Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Utilitarianism - Evaluation (Rule (Concept of happiness is so broad that…
Utilitarianism - Evaluation
Act
Use of
Hedonic Calculus
allows for uniform and thorough (holistic) application to all moral events => Allows a moral foundation to be established whilst staying flexible (objective calculation can be made)
Relativism and focus on individual actions allows for personal moral decision making whilst allowing morality to be suited and framed around individual actions (specific guidance) => Flexibility
As all pleasures of all people are equal, this allows for egalitarian ethical decision making (all people are as important as each other) with 'fair' outcomes.
As only pleasure for the majority is considered important, this allows the minority to suffer as a result of a morally good action (Self-defeating concept)
The lack of any absolute laws and reductionist approach means any intrinsic value of actions (value of pleasures) is eliminated or neglected. Perhaps there are things other than pain/pleasure that have moral value?
We know certain actions are wrong in all situations (due to moral sentiments) despite viewing all situations yet the inherent value of an action depends on results/consequences?
Hedonic Calculus is time-consuming and therefore can be used when quick moral action is needed (time of need) or may result in a lack of action as a decision is not reached in time (Dante's Inferno Quote)
GE Moore
-
Naturalistic Fallacy
1) Morality is the pursuit of/doing 'good' 2) We only have a moral duty to do good 3) Saying that Good = Happiness/Pleasure/Preferences is a naturalistic assumption but as good is a simple, analytic quality, it cannot be described using anything other than itself 4) Therefore, although we may seek pleasure etc (Fact), the fact that this quality ≠ good means we do not have a moral imperative to seek this as while the action may be 'good', it is not 'good' because it is pleasurable - You cannot derive an ought from an is.
Rule
Concept of happiness is so broad that it can be interpreted as that which helps achieve a personal goal => No objective measure of happiness so therefore, no standard of morality due to lack of agreed definition of what happiness is.
Allows for Qualitative assessment of happiness and pleasures => Attributes some sort of value to the action it
Lower pleasures are vital for survival and therefore, to allow us to perform morally. Therefore, Mill's theory disregards the importance of physical pleasures and desires => Not a holistic analysis of the importance of certain pleasures => May limit accuracy of moral decision
Establishing of rules using Utilitarian principles allows for personal decision making (by the creation of new rules for new circumstances + possibility of breaking rules) whilst providing a basic moral framework of concepts that allows for moral guidance for all, in all situations=> More efficient and less time-consuming than Act Utilitarianism
Strong RU
=> Attempts to create absolute laws based on subjectivity (Self-Defeating notion as foundations would change and therefore, the absolute laws would change and not be absolute anymore)
Elitist moral theory. Higher pleasures are more likely to be experienced by the more affluent. This means morality cannot be accessed by all, reducing the practicality and reliability of Utilitarianism (due to its lack of universalisability)
How can we tell which of two higher pleasures is better as there is no measure of happiness/pleasure in Mill's theory?
Weak RU
eventually collapses down into Act Utilitarianism as if rules can be violated when needed, the authority of the rules themselves collapses and as general principles often do not work when the situation is considered (as these principles are impersonal vs personal actions), this may result in a
Weak RU
always violating a rule in order to maximise happiness in that situation
Focus on society vs individual allows for flourishing of society vs personal pursuits. Allows for the creation of a society of altruistic moral agents vs hedonistic and selfish moral agents
Preference
Consideration of multiple viewpoints increases objectivity of knowledge around the situation at hand, allowing for a more truthful and objective decision to be made.
Just because something is preferable to one person, does not mean it is what ought to be done. Preferences are not universal and they are built upon desires, not rationality and therefore, the nature of the person (selfish etc) influences the nature of the desires whilst these preferences are not objective and absolute with unstable foundations on which a strong, universal morality cannot be built
Ideal
Allows for consideration of multiple factors and innate value of certain aspects => Allows for a more thorough and accurate analysis to be achieved whilst allowing the qualitative aspects of these aspects to be considered.
If we had a situation where two possible outcomes had the same number of qualities with innate value , how do we know which course of action to take? If all aspects have innate value, how do we know which aspects have more value than others?
How can we objectively assess the value of a quality such as Beauty/knowledge etc. What may have value to one person may not have as much value to another
Negative
Pain is an inevitable component of the sentient condition. Therefore, if we were to minimise pain (a very broad concept with many different forms, interpretations and aspects), actions such as mass genocide/euthanasia can be justified => Theory is idealistic in theory but does not work in practicality.
Reducing pain is often a stronger moral sentiment (more morally enticing) than increasing pleasure due to the fact that by reducing pain, the positive result/impact is often much greater/more visible than when increasing pleasure. Therefore, due to these differences, it shows that we intrinsically view pain as greater than pleasure and that we ought to reduce pain vs increase happiness.
Allows for the creation of a society in which the median level of happiness increases (Allows for the establishment of a more equal society where the experiences of the minority are improved by moral actions => Wider scale impact of moral actions), shifting society from a hedonistic focus of morality to an empathetic/altruistic focus.