James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism

 

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Link: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

contemporary+moral+problems&x=0&y=0     

 

Quote:

"The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things desirable as means to that end."

Learning Expectations:

 

1. To know what this debate for?
2. To know the starting point on why this debate arises.
3. To learn and understand Hedonism.
4. To know what is correct and incorrect in Utiliarianism.
5. To the relationship between the three defenses of Utilitarianism.

 

Review: 

 

          Classical Utilitarianism the theory defended by Bentham and Mill can be summarized in three propositions: First actions are to be judge right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matter. Right actions are simply those that have the best consequences. Second, in accessing consequences the only thing that matter is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Third in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will cause no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else. The idea that happiness is the one ultimate good (unhappiness the one ultimate evil) is known as HEDONISM. Hedonism is perennially popular theory that goes back at least as far as ancient Greeks. Today most philosophers recognized the truths of this. Those sympathetic to utilitarianism have therefore sought a way to formulate their view without assuming a hedonistic account and good evil.  Justice-the argument is only if someone were in the position then on utilitarian grounds he should bear false witness against the innocent person. This argument illustrates one of the theories most serious shortcomings; namely that is incompatible with the ideal justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly. Right- utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if the produce a favorable happiness over unhappiness. It is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was caused. In that case the utilitarian conclusions apparently would be that their actions are morally all right. Why is utilitarianism vulnerable to this sort of criticism? Rule-utilitarianism has no difficulty coping with the three utilitarian arguments. Rule utilitarianism by contrast is unnecessarily watered down version theory which gives rule a greater importance than they merit. Act-utilitarian is however recognizes to be radical doctrine which implies that many of our ordinary moral feelings may be mistaken.

 

Learning’s/Insights:

 

• "Happiness is one of the ultimate good"
• "Happiness is something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only means of bringing it about."
• "We value all sorts of things, including artistic creativity and friendship, for their own sakes. It makes us happy to have them, but only because we already think them good."

   

Integrative Questions 

 

1. What actions are right? According to this topic?
2. What things are good? According to this topic?
3. Why there is objections about justice,, rights and promises?
4. Is happiness the only thing that mattes?
5. Are consequences all that matters?

 

Review Questions:

 

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?

 

Classical Utilitarianism the theory defended by Bentham and Mill can be summarized in three propositions: First actions are to be judge right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matter. Right actions are simply those that have the best consequences. Second, in accessing consequences the only thing that matter is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Third in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will cause no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else. 

 

2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?

 

The idea that happiness is the one ultimate good (unhappiness the one ultimate evil) is known as HEDONISM. Hedonism is perennially popular theory that goes back at least as far as ancient Greeks. Its beautiful simplicity, it expresses the intuitively plausible notion that things are good or bad only on account of the way they make us feel. We value all sorts of things, including artistic creativity and friendship, for their own sakes. It makes us happy to have them, but only because we already think them good. Therefore we think it a misfortune to lose them, independently of whether or not the loss is accompanied by unhappiness.  Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only means on bringing it about. Instead, happiness is a response we have to attainment of things that we recognize as goods, independently and their own right. Today most philosophers recognized the truths of this. There are not many contemporary hedonists. Those sympathetic to utilitarianism have therefore sought a way to formulate their view without assuming a hedonistic account and good evil.  

 

3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?

 

The most fundamental ideas underlying the theory  is that in order to determine whether an action would be right  we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. Justice-the argument is only if someone were in the position then on utilitarian grounds he should bear false witness against the innocent person. Therefore according to utilitarianism, lying is a thing to do. But the argument continues it would be wrong to bring about the execution of the innocent man. Therefore utilitarianism which implies it would be right must be incorrect.  This argument illustrates one of the theories most serious shortcomings; namely that is incompatible with the ideal justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly. According o their individual needs and merits. Right- utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if the produce a favorable happiness over unhappiness. It is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was caused. In that case the utilitarian conclusions apparently would be that their actions are morally all right. Promise- there is an important general lesson to be learned from this argument. Why is utilitarianism vulnerable to this sort of criticism? It is because the only kinds of considerations that the theory holds relevant to determine the rightness of actions are considerations having to do with their future. 

 

4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?

 

Rule-utilitarianism has no difficulty coping with the three utilitarian arguments. An Act-utilitarian faced with situation would be tempered to bear false witness against the innocent man because the consequence of that particular act would be good. 

 

5. What is the third line of defence?

 

On this way of thinking an act utilitarian is a perfectly indefensible doctrine and does not need to be modified. Rule utilitarianism by contrast is unnecessarily watered down version theory which gives rule a greater importance than they merit. Act-utilitarian is however recognizes to be radical doctrine which implies that many of our ordinary moral feelings may be mistaken. In this respect it does what good philosophy always doest it what good philosophy always does it challenges us to rethink matters that we have therefore taken for granted.   

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

 

No because not all beliefs are the same from one another so it really depends on how you consider other beliefs and a lots of other things.

 

2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

 

I think everyone needs to be considered because all of us are created by god and so but we cannot deny the fact that those who are morally good are considered most of the times.

 

3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

 

Yes.