Utilitarianism

Question 1

3 core features of utilitarianism

Answer 1

only (expected) consequences matter

consequences matter to the extent that they influence wellbeing

everyone’s wellbeing gets equal consideration

-> so an act is right if and only if it produces the most well being

Question 2

the two theories within utilitarianism and their ideas

Answer 2

1 = extreme utilitarianism (act/classic utilitarianism): evaluating every individual action by its consequences, on that particular occasion
-> would kill 1 person in the transplant example to save 5, would break a promise to give money to a hospital, etc

2 = restricted utilitarianism (rule utilitarianism): evaluating the consequences of the rule under which the act falls, look at the consequences of the rule.
-> would not kill 1 to save 5, because would look at the rule of not killing, would not break a promise, etc because it breaks the rule

Question 3

what does Smart say about rule/restricted u?

Answer 3

rule worship, only do the act because of the rule and not because it’s the right thing to do = not the right reason

A rule utilitarian would say you can keep the rule in general, except if breaking it would be beneficial. However, this makes it extreme/act utilitarianism because that makes you look at the act itself, so then you’re back to judging the act itself, it collapses into act utilitarianism and the restricted utilitarian view doesn’t hold.

Question 4

nearest and dearest objection?

Answer 4

The nearest and dearest objection is an objection for that within consequentialism/utilitarianism, it’s immoral to give preference to family etc.

According to Jackson the reason that you would rather take care of your lovedones is because you can be more sure that if you take care of your mom for example it will do more good. How he tries to justify this: we know our families etc so in our life often you can do a lot more good helping relatives than helping a random stranger. That doesn’t mean that you value them more, just more probability of doing good. Would be justified to take care of your friend first. Gives kind of a way to deal with the nearest and dearest objection, that it’s okay to not treat everyone equally. A true consequentialist would still say you don’t value your mother more. Helping a friend just has higher expected utility. -> this also justifies biases towards patients in the patient example

Question 5

what is Jackson’s idea on objective consequentialism?

Answer 5

Jackson argues in favor of decision-theoretic consequentialism, in which probabilities matter for what is right.

• objective consequentialism would give the wrong analysis in the drug example; A would not produce the best consequences but based on a decision-theoretic analysis this drug should still be prescribed
• the action that actually produces the best consequences may be a matter which is obscure to an agent

Question 6

what kind of cases are there in the collective action problem

Answer 6

tiggering cases: even though it’s true for most acts that it makes no difference whether I do it, for some situations your act is the one that triggers the problem

imperceptible difference cases: gradually the outcome becomes worse, like pollution, torture, climate change etc.

Question 7

why does the consequentialist condemn buying a chicken, where there’s a risk of being the triggering case?

Answer 7

you could state that buying a chicken does not make a difference (not the triggering case) -> then you can’t condemn it

Kagan says, buying a chicken will always have negative expected utility, so buying a chicken is wrong from a consequentialist point of view

role for information = if you know you’re not the triggering one, the consequentialist might not condemn your action -> you could then state your individual action does not contribute to the collective action problem (=disappointing)