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
No comments:
Post a Comment