The Utilitarian Approach Paper

Read Chapter 2 and watch Week 3 Lectures. Choose a contemporary moral issue in our society (week 3 folder) and apply the ethical principle of Utilitarianism to approve this moral issue. You must pick a moral issue that you strongly support and apply the utilitarian claims (week 3 folder) to back up your arguments. The paper must be done in MLA/APA format with a minimum of 500 words (quotes are not included in the word count).

*You must apply the Four major points of Utilitarianism (week 3 Lecture) apply Bentham’s Felicific Calculus 9 (week 3 folder) and apply the utilitarian claims (week 3 folder).

List of Contemporary Moral Issues
•
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Euthanasia
Gun Control
Infanticide
Child Labor
Gay Marriage
Capital Punishment
Stem Cells
Genocide
War, Terrorism, and Counterterrorism
Race and Ethnicity
Gender
Transgender using Public Bathrooms
World Hunger and Poverty
Environmental Ethics
Animal Rights
Animal Testing
Sexual Harassment
Abortion (as a result of rape, incest, or mother/baby health at risk)
Drug Legalization
Media/Entertainment
Voluntary Prostitution
Forced Prostitution
Health Care Costs
Education Cost
Principle of Utility
Study Guide: John Stuart Mill’s Ethics
Mill’s ethical theory Hedonic Utilitarianism, which is a form of consequentialism: The
permissibility of actions is determined by examining their outcomes and comparing those
outcomes with what would have happened if some other action had been performed.
Mill responds to Kant’s criticism of consequentialist moral theories by saying that Kant confuses
act evaluation and agent evaluation. (Kant argued that consequences should not be used in
evaluating actions because we have inadequate control over consequences, and our moral
obligations extend only so far as our abilities. Instead, Kant examines our motives to determine
the permissibility of our actions.) Mill says that the examination of motives is appropriate for
agent evaluation, but not act evaluation. Mill also points out that a morally good person could –
with the best of motives – perform an impermissible action.
Principle of Utility: An action is permissible if and only if the consequences of that action are at
least as good as those of any other action available to the agent.
• Alternative formulation: An action is permissible if and only if there is no other action available
to the agent that would have had better consequences. (These two formulations are
equivalent.)
• Moral theories that employ the Principle of Utility are called Utilitarian theories.
• Note that, according to the Principle of Utility, an action could have good consequences but
still not be permissible (because some other action was available to the agent that would have
had better consequences).
• Also, an action with bad consequences could still be permissible (if no other available action
had better consequences).
Hedonic Utilitarianism: Mill’s theory begins with the Principle of Utility, and then adds that the
consequences that are of importance are happiness and unhappiness.
• Everyone’s happiness is taken into account, and given equal weight.
• There is no time limit on consequences. All the happiness and unhappiness that result from
an action must be taken into account, no matter how long it takes for these consequences to
arise.
• Mill also says that it is better for happiness to be distributed among many people. The moral
goal of our actions, he says, is to create “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
• Note that when using this principle it is impossible to determine whether an action is
permissible unless one compares the consequences of that action with the consequences of all
the other actions the agent could have performed.
Contrast with Jeremy Bentham: Bentham, Mill’s teacher, held a similar moral theory, but said
that the consequences we should examine are pleasure and pain. Mill says that by examining
happiness and unhappiness he is including a new factor: the intellectual component.
• For Bentham, the only things that could make one pleasure better than another (or one pain
worse than another) were its intensity and its duration. Mill adds a new
dimension: the intellectual component. This has the result of making the pleasures and pains of
animals count for much less.
Comparison with Satisficing Consequentialism: Mill says that for an action to be permissible it
must have the best consequences. Satisficing consequentialism says that to be permissible its
consequences have to be good enough.
• Satisficing consequentialism allows for more than one permissible action in many situations.
Mill, by contrast, implies that there is usually only one permissible action available.
• Satisficing consequentialism allows for a distinction between permissible actions and
supererogatory actions.
• Satisficing consequentialism allows for moral dilemmas (situations in which only two actions
are available, and neither is morally permissible).
Act vs. Rule Consequentialism: Act consequentialist theories (e.g., the theories of Bentham and
J.S. Mill) evaluate actions on a case-by-case basis. Rule consequentialist theories say that an
action is permissible only if it is in accord with the relevant rules. Rules are selected so that
following them will
Utilitarian claims
Utilitarianism: is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely
determined by its contribution to overall utility.
It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the morality of an action is
determined by its outcome
*the ends justify the means.
*Utility: the good to be maximized
Peter Singer defines it as the satisfaction of preferences.
* an action may be considered right if it produces the greatest amount of net
benefit and the least loss/cost of any available alternative action.
* the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral
judgment about that action.
*morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.
* the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of
people.
* “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
* calculate the utility of an action by adding up all of the pleasure produced and
subtracting from that any pain that might also be produced by the action.
Utilitarianism approach to morality quantitative and reductionistic
Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics – focuses on the action
itself rather than its consequences
In general use the term utilitarian often refers to a somewhat narrow economic or
pragmatic viewpoint.
Utilitarianism- J. Bentham’s Felicific Calculus
•
Felicific calculus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for
calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham,
an ethicalhedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of
the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least,
determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility
calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same
kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
Ethics: Theory and Practice
Jacques P. Thiroux
Keith W. Krasemann
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter Two
Consequentialist (Teleological)
Theories of Morality
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Two Viewpoints of Morality
• Consequentialist (teleological)
– Morality is based on or concerned with
consequences
• Nonconsequentialist (deontological)
– Morality is not based on or concerned with
consequences
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Two Major Consequentialist
Ethical Theories
• Ethical Egoism
• Utilitarianism
– Both theories agree that human beings ought to
behave in ways that will bring about good
consequences
– The theories disagree on who should benefit from
these consequences
• Ethical egoism → act in self-interest
• Utilitarianism → act for the interests of all
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Psychological Egoism
• Psychological egoism is not an ethical theory
but a descriptive or scientific theory having to
do with egoism
• Two forms:
– Strong form: people always act in their own selfinterest
– Weaker form: people often, but not always, act in
their own self-interest
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Psychological Egoism
• In its strong form
– Does not refute morality
• In its weaker form
– Does not provide a rational foundation for ethical
egoism
• What about circumstances in which people do
unselfish things, even though they do not
want to do them?
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ethical Egoism
• Ethical egoism is a philosophical-normative,
prescriptive theory
• Three forms:
– The individual form (everyone ought to act in my
self-interest)
– The personal form (I ought to act in my own selfinterest, but make no claims on what others
should do)
– The universal form (everyone should always act in
his or her own self-interest)
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problems with Universal
Ethical Egoism
• Universal ethical egoism is the theory most
commonly presented, but still has problems
• Inconsistency
– It is unclear whose self-interest should be satisfied
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problems with Universal
Ethical Egoism
• What is Meant by Everyone
– The term “everyone” is unclear
– Everyone’s interests create conflicts and
inconsistencies
• Difficulty in Giving Moral Advice
– It is difficult to determine how to give moral
advice
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problems with Universal
Ethical Egoism
• Blurring the Moral and Nonmoral Uses of
Ought and Should
– Supporters of egoism tend to blur the moral and
nonmoral uses of ought and should
– This makes universal egoism highly impractical
and, at worst, creates conflicts and inconsistencies
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Problems with Universal
Ethical Egoism
• Inconsistent with Helping Professions
– Ethical egoism in any form does not provide the
proper ethical basis for people in helping
professions
– Some people in helping professions do so out of
self-interest
– Others do so to help others
– A highly self-interested attitude would not serve
one well in a helping profession
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advantages of Universal
Ethical Egoism
• It is easier to determine self-interest
– It is easier for individuals to determine what their
own interests are
• It encourages individual freedom and
responsibility
• It works when people operate in limited
spheres, isolated from one another, which
minimizes conflict
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Limitations Of Universal
Ethical Egoism
• It offers no consistent method of resolving
conflicts of self-interests
– While individuals operate in limited spheres, it is
much easier to maintain self-interest
– As soon as individual or limited spheres start to
overlap, individual self-interests will start to
conflict
– Some principle of justice or compromise must be
brought in to address that conflict
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ayn Rand’s Rational Ethical Egoism
• Ayn Rand was the foremost exponent of
universal ethical egoism (which she called
rational ethical egoism)
– Self-interests of rational human beings, by virtue
of their being rational, will never conflict
• That theory does not address the very real
conflicts that do actually arise in our crowded
and interdependent societies
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism maintains that everyone should
perform that act or follow that moral rule
which will bring about the greatest good (or
happiness) for everyone concerned
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Act Utilitarianism
• Act utilitarianism says that everyone should
perform that act which will bring about the
greatest amount of good over bad for
everyone affected by the act
– One cannot establish rules in advance to cover all
situations and people because they are all
different
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
• It is difficult to determine the consequences
for others
– What may be a good consequences for you may
not be equally, or at all, good for another
– How are you to tell unless you can ask other
people what would be good for them?
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
• It is impractical to have to begin anew for each
situation and to have to decide what would be
moral for that situation
– Is each act and each person completely and
uniquely different?
– An act utilitarian might argue that there are many
similarities among people and their behaviors that
would justify the laying down of certain rules
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
• It is difficult to educate the young or
uninitiated in acting morally without rules or
guides to follow
– The only guide would be: Each person must assess
what would be the greatest good consequences of
each act for each situation that arises
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Rule Utilitarianism
• Rule utilitarianism states that everyone
always should follow the rules that will bring
the greatest number of good consequences
for all concerned
– There are enough similar human motives, actions,
and situations to justify setting up rules that will
apply to all human beings and all situations
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism
• It is difficult to determine consequences for
others
• It would be difficult to be sure that a rule can
be established to cover the diversity of human
beings, which will truly and always bring about
the greatest good for all
• It is difficult to educate the young and
uninitiated
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Creates problems for utilitarianism:
– Danger of trying to determine the social worth of
individuals
– The greatest good is often interpreted as the
“greatest good of the majority,” with possible
immoral consequences to the minority
– Does even a good end justify any means used to
attain it, or should we also consider our means
and motives?
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Difficulty with Consequentialist Theories
in General
• Consequentialist theories demand that we
discover and determine all of the
consequences of our actions or rules
– That is virtually impossible
• Do consequences or ends constitute all of
morality?
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Care Ethics
• Established by Carol Gilligan, sometimes called
“feminist ethics”
• There are fundamental differences between
men and women:
– Men’s moral attitudes have to do with justice,
rights, competition, being independent, and living
by the rules
– Women’s moral attitudes have to do with
generosity, harmony, reconciliation, and working
to maintain close relationships
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Criticisms of Gilligan’s Theory
• Gilligan’s theory raises “female values” over
“male values”
• It replaces one unfair system with another
• The theory seems to prescribe more
traditional gender roles to men and women
– I.e. Men are most concerned with justice, so only
men should be judges
Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.