitarianism is ‘welfarism’. It restricts judgments of state of affairs to the utilities in the respective states (paying no attention to such things as the fulfilment or violation of rights duties and so on).
The third component is ‘sum-ranking’, which requires that the utilities of different people be simply summed together to get the aggregate merit, without paying attention to the distribution of that total over individuals (i.e., the utility sum is to be maximized irrespective of the extent of inequality in the distribution of utilities).
So the modern version of utilitarianism is an amalgamation of consequentialism, welfarism and ‘sum-ranking’ that would lead to the classic utilitarian formula of judging every choice by the sum total of utilities generated through that choice.
Before the contemporary version of utilitarianism arrived, two main forms of utilitarianism were act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed, as a general practice. Rule utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed, as a general practice.
Contemporary Versions
In the contemporary period, other forms of utilitarian or consequentialist moral theories that do not take happiness as the only intrinsic good sprang up. They hold that knowledge, peace, freedom, education, beauty, power, etc., were the goods to be maximized.
Depending on what was on the list of intrinsic goods, different forms of utilitarianism or consequentialism could be developed. Since Mill’s writings, other forms of utilitarianism also have been developed. Two of these contemporary forms are preference utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis. Cost benefit analysis says that one policy is better than another if it is the least costly compared with the benefits expected.
So the modern version of utilitarianism is an amalgamation of consequentialism, welfarism and ‘sum-ranking’ that would lead to the classic utilitarian formula of judging every choice by the sum total of utilities generated through that choice.
Before the contemporary version of utilitarianism arrived, two main forms of utilitarianism were act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed, as a general practice. Rule utilitarianism states that we ought to consider the consequences of the act performed, as a general practice.
Contemporary Versions
In the contemporary period, other forms of utilitarian or consequentialist moral theories that do not take happiness as the only intrinsic good sprang up. They hold that knowledge, peace, freedom, education, beauty, power, etc., were the goods to be maximized.
Depending on what was on the list of intrinsic goods, different forms of utilitarianism or consequentialism could be developed. Since Mill’s writings, other forms of utilitarianism also have been developed. Two of these contemporary forms are preference utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis. Cost benefit analysis says that one policy is better than another if it is the least costly compared with the benefits expected.
Preference Utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism is probably the most popular form of utilitarianism in the contemporary philosophy. Preference utilitarianism is the view that morally right actions and the institutions maximize aggregate preference satisfaction and/or minimize aggregate preference frustrations or denial.
In preference utilitarianism, happiness is defined in terms of preference satisfaction. The preference includes desires, plans, projects and any other consciously pursued goals. ‘Good’ is described as the satisfaction of each person’s individual preferences or desires and a right action is that which leads to this satisfaction. There can be nothing that is in itself good or bad except for the resulting state of mind since what is good depends solely on individual preferences. So, there cannot be any universal or commonly accepted norm for defining happiness. It can only be based on individual’s preferences followed by his/her satisfaction which will give him/her happiness and satisfaction. According to preference utilitarianism, what is good for a person is not a certain sort of mental state of experience such as enjoyment or pleasure, but rather getting what he/she wants, whatever it is. In this preference utilitarian way of thinking what matters, and what utilitarianism rightly seeks to promote is getting as much as possible of whatever it is they want. Today the desire satisfaction theory is probably the dominant view of welfare among economists, social scientists and philosophers both utilitarian and non-utilitarian.
Peter Singer: A Preference Utilitarian
Peter Singer is generally regarded as the leading contemporary advocate of preference utilitarianism. The New Yorker called him the world’s “most influential living philosopher.” Peter Alber David Singer, usually called Peter Singer, is a Jewish Australian philosopher. He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian perspective.
He studied utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sedgwick. He was influenced by them and he decided that the ethical action cannot be inferred from a set of rules, like the Ten Commandments or Hammurabi’s code or Kant’s categorical imperative to “act in such a way that the maxim of your action could be universally applied.” The fact that utilitarianism does not involve political or religious convictions or a list of command as a child had refused to have Bar Mitzvah ceremony. At Oxford, where he studied with R. M. Hare and as a professor in Melbourne’s Monash University, Singer slightly modified his philosophy into what he calls preference utilitarianism. His books like Practical Ethics, Rethinking life and Death, Animal Liberation, Writings on an Ethical Life and a Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Co-operation bring forth his preference utilitarian attitude
Creation and Satisfaction of a Preference
The preference utilitarianism as outlined by Peter Singer is a form of maximizing utilitarianism in the sense that it directs us to maximise the satisfaction of preferences. With regard to the creation and satisfaction of preferences he is of the view that the creation and satisfaction of a preference is in itself neither good nor bad. The response to the idea of the creation and satisfaction of a preference varies according to whether the experience as a whole will be desirable or undesirable, in terms of other longs standing preferences that we may have, for example, pleasure rather than pain. The example he gives will make things clear. If I put myself in the place of another with an unsatisfied preference and ask the answer (tautologically) is yes. If, however I ask myself whether I wish to have a new preference created that can then be satisfied, I will be quite uncertain. If I think of a case in which the satisfaction of a preference will be highly pleasurable I may say yes. (We are glad that we are hungry if delicious food is on the table before us, and strong sexual desires are fine when we are able to satisfy them.) But if I think of creation of a preference that is more likely to result in a privation, I will say no.
The Ultimate Choice
In his book, How are We to Live, Singer states that when ethics and self-interest are in conflict, we face an ultimate choice. He then distinguishes between ultimate choices and restricted choices. The restricted choices are those in which the fundamental values are already assumed and the choice is a matter of the best means of achieving what is valued. For example, when your sell a bike you don’t hide the fact that the engine has got some problem, even though the buyer is not aware of this fact and you lose a lot of money because of your truthful act. The choices of this nature he calls as restricted choices. The ultimate choices, on the other hand, presupposes courage and we go for it when we are genuinely unsure what is rational to do, when there is a clash between ethics and self-interest. The ultimate choices usually are of self interest and Singer says that choosing self-interest ahead of ethics is not just a case of being weak willed and irrational. So, Singer would justify hiding the truth about the product being sold, in order to achieve more material gains. At a moment of conflict, he says, we are usually unsure of what is rational to do because the clash is so fundamental and reason seems no way of resolving it. So, the ultimate choices come into play here which demands individual’s preference and determination which will guarantee him the material satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Though a preference utilitarian, Peter Singer writes beautifully about the ethical stance we must adopt. His words look good: In comparison with the needs of people starving in Somalia, the desire to sample the wines of the leading French vineyard pales into insignificance. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having fun or enjoying food and wine, but it changes our sense of priorities. He asserts that reason has not been able to win over self interest and, thus, the dream of every person to act ethically may not be possible. Nevertheless, we are part of this world and there is a desperate need to do something now about the conditions in which people live and die, and to avoid both social and ecological disaster. Singer says that this change that will lead 10% of the population to consciously promote ethical life and act accordingly, the resulting change would be more significant that any change that could be brought about by a change in government. He continues to state that the commitment to a more ethical way of living will be the first step of a gradual but far reaching evolution in our lifestyle and in our thinking about our place in the world.
We can see a broad egalitarian perspective in the above described writings of Singer but looking from a larger perspective he narrows down his philosophy to a preference utilitarian stand. As long as Singer holds on to his preference utilitarian stand it is going to make all his egalitarian arguments futile. To single handedly fulfil ones desires and taking care of the needs of the society can surely backfire. Coming back to the call center employees, they are earning a pretty good salary, if they have been using a part of their income steadily for the poor, the change would have been great. But we seldom see such things happening but we do see youngsters from the call centers thronging pubs, malls, clubs and the like with the sole aim of satisfying their preferences. The whole writings and philosophy of Peter Singer is just a flowering of his preference utilitarian bend, clearly chalked out and presented with an egalitarian outlook but clearly preference utilitarian in its base which can pose a serious threat to the fruitful co-existence of man in this world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In preference utilitarianism, happiness is defined in terms of preference satisfaction. The preference includes desires, plans, projects and any other consciously pursued goals. ‘Good’ is described as the satisfaction of each person’s individual preferences or desires and a right action is that which leads to this satisfaction. There can be nothing that is in itself good or bad except for the resulting state of mind since what is good depends solely on individual preferences. So, there cannot be any universal or commonly accepted norm for defining happiness. It can only be based on individual’s preferences followed by his/her satisfaction which will give him/her happiness and satisfaction. According to preference utilitarianism, what is good for a person is not a certain sort of mental state of experience such as enjoyment or pleasure, but rather getting what he/she wants, whatever it is. In this preference utilitarian way of thinking what matters, and what utilitarianism rightly seeks to promote is getting as much as possible of whatever it is they want. Today the desire satisfaction theory is probably the dominant view of welfare among economists, social scientists and philosophers both utilitarian and non-utilitarian.
Peter Singer: A Preference Utilitarian
Peter Singer is generally regarded as the leading contemporary advocate of preference utilitarianism. The New Yorker called him the world’s “most influential living philosopher.” Peter Alber David Singer, usually called Peter Singer, is a Jewish Australian philosopher. He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian perspective.
He studied utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sedgwick. He was influenced by them and he decided that the ethical action cannot be inferred from a set of rules, like the Ten Commandments or Hammurabi’s code or Kant’s categorical imperative to “act in such a way that the maxim of your action could be universally applied.” The fact that utilitarianism does not involve political or religious convictions or a list of command as a child had refused to have Bar Mitzvah ceremony. At Oxford, where he studied with R. M. Hare and as a professor in Melbourne’s Monash University, Singer slightly modified his philosophy into what he calls preference utilitarianism. His books like Practical Ethics, Rethinking life and Death, Animal Liberation, Writings on an Ethical Life and a Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Co-operation bring forth his preference utilitarian attitude
Creation and Satisfaction of a Preference
The preference utilitarianism as outlined by Peter Singer is a form of maximizing utilitarianism in the sense that it directs us to maximise the satisfaction of preferences. With regard to the creation and satisfaction of preferences he is of the view that the creation and satisfaction of a preference is in itself neither good nor bad. The response to the idea of the creation and satisfaction of a preference varies according to whether the experience as a whole will be desirable or undesirable, in terms of other longs standing preferences that we may have, for example, pleasure rather than pain. The example he gives will make things clear. If I put myself in the place of another with an unsatisfied preference and ask the answer (tautologically) is yes. If, however I ask myself whether I wish to have a new preference created that can then be satisfied, I will be quite uncertain. If I think of a case in which the satisfaction of a preference will be highly pleasurable I may say yes. (We are glad that we are hungry if delicious food is on the table before us, and strong sexual desires are fine when we are able to satisfy them.) But if I think of creation of a preference that is more likely to result in a privation, I will say no.
The Ultimate Choice
In his book, How are We to Live, Singer states that when ethics and self-interest are in conflict, we face an ultimate choice. He then distinguishes between ultimate choices and restricted choices. The restricted choices are those in which the fundamental values are already assumed and the choice is a matter of the best means of achieving what is valued. For example, when your sell a bike you don’t hide the fact that the engine has got some problem, even though the buyer is not aware of this fact and you lose a lot of money because of your truthful act. The choices of this nature he calls as restricted choices. The ultimate choices, on the other hand, presupposes courage and we go for it when we are genuinely unsure what is rational to do, when there is a clash between ethics and self-interest. The ultimate choices usually are of self interest and Singer says that choosing self-interest ahead of ethics is not just a case of being weak willed and irrational. So, Singer would justify hiding the truth about the product being sold, in order to achieve more material gains. At a moment of conflict, he says, we are usually unsure of what is rational to do because the clash is so fundamental and reason seems no way of resolving it. So, the ultimate choices come into play here which demands individual’s preference and determination which will guarantee him the material satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Though a preference utilitarian, Peter Singer writes beautifully about the ethical stance we must adopt. His words look good: In comparison with the needs of people starving in Somalia, the desire to sample the wines of the leading French vineyard pales into insignificance. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having fun or enjoying food and wine, but it changes our sense of priorities. He asserts that reason has not been able to win over self interest and, thus, the dream of every person to act ethically may not be possible. Nevertheless, we are part of this world and there is a desperate need to do something now about the conditions in which people live and die, and to avoid both social and ecological disaster. Singer says that this change that will lead 10% of the population to consciously promote ethical life and act accordingly, the resulting change would be more significant that any change that could be brought about by a change in government. He continues to state that the commitment to a more ethical way of living will be the first step of a gradual but far reaching evolution in our lifestyle and in our thinking about our place in the world.
We can see a broad egalitarian perspective in the above described writings of Singer but looking from a larger perspective he narrows down his philosophy to a preference utilitarian stand. As long as Singer holds on to his preference utilitarian stand it is going to make all his egalitarian arguments futile. To single handedly fulfil ones desires and taking care of the needs of the society can surely backfire. Coming back to the call center employees, they are earning a pretty good salary, if they have been using a part of their income steadily for the poor, the change would have been great. But we seldom see such things happening but we do see youngsters from the call centers thronging pubs, malls, clubs and the like with the sole aim of satisfying their preferences. The whole writings and philosophy of Peter Singer is just a flowering of his preference utilitarian bend, clearly chalked out and presented with an egalitarian outlook but clearly preference utilitarian in its base which can pose a serious threat to the fruitful co-existence of man in this world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Canada: Wadsorth, 2004.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. London: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: The Ecco Press, 2000.
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Oppenheimer, Mark. “Who Lives? Who Dies? - The Utility of Peter Singer.” 2 February 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_14_119/ ai_89580866
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. London: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: The Ecco Press, 2000.
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Oppenheimer, Mark. “Who Lives? Who Dies? - The Utility of Peter Singer.” 2 February 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_14_119/ ai_89580866
CONSEQUENTIALISM IN ETHICS
CONSEQUENTIALISM IN ETHICS
Introduction
Utilitarianism is a position in philosophy that actions, laws and social policies are to be justified by their utility- that is by their consequence. According to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, consequences that count are happiness and unhappiness. Consequentialism says that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences. It doesn't in itself matter what kind of thing we do. What matters is that we maximize good results. In this way it sat that we have only one basic duty: to do whatever has the best consequences. We have only one duty and that is to produce better results. English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it. In other words, utilitarianism is opposite to what is called egoism . Any theory in that case does not favour others’ interest. Actually, ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their consequences is important.
Consequentialism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics
Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology and Virtue Ethics. Deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action. It means the act is important than the results of the act. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. There are difference from the three group like, Consequentialists, Deontologists and Virtue Ethicists. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying—though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior.
Consequentialism and Biblical Concept
Consequentialism is the philosophical thesis that the effects of an action exclusively determine its morality. Different schools of consequentialism, however, disagree on how these effects should be judged; for example, utilitarians measure the increase or decrease of pleasure and pain for sentient beings as the determinant of the morality of an action. Other consequentialist schools may measure effects such as the number of human lives saved or ended by the action being judged, or even the number of people whose preference is satisfied by that action. My belief is that a quality similar to consequentialism is required for any form of morality, but that the adoption of formal consequentialism has serious implication.
Informal consequentialism is the idea of consequences that are implicit in any moral code. For example, most of the biblical Ten Commandments carry acknowledgment of the importance of consequences - murder is forbidden because a human life is ended; honoring parents is sanctioned "so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." However, the commandments are a very nonconsequentialist moral code. It is from the idea of God, speaking these words. One shouldn't murder, no matter what the benefits of murdering a person would be. Even though many times lying may be advantageous, it simply should not be done.
Consequences of Consequentialism
The best understanding of the concept of consequence or outcome leads to a theory resistant to counterexamples and difficulties commonly posed for consequentialism. The basic idea of consequentialism is that the ethical status of an act depends on the value of its consequences. The concept of an act's consequences is central to the theory. One of the important characteristic of the consequentialism defended is that it will allow a wide range of intrinsic values to contribute to the overall status of states of affairs. Loyalty, can carry its own independent value. Loyal acts bring about states of affairs in which a loyal act has been performed. Those states of affairs carry some positive value. Consequentialism can deal with certain common objections. Since Mill's Utilitarianism, people have claimed that in some situations it was best to do something which produces a less good overall outcome. Although this may seem incoherent on its face (it does to me), a classic example may lend it plausibility.
A sudden attack of murders has a city terrorized and in chaos. The people actually want peace and justice. The city officials know that if they were to hang an innocent in the square as if for the murders, peace would be restored. The real murderer will be caught soon enough and can be disposed of discreetly. Without a punishment ceremony immediately, however, the citizens will riot and loot, hundreds of lives will be lost, the effects will be disastrous. Consequentialism seems to mandate the hanging of the innocent. But commonsense finds this wrong. Rights-based ethical theories are often opposed to consequentialist theories over examples such as this. The hanging of the innocent is wrong because it violates the innocent's rights and no amount of good consequences can outweigh that right. Rights trump utilities, as it is sometimes put. The version of consequentialism defended here has a response that partially accommodates that intuition. The violation of the innocent's rights must be weighed along with the other factors in evaluating the states of affairs consequent upon his hanging. If the officials hang him they violate his right not to be punished unless guilty. The violation of that right is a very serious harm, perhaps greater even than many deaths which are not in punishment of innocent people.
Another example could be that of suicide. A guy goes out of despair, commits suicide. It is a virtue act? In the consequentialists’ point of view, they would look for the outcome the very act. So there is no question of why he committed suicide and how he did that? Their only concern is the impact of the very act, and not even the nature of the act. If the result of the act is bringing forth good response from the society, like that person’s death put to an end for the tensions in the society, as he was a notorious fellow in that place. It will contradict when it comes in the view point of morality.
Now, let us see another position of a student copying in the examination. The means is not at all considered. But it is the result. Thus he student passed out the examination and decorates the highest position and receives awards from the authorities. In the consequentialist point, he is a moral person. But what is the case of a studious and sincere student, who got less number comparing to him?
Conclusion
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action, says the famous writer Dr.Suad AlFadhli, in his book, The End Justifies the Means. The moral judgment is possible, when the result comes. This is the stand of consequentialists. It is difficult to judge whether a person is moral or immoral. The result, though it is good, the motive might not be so. In that case, some moral people, if they don’t explicitly do good, things, they will not be counted as moral. This is the limitation of the consequentialism. The crooked and wicked authoritarians will come up by putting dust in the eyes of ordinary people. The mass is blind and are ready to follow any wicked leader, if they are met the needs. There will not be any serious problem, or even a minor problem, in taking the life of another to have a greater result. The euthanasia and abortion will be wiped away from the moral discussion, if they bring visible good results to the people.
Bibliography
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Prometheus Books: NewYork, 1987.
West, Henry R. Mill’s Utilitarianism. Continuum International Publishing Group:
New York,2008.
Mulgan, Tim. The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press: New
York, 2001.
ACT-UTILITARIANISM AND RULE-UTILITARIANISM
ACT-UTILITARIANISM AND RULE-UTILITARIANISM
Introduction
A system of ethics which is free from traditional and theological associations is a type of utilitarianism which R. B. Brandt has called ‘act-utilitarianism’. Roughly speaking act- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, that is, on the effect of the action on the welfare of all human beings. Act-utilitarianism is to be contrasted with rule-utilitarianism. According to David Lyons rule-utilitarianism collapses into act-utilitarianism. Here these two arguments are taken to analyse and also deal the place of rules in act-utilitarianism.
Act-utilitarianism and Rule-utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism is to be contrasted with rule-utilitarianism. Act- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the consequences, good or bad, of the action itself. Rule- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform the action in like circumstances. There are two sub-varieties of rule-utilitarianism according to whether one construes rule here as actual rule or possible rule. With the former, one gets a view like that of S. E. Toulmin and with the latter, one like Kant’s. That is, if it is permissible to interpret Kant’s principle ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ as ‘Act only on that maxim which you as a humane and benevolent person would like to see established as a universal law’. Of course Kant would resist this appeal to human feeling, but it seems necessary in order to interpret his doctrine in a plausible way. The rule-utilitarian presumably advocates his principle because he is ultimately concerned with human happiness.
David Lyons has recently argued that rule-utilitarianism collapses into act-utilitarianism. His reasons are briefly as follows. Suppose that an exception to a rule A produces the best possible consequences. Then this is evidens that the rule A should be modified so as to allow this exception. Thus we get a new rule of the form ‘do A except in circumstances of the sort B’.That is, whatever would lead the act-utilitarian to break a rule would lead the Kantian rule-utilitarian to modify the rule. Thus an adequate rule-utilitarianism would be extensionally equivallent to act-utilitarianism.
An adequate rule-utilitarianism would not only be extensionally equivallent to the act-utilitarian principle but would in fact consist of one rule only, the act-utilitarian one: ‘maximize probable benefit’. This is because any rule which can be formulated must be able to deal with an indefinite number of unforseen types of contingency. No rule, short of the act-utilitarian one, can therefore be safely regarded as extensionally equivallent to the act-utilitarian principle unless it is that very principle itself.
The Place of Rules in Act-utilitarianism
According to the act-utilitarian, then, the rational way to decide what to do is to decide to perform that one of those alternative actions open to us which is likely to maximize the probable happiness or well-being of humanity as a whole, or more accurately, of all sentient beings. The utilitarian position is here put forward as a criterion of rational choice. It is true that we may choose to habituate ourselves to behave in accordance with certain rules, such as to keep promises, in the belief that bahaving in accordance with these rules is generally optimific, and in the knowledge that we most often just do not have time to work out individual pros and cons. When we act in such a habitual fashion we do not of course deliberate or make a choice. The act-utilitarian will, however regard these rules as mere rules of thumb, and will use them only as rough guides. Normally he will act in accordance with them when he has no time for considering probable cosequences or when the advantages of such a consideration of consequences are likely to be outweighed by the disadvantage of the waste of time involved. He acts in accordance with rules, in short, when there is no time to think, and since he does not think, the actions which he does habitually are not the outcome of moral thinking. When he has to think what to do, then there is a question of deliberation or choice, and it is precisely for such situations that the utilitarian criterion is intended. It is moreover important to realize that there is no inconsistency whatever in an act-utilitarian’s schooling himself to act in normal circumstances habitually and in accordance with stereotyped rules.
Act-utilitarianism is meant to give a method of deciding what to do in those cases in which we do indeed decide what to do. On these occasions when we do not act as a result of deliberation and choice, that is, when we act spontaneously no method of decision whether utilitarian or non-utilitarian comes into the matter. What does arise for the utilitarian is the question of whether or not he should consciously encourage in himself the tendency to certain types of spontaneous feeling. There are in fact very good utilitarian reasons why we should by all means cultivate in ourselves the tendency to certain types of warm and spontaneous feeling. Though even the act-utilitarian may on occasion act habitually and in accordance with particular rules, his criterion is, applied in cases in which he does not act habitually but in which he deliberates and chooses what to do. Now the right action for agent in given circumstances is the action which produces better results than any alternative action.
We are now able to specify more clearly what is meant by alternative action. The fact that the utilitarian criterion is meant to apply in situations of deliberation and choice enables us to say that the class of alternative actions which we have in mind when we talk about an action having the best possible results is the class of actions which the agent could have performed if he had tried.
It is true that the general concept of action is wider than that of deliberate choice. Many actions are performed habitually and without deliberation. But the actions for whose rightness we as agents want a criterion are, in the nature of the case those done thinkingly and deliberately. An action is at any rate that sort of human performance which it is appropriate to praise, blame, punish or reward, and since it is often appropriate to praise, blame, punish or reward habitual performances the concept of action cannot be identified with that of the outcome of deliberation and choice. The utilitarian criterion then is designed to help a person who could do various things if he chose to do them to decide which of these things he should do. His utilitarian deliberation is one of the causal antecedents of his action and it would be pointless if it were not. The utilitarian view is therefore perfectly compatible with determinism.
The utilitarian conveniently make a terminological recommendation. Let us use the word rational as a term of commendation for that action which is on the evidence available to the agent likely to produce the best results, and to reserve the word right as a term of commendation for the action which does in fact produce the best results. That is, let us say that what is rational is to try to perform the right action to try to produce the best results. Or at least this formulation will do where there is an equal probability of achieving each possible set of results. If there is a low probability of producing very good results, then it is natural to say that the rational agent would perhaps go for other more probable though not quite so good results. For a more accurate formulation we should have to weight the goodness of the results with their probabilities. However neglecting this complication we can say roughly that it is rational to perform the action which is on the available evidence the one which will produce the best results.
Ratonal and irrational and right and wrong so far have been introduced as terms of appraisal for chosen or deliberate actions only. There is no reason why we should not use the pair of terms right and wrong more widely so as to appraise even habitual actions. Nevertheless we shall not have much occasion to appraise actions that are not the outcome of choice. What we do need is a pair of terms of appraisal for agents and motives. We use the terms good and bad for these purposes. A good agent is one who acts more nearly in a generally optimific way than does the average one. A bad agent is one who acts in a less optimific way than the average. A good motive is one which generally results in beneficent actions, and a bad motive is one which generally ends in maleficent actions. Clearly there is no inconsistency in saying that on a particular occasion a good man did a wrong action, that a bad man did a right action, that a right action was done from a bad motive, or that a wrong action was done from a good motive. Many specious arguments against utilitarianism come from obscuring these distinctions. Thus one may be got to admit that an action is right, meaning no more than that it is done from a good motive and is praiseworthy and then it is pointed out that the action is not right in the sense of being optimific.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism is a normative system. The fact that it has consequences which conflict with some of our particular moral judgements need not be decisive against it. In science general principles must be tested by reference to particular facts of observation. In ethics we may well take the opposite attitude and test our particular moral attitudes by reference to more general ones. The utilitarian can contend that since his principle rests on something so simple and natural as generalized benevolence it is more securely founded than our particular feelings, which may be subtly distored by analogies with similar looking types of cases, and by all sorts of hangovers from traditional and uncritical ethical thinking.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smart, J. J. C. Utilitarianism For and Against. London: Cambridge University
Press,1973
Brandt, R. B. Ethical Theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1959.
Toulmin, stephen. An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1950.
Immanuel, Kant. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton.
London: Hutchinson, 1948.
Lyons, david. The Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. London: Oxford University
Press, 1965.
Introduction
A system of ethics which is free from traditional and theological associations is a type of utilitarianism which R. B. Brandt has called ‘act-utilitarianism’. Roughly speaking act- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, that is, on the effect of the action on the welfare of all human beings. Act-utilitarianism is to be contrasted with rule-utilitarianism. According to David Lyons rule-utilitarianism collapses into act-utilitarianism. Here these two arguments are taken to analyse and also deal the place of rules in act-utilitarianism.
Act-utilitarianism and Rule-utilitarianism
Act-utilitarianism is to be contrasted with rule-utilitarianism. Act- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the consequences, good or bad, of the action itself. Rule- utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform the action in like circumstances. There are two sub-varieties of rule-utilitarianism according to whether one construes rule here as actual rule or possible rule. With the former, one gets a view like that of S. E. Toulmin and with the latter, one like Kant’s. That is, if it is permissible to interpret Kant’s principle ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ as ‘Act only on that maxim which you as a humane and benevolent person would like to see established as a universal law’. Of course Kant would resist this appeal to human feeling, but it seems necessary in order to interpret his doctrine in a plausible way. The rule-utilitarian presumably advocates his principle because he is ultimately concerned with human happiness.
David Lyons has recently argued that rule-utilitarianism collapses into act-utilitarianism. His reasons are briefly as follows. Suppose that an exception to a rule A produces the best possible consequences. Then this is evidens that the rule A should be modified so as to allow this exception. Thus we get a new rule of the form ‘do A except in circumstances of the sort B’.That is, whatever would lead the act-utilitarian to break a rule would lead the Kantian rule-utilitarian to modify the rule. Thus an adequate rule-utilitarianism would be extensionally equivallent to act-utilitarianism.
An adequate rule-utilitarianism would not only be extensionally equivallent to the act-utilitarian principle but would in fact consist of one rule only, the act-utilitarian one: ‘maximize probable benefit’. This is because any rule which can be formulated must be able to deal with an indefinite number of unforseen types of contingency. No rule, short of the act-utilitarian one, can therefore be safely regarded as extensionally equivallent to the act-utilitarian principle unless it is that very principle itself.
The Place of Rules in Act-utilitarianism
According to the act-utilitarian, then, the rational way to decide what to do is to decide to perform that one of those alternative actions open to us which is likely to maximize the probable happiness or well-being of humanity as a whole, or more accurately, of all sentient beings. The utilitarian position is here put forward as a criterion of rational choice. It is true that we may choose to habituate ourselves to behave in accordance with certain rules, such as to keep promises, in the belief that bahaving in accordance with these rules is generally optimific, and in the knowledge that we most often just do not have time to work out individual pros and cons. When we act in such a habitual fashion we do not of course deliberate or make a choice. The act-utilitarian will, however regard these rules as mere rules of thumb, and will use them only as rough guides. Normally he will act in accordance with them when he has no time for considering probable cosequences or when the advantages of such a consideration of consequences are likely to be outweighed by the disadvantage of the waste of time involved. He acts in accordance with rules, in short, when there is no time to think, and since he does not think, the actions which he does habitually are not the outcome of moral thinking. When he has to think what to do, then there is a question of deliberation or choice, and it is precisely for such situations that the utilitarian criterion is intended. It is moreover important to realize that there is no inconsistency whatever in an act-utilitarian’s schooling himself to act in normal circumstances habitually and in accordance with stereotyped rules.
Act-utilitarianism is meant to give a method of deciding what to do in those cases in which we do indeed decide what to do. On these occasions when we do not act as a result of deliberation and choice, that is, when we act spontaneously no method of decision whether utilitarian or non-utilitarian comes into the matter. What does arise for the utilitarian is the question of whether or not he should consciously encourage in himself the tendency to certain types of spontaneous feeling. There are in fact very good utilitarian reasons why we should by all means cultivate in ourselves the tendency to certain types of warm and spontaneous feeling. Though even the act-utilitarian may on occasion act habitually and in accordance with particular rules, his criterion is, applied in cases in which he does not act habitually but in which he deliberates and chooses what to do. Now the right action for agent in given circumstances is the action which produces better results than any alternative action.
We are now able to specify more clearly what is meant by alternative action. The fact that the utilitarian criterion is meant to apply in situations of deliberation and choice enables us to say that the class of alternative actions which we have in mind when we talk about an action having the best possible results is the class of actions which the agent could have performed if he had tried.
It is true that the general concept of action is wider than that of deliberate choice. Many actions are performed habitually and without deliberation. But the actions for whose rightness we as agents want a criterion are, in the nature of the case those done thinkingly and deliberately. An action is at any rate that sort of human performance which it is appropriate to praise, blame, punish or reward, and since it is often appropriate to praise, blame, punish or reward habitual performances the concept of action cannot be identified with that of the outcome of deliberation and choice. The utilitarian criterion then is designed to help a person who could do various things if he chose to do them to decide which of these things he should do. His utilitarian deliberation is one of the causal antecedents of his action and it would be pointless if it were not. The utilitarian view is therefore perfectly compatible with determinism.
The utilitarian conveniently make a terminological recommendation. Let us use the word rational as a term of commendation for that action which is on the evidence available to the agent likely to produce the best results, and to reserve the word right as a term of commendation for the action which does in fact produce the best results. That is, let us say that what is rational is to try to perform the right action to try to produce the best results. Or at least this formulation will do where there is an equal probability of achieving each possible set of results. If there is a low probability of producing very good results, then it is natural to say that the rational agent would perhaps go for other more probable though not quite so good results. For a more accurate formulation we should have to weight the goodness of the results with their probabilities. However neglecting this complication we can say roughly that it is rational to perform the action which is on the available evidence the one which will produce the best results.
Ratonal and irrational and right and wrong so far have been introduced as terms of appraisal for chosen or deliberate actions only. There is no reason why we should not use the pair of terms right and wrong more widely so as to appraise even habitual actions. Nevertheless we shall not have much occasion to appraise actions that are not the outcome of choice. What we do need is a pair of terms of appraisal for agents and motives. We use the terms good and bad for these purposes. A good agent is one who acts more nearly in a generally optimific way than does the average one. A bad agent is one who acts in a less optimific way than the average. A good motive is one which generally results in beneficent actions, and a bad motive is one which generally ends in maleficent actions. Clearly there is no inconsistency in saying that on a particular occasion a good man did a wrong action, that a bad man did a right action, that a right action was done from a bad motive, or that a wrong action was done from a good motive. Many specious arguments against utilitarianism come from obscuring these distinctions. Thus one may be got to admit that an action is right, meaning no more than that it is done from a good motive and is praiseworthy and then it is pointed out that the action is not right in the sense of being optimific.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism is a normative system. The fact that it has consequences which conflict with some of our particular moral judgements need not be decisive against it. In science general principles must be tested by reference to particular facts of observation. In ethics we may well take the opposite attitude and test our particular moral attitudes by reference to more general ones. The utilitarian can contend that since his principle rests on something so simple and natural as generalized benevolence it is more securely founded than our particular feelings, which may be subtly distored by analogies with similar looking types of cases, and by all sorts of hangovers from traditional and uncritical ethical thinking.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smart, J. J. C. Utilitarianism For and Against. London: Cambridge University
Press,1973
Brandt, R. B. Ethical Theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1959.
Toulmin, stephen. An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. London:
Cambridge University Press, 1950.
Immanuel, Kant. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton.
London: Hutchinson, 1948.
Lyons, david. The Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. London: Oxford University
Press, 1965.
Monday, August 30, 2010
TOWARDS A QUALIFIED HEDONISM
TOWARDS A QUALIFIED HEDONISM
Introduction
Hedonist philosophers state the central thesis of hedonism as pleasure alone is intrinsically good. Different philosophers had divergent opinion about hedonism. Brandt and Dahl say that hedonism is the view that all and only pleasant things are intrinsically good. Thus, according to hedonic culture pleasure alone is be sought and pain is to be avoided. Pleasure is good and pain is evil/ bad. This article is an attempt to evaluate the traditional understanding of hedonism and a move from traditional understanding to qualified hedonism proposed by John Stuart Mill.
Traditional Understanding of Hedonism
The fundamental insight behind hedonism by saying that it is the view that pleasure is The Good, it is ultimately pleasure that gives value to everything else that is valuable ; a life filled with pleasures is the best that one can have. The more pleasure one enjoys, the better ones life, other things being equal. Pain, on the other hand, is The Bad and the undesirable. It functions as the mirror image of pleasure, making lives worse as they contain more of it. In the classic understanding pleasure alone is good as an end, or the view that pleasure is the good, or the view that pleasure is the only thins desirable as en end. Dahl says that hedonism is the view that pleasure and only pleasure is good. Hedonists do not say that pleasant thing itself is intrinsically good; they hold the view that the pleasures experienced are intrinsically good.
Intrinsic Nature of Pleasure
A feeling is correctly said to be a pleasure if, the person who has that feeling likes it for its own sake, or enjoys it, or wants it to continue, or apprehends it as desirable in itself. In general, according to this understanding, any sort of feeling might be a pleasure- it does not matter how it ‘feels.’ A feeling is a pleasure if the one who feels it has an appropriate attitude towards it when he or she has it.
But according to some hedonists, if a feeling happens to be a pleasure, it is so because of an extrinsic feature, the one who experiences it has the appropriate attitude towards it. They want to say that pleasures are intrinsically good, good in virtue of their own natures. Yet they also want to say that the feelings that happen to be pleasures are not pleasures in virtue of their own natures. They are pleasures in virtue of the fact that someone happens to have a certain attitude towards them. Thus, the feelings those are supposed to be intrinsically good turnout not to be good in virtue of their own natures. Thus we cannot understand hedonism to be the view that liked feelings are intrinsically good, because this conflicts with elements of the classic conception of intrinsic value.
So when the hedonists say that pleasures are intrinsically good, they are talking about the basic hedonic states. It is reasonable to say that these things have their intrinsic values in virtue of their intrinsic natures. In this way, we can formulate a version of the central doctrine of hedonism that makes use of classic conception of intrinsic value. The hedonic thesis formulated by Brandt states that, “something is intrinsically desirable (undesirable) if and only if and to the degree that it is an experience with a subjective element that the person at the time wants to prolong (terminate or avoid) for itself. In brief, the intrinsically good consists of liked experiences containing a subjective or feeling element.”
Qualified Hedonism
When Mill wrote that it was better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, he was departing somewhat from Bentham’s position, in accommodating aspects of Stoicism within his own Epicureanism. In reply to the standing objection that utilitarianism is a pig philosophy, John Stuart Mill holds that Benthamite utilitarian’s “have fully proved their case” by pursuing quantitative hedonism which emphasizes the difference of quantity in pleasures . However, he still aims at taking a “higher ground, with entire consistency” to defend utilitarianism by introducing his later-called qualitative hedonism that is based on the difference of quality in pleasures of Utilitarianism. Mill was arguing in a straight forward manner regarding the enjoyment felt by intelligent beings as opposed to fools. Even though happiness, derived from the higher pleasures, might leave the individual subject to acute suffering, and the intelligent person might need more to make him or her happy.
John Stuart Mill tried to remove undue importance of quantity of pleasures in hedonism and gave prominence to quality of happiness, and thus brought forth a qualified hedonism. For him, actions were right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the dissatisfaction. Here the utility or the greatest happiness principle is the norm, or the core. For him good of all men is accepted as the greatest good.
Mill’s rejection of Bentham’s utilitarianism was bound up with his estimation of deficiencies in Bentham’s life and thought. Mill says that pleasures arising from higher faculties are worth more than those of arising from lower. Pleasures come in several different forms. He agrees to a distinction among sensual, aesthetic, intellectual, and moral pleasures. A sensual pleasure would be that one which arises from drinking, eating, sexual indulgences etc. An aesthetic pleasure would be one arising from an experience of something beautiful, such as a painting or a piece of music. An intellectual pleasure is a pleasure that arises from learning something, and moral pleasure is that which arises from behaving nobly.
Mill says that pleasures of these different sorts are of different qualities. Some are higher than others. We can understand that in his view moral pleasures are of highest quality, and they are the highest of all pleasures. Intellectual are in second place, aesthetic in next, and sensual pleasures are the lowest. According to Mill, “Every basic qualified hedonic state is a basic intrinsic value state; every basic qualified doloric state is a intrinsic value state, nothing else is a basic intrinsic value state.”
Pleasures and Happiness
In the traditional understanding human happiness is not an open concept in the sense that it consists of pleasures completely unspecified. Happiness is the telos consisting of various elements which are requisites to happiness and among them are a sense of self-determination, sense of power, freedom, excitement and all those which are needed to maintain human dignity. For Mill happiness is intended as pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures. This statement establishes a direct link between pleasure and happiness. He further says that pleasure and freedom from pain are the things desirable as ends, and all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasures and the prevention of pain.
A Pure Hedonism
According to Mill it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that, while in estimating all other things quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.
We can say that a theory is a form of pure hedonism if it says that all intrinsically good basics are attributions of pleasures of some sort; and we can say that a theory is a form of impure hedonism if it says that some but not all intrinsically good basics are attributions of pleasure of some sort. Mill’s theory is a form of pure hedonism because it implies that all of the intrinsically good basics are attributions of pleasure. It is also a form of universal hedonism, since it implies that all basic qualified hedonic states are intrinsically good.
Conclusion
Mill’s theory is an internally consistent theory. It is also a form of hedonism. According to Moore Mills’ qualified hedonism is inconsistent because, as a form of hedonism, it includes the view that pleasure alone is intrinsically good, yet, because the hedonism is qualified, it also includes the view that something other the pleasure is intrinsically good.
In Mill’s concept there is a kind of Utilitarian hero, who embraced sacrifice, but did not denounce happiness. The utilitarian hero could sacrifice his or her happiness to serve the happiness of theirs, and Mill considered such sacrifice to constitute the highest virtue. Mill takes Kantian duty for utilitarianism, and even Jesus of Nazareth‘s Golden rule to support his view. Mill took the sacrifice of Jesus for the happiness of mankind to represent the highest statement of utilitarian virtue.
Bibliography
Feldman, Fred. Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997.
Rosen, Frederick. Classical Utilitarianisms from Hume to Mill. Routledge: London, 2003
UTILITARIANISM OF JOHN STUART MILL
Generally, utilitarianism is understood as the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure or avoiding unhappiness or pain. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utility has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure versus suffering or pain, although, preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance which has the happiness or pleasure as of the ultimate importance. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a qualitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character) as well as with other varieties of consequentialsm.
Mill’s famous utilitarian statement can be found in Utilitarianism. His philosophy was influenced by Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill. His famous formulation of utilitarianism is known as the “greatest happiness principle”. It holds that one must act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. His major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to physical forms of pleasures. He also distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that the happiness is of higher value than contentment, a belief which is wittily encapsulated in the statement that “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool and the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” Mill defines the difference between higher and lower forms of happiness with the principle that those who have experienced both tend to prefer one over the other.
Mill, in Utilitarianism, attempts to reply to the misconception about utilitarianism and thereby gives a new interpretation to the utility theory. He observed that many people misunderstood utilitarianism by interpreting utility as in opposition to pleasure. In reality, utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. Thus another name for utility is the “greatest happiness principle” this principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. By happiness are intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure and the absence of pain are, by this account, the only things desirable as ends in themselves, the only things inherently "good." Thus, any other circumstance, event, or experience is desirable only insofar as it is a source for such pleasure; actions are good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level.
The next criticism which Mill tries to reply is that the utilitarian theory is accused of reducing the meaning of life to mere pleasures. To this Mill replies that human pleasures are much superior animalistic ones and once people are made aware of their higher faculties, they will never be happy to leave them uncultivated, thus happiness is a sign that we are exercising our higher faculties. When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it. Mill describes how to differentiate between higher and lower quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an unquestionable fact that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their higher faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal; an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often suffers more in life, he would never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.
Furthermore, Mill observes that even if the possession of a "noble character" brought less happiness to the individual, society would still benefit. Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still desirable by a utilitarian standard. Mill addresses the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced their happiness. First of all, he admits that it is true that there are martyrs who gave up their happiness. However, he argues that martyrs must sacrifice their happiness for something greater end, and what could be that greater end? That greater end, as Mill tells, is nothing but the happiness of the other people. The core value of such sacrifice is the value of other’s happiness. This sacrifice is made intelligently and with full awareness. It is also made so that others do not have to make similar sacrifices. The person making the sacrifice does not look for his own happiness but for the happiness of the others. For example, a soldier risks his own happiness for the sake of the citizens. The preference utilitarians would say the frustration of the desires of the soldier may bring fulfillment of the desires of the large number of people. Therefore, his sacrifice is moral and he is a virtuous person.
Mill admits that the willingness to sacrifice one’s happiness for the sake of the happiness of the others is the highest virtue. However, while utilitarians value sacrificing one’s good for the good of others, they do not think that the sacrifice is in itself a good. It totally depends on the result of the sacrifice. It is a good insofar as it promotes happiness but it is not a good if it does not promote happiness. The utilitarian’s standard for judging an act does not take in to account the happiness of the agent alone but the happiness of all people. Thus a person must not value his own happiness over the happiness of the others but this does not mean that a person should not look for his own happiness. In most of the aspects of everyday life, a person does not affect a large number of other people, and thus need not consider his or her actions in relation to the good of all. It is only the people who work in the public sphere and affect many other people who must think about public utility on a regular basis.
Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it leaves people "cold and unsympathetic," as it is concerned solely with the consequences of people's actions, and not on the individuals as moral or immoral in themselves. First, Mill replies that if the criticism is that utilitarianism does not let the rightness or wrongness of an action be affected by the kind of person who performs the action, then this is a criticism of all morality. In other words, the concern is on the morality of the action performed by an individual and not the individual him or herself. All ethical standards judge actions in themselves, without considering the morality of those who performed them. However, he says that if the criticism is meant to imply that many utilitarians look on utilitarianism as an exclusive standard of morality, and fail to appreciate other desirable "beauties of character," then this is a valid critique of many utilitarians. He says that it is a mistake to only cultivate moral feelings, to the exclusion of the sympathies or artistic understandings, a mistake, moralists of all persuasions often make. However, he does say that if there is to be a mistake of priorities, it is preferable to err on the side of moral thinking.
Finally, we can conclude with some remarks saying that the main concern of Mill’s utilitarianism is the consequences of an action which makes it moral or immoral. Any action, which produces highest happiness of the highest number of people, is good and can be promoted. On the other hand, any action which produces unhappiness of the maximum number of people is wrong and can be eliminated. And also that one’s own happiness can be sacrificed for the sake of the happiness of the maximum people. It does not seem to take into account the personal happiness of the agent but of the others. This seems to say that killing a criminal brings maximum happiness of greatest number of people, the killing is good and it cannot be judged as immoral. But this shows the lack of respect for the human life and it violates the ‘right to life’ of the person killed. It also does not take into consideration the situations or circumstances which influence the action of a person. In other words, Mill does not take into account the individual’s motives in morality. By basing morality on the general good, utilitarianism fails to appreciate the importance of the individual. Mill also argues that sacrificing happiness is only desirable if it will lead to more happiness generally. He rejects the value of sacrifice in itself. However, many people do see value in an ascetic life, independent of the consequences it produces. This leads back to the most basic question about utilitarianism: Is the greatest happiness principle the ultimate foundation of morality? This question remains unanswered forever.
Bibliography:
Sher, George., ed. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979
Sher, George., ed. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)