Transcript Utilitarianism

‘The greatest good for the greatest number’.
 Utilitarianism is a theory in ethics holding that the
moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is
defined in various ways, including as pleasure,
economic well-being and the lack of suffering.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which
implies that the consequences of an action are of
moral importance. This view can be contrasted or
combined with seeing intentions, virtues or the
compliance with rules as ethically important. Classical
utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, who
takes happiness as the measure for utility, says, "it is
the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is
the measure of right and wrong".[1]
Act Utilitarianism
 The consequences of your actions determine if your
actions were right or wrong
 It does not take intention or motive into consideration,
just the outcome of your actions
 If your actions are likely to lead to the greatest good for
the greatest number then they are probably right
Rule Utilitarianism
Strong Rule View
 Rules are fixed for the benefit of the many, and should
therefore ALWAYS be followed no matter what situation
 Rules exist to provide for the maximum happiness
Weak Rule View
 Rules are generally good for society BUT
 There are many situations where rules have to be broken
Preference Utilitarianism
 This basically means the greatest good for the greatest
number ONLY for those actively INVOLVED in the
situation
 It avoids sweeping generalisations and focuses on only
those with a vested interest in the decision
Problems with Utilitarianism
 Who decides what happiness is? One persons pleasure
is another’s pain and suffering
 It is difficult to FULLY predict the outcome of an
action – we can’t see the future fully
 Minorities matter – it is just not FAIR to put the
happiness of the majority over the minority – the weak
and small minorities would suffer terribly in this kind
of society
Christianity and Utilitarianism
 Christian morality sometimes seems utilitarian in
nature – sacrifice for greater good is important
 Christians encourage the notion of self sacrifice
 Jesus death for humanity can be seen as the ultimate
utilitarian act – God sacrifices his son for the greater
good
 Christians throughout history have seen that killing a
few can achieve the higher purpose (eg. WW2)
 However Christians also consider the minority – the
weak, vulnerable etc and would be mindful of the
outcomes for them – they would therefore not support
pure Utilitarian morality
Buddhism and Utilitarianism
 Buddhists interested in outcomes – if actions have
Kammic consequences then good actions are about
maximising good kamma for all
 However wary of the idea of ‘self sacrifice’ – Buddha
didn’t find enlightenment that way after all
 ‘Skilful action’ could be a form of Preference Utility
 Buddhism concerned for minorities too – they would
not want happiness for the majority at the expense of
the minority – all are equal
Secular views on Utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism not based on religious theory but upon
reason and logic. Modern utilitarians argue for a form of
Preference Utility eg Peter Singer –
‘the best consequences is understoon as meaning what, on
balance, furthers the interests of those affected, rather than
merely what increases pleasure and reduces pain...’
 Humanist ethics also follow similar guidelines.
They argue for making decisions which benefit you, but not
at the expense of others and taking into account likely
consequences and the greater good.
Kantian Ethics
Based on work of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Duty is a form of ‘practical reason’ – ie. The correct
way to behave is how we think we should act
Consequences too difficult to predict and do not take
into account your motives
We can work out how to behave using pure practical
reason, logic and reasoned analysis.
Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics does not pay any attention to ‘emotion’
It attempts to make morality a type of ‘science’
Kant attempts to ‘move away from ego(self)
centeredness, and move towards unconditional and
universal sympathy’
We need to develop our ‘inner voice’ of reason
Kantian Ethics – Categorical Imperative
Making choices based on whether that behaviour could
apply to everyone
‘Act as if the maxim from which you were to act were to
become through your will a general law’
A good/right action should apply equally to everyone in
all situations – it is then imperative (must do)
catergorically (in all situations)
His other important statement was that people should
be viewed with respect – and so intentions are as
important as consequences
Problems with Kantian Ethics
 ‘Duty’ varies across the world in different cultures
 How can we define it? Who decides what is ‘duty’?
 Pure reason sounds good but is not always easy to
define either – our ideas of logic and reason don’t
always agree with the next person!
 We don’t always have all of the information to hand
when making a decision – it could be split second!
 Respect for persons sounds good but treating one
person as a ‘means’ rather than an ‘end’ is not always
clear cut – and in treating one as a ‘means’ you almost
certainly end up treating one as an ‘end’!
Christianity and Kantian Ethics
 Christians emphasise ‘duty’ too ie. Our duty to love
one another
 Sometimes these need interpretation however – and
might not be ‘categorical’
 Love one another might be ‘categorical’ but how far
should it extend?
 Christians agree with respect for persons
 Pure reason not the only basis for deciding right and
wrong – revelation and faith are important too, which
makes it complicated!
 Christians would want a little more flexibility than
Kantian ethics would allow
Buddhism and Kantian Ethics
 Buddhism is wary of absolutes and duties
 They can even abandon the teaching of Buddha if it does
not help them – no duty is implied!
 Intention AND consequences are both important to
Buddhists
 However Buddhists do have certain ‘duties’ eg. Five
Precepts (not killing etc) – but these are open to skilful
means and so not as fixed as in Kantian ethics
 Buddhists share categorical imperatives like show
compassion to all living beings – which is like respect of
persons but more!!
‘In Buddhism, morality, insight and intention are the key
words rather than obedience’ - Kantian ethics places more
emphasis on ‘obedience’!
Secular approaches to Kant
 Secular groups see duty to others as important
 We have a ‘duty’ to treat others as we would want to be
treated (Golden Rule) – predates religious ideas of
morality – based on how we function socially
 Reason and logic is vital to moral choice – based on
evidence, not faith or revelation
 Respect for persons very important too
 Consequences are hard to predict so universal maxims
might be a good starting point
 There is no god to appeal to – the fate of the world and
society is in our hands / actions