Term
|
Definition
assessing an action based solely on its consequences (Benn)
assessing an action largely on its consequences (Driver) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Focused on maximising 'Utility'
Concerned with the welfare of beings (sometimes exclusively human beings, other times not)
Welfare: pain, pleasure, preferences
Utilitarian equations (adding up utility)
Impartiality
Morally right = maximising utility |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Stoicism
New Testament unconditional love
------- Both are impartial |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Positive
Emphasis on practical ethics
Hedonism(pain and pleasure as sole motivators)
Utility = pleasure
"Filicific Calculus" - how much pleasure, how intense? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Cannot perceive all consequences to actions (out of our control)
Seemingly arbitrary allocation of pleasure - how do you quantify it?
Impartiality is different
There are always more options than can be captured in a simple table
Tyranny of the majority
Is pleasure the be-all and end-all of life? Aristotle: eudaemonia, Buddha: freedom from desire |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Positive
Raised as "perfect Benthamiste", had nervous breakdown, discovered poetry etc
Psychological Egoism (hedonism, selfishness)
Not everything is motivated by pleasure - altruism is difficult to reconcile with psychological egoism
DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIGHER AND LOWER PLEASURES - qualitative differences.
Higher - poetry, art etc.
Lower - baser animal pleasures
Higher = better "it is better to be... Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
We know this from those who have experienced both kinds of pleasure. (is this autobiographical? Peter Gouldy) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Difficult to justify higher/lower pleasures on utilitarian grounds.
Is the empirical claim behind it correct? (everybody has heard Mozart, not everybody listens to it)
Claim of 'experts' is circular - they like it best because it is best. We know it's the best because they like it the best.
Is there really an objective measure of higher/lower pleasures? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Individual actions judged based on utility |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Rules which, if universally followed, would maximise utility.
Begins to turn into act utilitarianism as rules get more and more precise |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Focusing on suffering/pain alleviation |
|
|
Term
| Preference Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
Positive
Actions are judged by how much they satisfy the preferences of the majority of people.
Peter Singer
Looking at what people want, not what you think that they should want (unlike Mill)
Easier to implement than filicific calculus/determining higher/lower pleasures |
|
|
Term
| Issues with Preference Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
People often don't want what is best for them.
Perhaps we should look at what people's preferences would be were they more reflective (but this turns into Mill) |
|
|
Term
| Different kinds of utilitarianism |
|
Definition
Act
Rule
Preference
Negative |
|
|
Term
| Objections to Utilitarianism |
|
Definition
Some people take pleasure in evil things (Genghis Khan) RESPONSE: But this is wrong/moral theories are not meant to pander to our intuitions, but reform them. rational -/-> comfortable (Scarre)
Calculating Utility is impossible (butterfly effect) RESPONSE: Descriptive, not prescriptive.
Ignores motivations - food cooked out of goodness that makes everybody ill = evil? RESPONSE: evil action vs. evil intention? Judging act, not agent
Overlooks the rights of individuals: Dave killed to provide organs for five people. RESPONSE: Rights utilitarianism/wider consequences would not maximise utility.
Williams: Cannot do justice to personal integrity (Jim and the despot). Reaching conclusions so quickly in these circumstances shows that it does not take into account moral integrity/moral facts. Morality should not be agent neutral- convictions give rise to moral life. Setting them aside means that morality becomes meaningless. RESPONSE: quick decision shows effectivity, what about overarching moral convictions (maximising utility ultimately being one of them?) Complex involvement of principals doesn't mean complex solution. |
|
|
