Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Moral Philosophy - Utilitarianism, Quantitative Hedonism - Coggle Diagram
Moral Philosophy - Utilitarianism
Hedonistic ethical theory that stipulates the presence of pleasure and absence of pain as the indicators of right and wrong.
Bad = Pain
Good = Pleasure
General issues with Utilitarianism
Issue: Fallacy of Composition
Just because each individual part has the property 'x' does not mean the whole also has the property 'x'. - Just because the individual wants happiness doesn't mean the collective wants happiness.
Mill jumps from individual to collective.
Issue: Naturalistic Fallacy - G.E. Moore
Linked to Hume's 'is-ought gap' to say that no amount of descriptive claims about the world will ever prove a normative claim as a moral judgement simply comes from out motivations.
Linked to Moore's 'Open Question Argument'
Good cannot be defined.
Just because we can look into the world and see each individual seeks happiness does not mean that we ought to prescribe that as a moral rule.
Nozick's Pleasure Machine - Pleasures would be diminished without contrast of pain + We would authentic experience. - Wouldn't want people to lie to make up happy.
Foot's Trolley Problem - Pushing someone off a bridge spin. -Is the nature of the act important?
Descriptive + Prescriptive
Descriptive - Looks out into the world and sees the way the world is empirically.
Prescriptive - Suggests therefore we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
Bentham = Act Utilitarianism
"It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number that is the measure of right of wrong."
Hedonic Calculus
Purity - Will the act bring about just pleasure or will it also bring about pain?
Propinquity (remoteness) - How immediate will it be?
Fecundity - Will it go on to produce more pleasures?
Intensity - How much pleasure/pain will there be?
Certainty - How sure are we that there will be a pleasurable outcome?
Extent - How many people will the pleasure be for?
Duration - How long will it last?
Issue: Impractical - how do we really go about measuring such things - very subjective
J.S. Mill = Rule Utilitarianism
Mill's High and Lower pleasures
Higher pleasures (Intellectual pleasures and satisfaction of mind) - Appreciation of arts etc
Lower pleasures (Sensational pleasures and satisfaction of body) - Doctrine of the Swine - Better to be Socrates dissatisfied then a pig satisfied
We should follow rules that aim to maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Qualitative Hedonism
J.S. Mill's proof: 1. Happiness is a good for each person. 2. General happiness is a good for all. 3. Happiness is the only good we seek (Telos - Chief Good).
General issues with ACT Utilitarianism
Tyranny of the Majority - Could cause great pain for the minority.
Doctrine of the swine - Pleasures from any direction is somewhat unsophisticated - can we truly be good people this way?
Preference Utilitarianism - Peter Singer
We should aim to maximise the greatest sum of preferences.
Still have issues surrounding Tyranny of the Majority and Conflicting Interests.
Problem with partiality - we naturally act partially towards our loved ones
General issues with RULE Utilitarianism
Too strong - sometimes rules must be broken - axe man scenario.
If it can be proven that no strict rules work then we are back to Act Utilitarianism.
Quantitative Hedonism