Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Issues with Act Utilitarianism (Partiality (Mill's response (There are…
Issues with Act Utilitarianism
Calculation
Difficult and time consuming
Mind boggling
Preference utilitarians
Easier to know preference
However
This misrepresents what utilitarians say
Tendency which it appears to have
Just needs to be kept in view
Mill says this is still too demanding
Over time we build up secondary principles
Which happiness should we include?
Speciesism , Racism, Sexism
Singer
Irrelevant when it comes to sentience
The happiness of all who can feel pleasure and pain causes a problem for calculation
In response to Mill
Inherited morality is no help
Many cultures do not take much moral notice of animals
Fairness, individual liberty and rights
Tyranny of the Majority
Death penalty
Constraints?
Should we remove rights if it would lead to greater happiness
Mill's two ways
Democratic Government
Tyranny of social opinion
Rights and liberties
Act utilitarian does not rule any action as immoral
Does not respect individual rights or liberty
Some utilitarians simply accept this
But as long as we consider situations realistically, then whatever brings about the greatest happiness is the right thing to do
Mill on justice
Justice is about the moral rights of the individual
Relates to actions that harm a specific individual
Duties of justice are perfect duties
Why do we have these rights?
General happiness
Extraordinarily important
Safety
This contributes most to happiness in the long term
Discussion
We have a right if it contributes to the greatest happiness
Mill's theory does not offer a strong defence of individual rights in particular cases. If my rights are justified by general utility, then doesn't the happiness created by overriding my rights justify violating them?
Mill can respond that this approach to conflicts between rights and happiness doesn't understand utilitarianism in the right light
Rights protect our permanent interests, and thus serve general happiness over the long term
Now we can object that Mill has given up on act utilitarianism. Mill seems to recommend that we don't look at the consequences of each act taken individually to see whether it creates the greatest happiness.
Partiality
Many things we do are aimed at specific other people
Act utilitarianism requires us to consider the happiness of each person equally
If act utilitarianism is right, it seems we should spend more time with people who need it
Utilitarianism is too idealistic
Each person is equal BUT to me, each person does not and should not count equally
Mill's response
There are few opportunities any of us have to benefit people in general
We serve greatest happiness by showing partiality
Two objections
It is no longer true that we cannot benefit people in general
Response does not address the objection that utilitarianism simply fails to understand the moral importance of partiality
Boat accident with wife
Misses the point of marriage
One thought too many
Moral integrity and the individual's intentions
Moral integrity
Acting according to your own actions
George, PhD in Chemistry, looking for a job. He is stressed and this is having a damaging effect on everyone. He gets an offer at a job that does research into chemical weapons
Utilitarianism attacks moral integrity
Utilitarians say that George should take the job. His unhappiness does not outweigh the unhappiness of others. A consequence could be that someone could cause significant damage instead.
We should not be responsible for someone else's doing
Intentions
Does not recognise moral value of our intentions
Desire to do good is desirable on its own
Good intentions are also part of a good person's happiness