utilitarianism

Question 1

What are normative ethics

Answer 1

It is the meaning of good, bad, right, wrong within the approaches studied it discusses theories of how to live and what we should do. The approaches studied are all cognitivist approaches, moral facts, moral realism

Question 2

What is utilitarianism

Answer 2

It is the approach first created by Jeremy Bentham which aims to create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people (maximising happiness)

Question 3

What are the three claims utilitarianism is defined by

Answer 3

1. Actions are morally right or wrong depending on their consequences and nothing else. An act is right if it maximises what is good. This is ‘act consequentialism’
2. The only thing that is good is happiness, this is pleasure and the absence of pain, this is ‘hedonism’ (value theory)
3. No one’s happiness counts more than anyone else’s, this is a commitment to equality.

Question 4

What is the Hedonistic calculus aka felicific calculus aka utility calculus and how do you work it out

Answer 4

a method of working out the sum total of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total value of its consequences. You work it out by taking away the total amount of pain away from the total amount of happiness caused. Bentham took a quantitative approach to happiness.

Question 5

What is a pro in terms of the calculation of utilitarianism

Answer 5

It provides a clear and simple way of making decisions: consider the consequences of the different actions you could perform and choose that action that brings about, or is likely to bring about, the greatest happiness. It makes complicated decisions easy.
We can figure out empirically how much happiness actions cause so we can solve moral issues by empirical investigation

Question 6

What is the ‘principle of utility’ aka the ‘greatest happiness principle’

Answer 6

It is ‘the principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency to which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question’.

Question 7

What is the meaning of utility

Answer 7

Something has utility if it contributes to your happiness. The traditional meaning of utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure or good or prevent unhappiness etc

Question 8

When calculating happiness, what counts for more?

Answer 8

If a pleasure is more intense, will last longer, is more certain to occur, will happen sooner rather than later, or will produce in turn many other pleasures and few pains, it counts for more

Question 9

What does Bentham claim are the only things that motivate us and what is the quote behind this

Answer 9

pleasure and pain. ‘Man has two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain’.

Question 10

What does Mill reject about pleasures and pains

Answer 10

He rejects the view that pleasures and pains are equally valuable.

Question 11

What are higher and lower pleasures

Answer 11

He claims that some types of pleasure are higher than others, more valuable and more important to human happiness given the types of creatures we are and what we are capable of, the higher pleasures are thought,intellect, imagination etc whilst the lower pleasures are more basic eg for a pig (pig philosophy) for example eating, drinking, sleeping which are more pleasures of the body.

Question 12

(Mill) How can we tell which pleasures are more valuable (quality) than another than just more pleasurable (quantity)

Answer 12

If everyone (or almost everyone) has experience of two types of pleasure prefers one type to the other, then the type they prefer is more valuable. Also, a pleasure is only higher if people who have experienced both types of pleasure prefer one even if having that pleasure brings more pain with it or even if they would choose it over a greater quantity of the other type of pleasure.

Question 13

What does Mill argue about if as long as our physical needs are met

Answer 13

He argues that as long as our physical needs are met, people will prefer the pleasures of thought, feeling and imagination to the pleasures of the body and the senses, even though our ‘higher’ capacities also mean we can experience terrible pain, boredom and dissatisfaction. For example ‘It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all’.

Question 14

Why does Mill compare human beings to pigs

Answer 14

He says that valuing only pleasure is a ‘doctrine worthy only of swine’ We are able to experience pleasures of for example art and creative thought which pigs are not. We can also experience deeper pain as a result. ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. Mill thinks this preference derives from our sense of dignity which is an essential part of human happiness

Question 15

What does Mill reject as a result of identifying ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures and what does he add to Bentham’s quantitative analysis.

Answer 15

The felicific calculus and adds an element of quality to the quantitative analysis of happiness that Bentham puts forward.

Question 16

What is the objection to Mill’s claim about higher and lower pleasures and his first response

Answer 16

If his prediction is wrong and people with relevant experience do not prefer the feeling of thought, feeling, imagination and other pleasures but instead enjoy the lower pleasures related to the body and the senses. His response: There is a difference between preference and action. We can choose what we know to be less good, whether from weakness laziness will or other factors. But we still recognise what we didn’t choose was more valuable.

Question 17

What is the objection to Mill’s claim about higher and lower pleasures and his second response

Answer 17

If his prediction is wrong and people with relevant experience do not prefer the feeling of thought, feeling, imagination and other pleasures but instead enjoy the lower pleasures related to the body and the senses. His response: appreciating higher pleasures can be more demanding. Our ability to experience them can be undermined by hard work, lack of time, infrequent opportunities to experience them and so on. We make seek lower pleasures simply because they are more readily available to us

Question 18

Why does not just anyone’s preference count as deciding whether a pleasure is higher or lower (Mill)

Answer 18

Mill says that one pleasure is ‘higher’ than another if almost everyone who is ‘completely acquainted’ with both prefers one over the other.

Question 19

Who are hedonistic utilitarians and what do they disagree about

Answer 19

Bentham and Mill and they disagree about what is good e.g Mill’s view on higher and lower pleasures

Question 20

How might Bentham respond to Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures

Answer 20

He could say that our preference for higher pleasures is not because such pleasures are qualitatively better but because they are more ‘fecund’ - they are likely to produce more pleasure either for others or ourselves in the long-term

Question 21

What does Smart claim about Mill’s view on pleasures not being equal

Answer 21

Smart claims that Mill seems right. If they were equal, a contented sheep would be as good as a contented human, so perhaps to maximise happiness we should decrease the human population and increase the number of cared for sheep!

Question 22

What is Mill’s dictum

Answer 22

‘Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’

Question 23

What does Smart claim about pleasure?

Answer 23

Smart claims no pleasure is intrinsically bad; it is only ever bad if it causes pain (to the person themselves or others)

Question 24

What is Nozick’s experience machine

Answer 24

Nozick asks us to imagine being faced with the chance of plugging in to a virtual reality machine. It will produce the experience of a very happy life, not only with many various pleasures and few pains but (the experience of) many successful achievements. If we plug in we will not know that what we experience is virtual reality. We will believe it is the reality. We must agree to plug in for life or not at all.

Question 25

What does Nozick argue our responses would be to the virtual reality machine

Answer 25

He argues that most of us would not plug in. We value being in contact with reality, even if that makes us less happy, even if we experience fewer achievements. We can't understand this in terms of the 'pleasure' of being in touch with reality, or a preference for certain types of pleasure because in the machine we would still experience this pleasure and believe that we were in touch with reality. He says what we want is not a psychological state at all. It is a relation to something outside of our minds, we want achievements but we want real achievements.

Question 26

What does Nozick conclude about the virtual reality machine theory after saying that our response would be to not plug into the virtual reality machine

Answer 26

He concludes that we cannot understand what is good just in terms of our subjective psychological states, such as pleasure.

Question 27

What is preference utilitarianism

Answer 27

It is a form of non-hedonistic utilitarianism that argues what we should maximise is not pleasure, but the satisfaction of people's preferences (desires). What is good is maximising the satisfaction of people's preferences.

Question 28

Preference Utilitarianism (Nozick)

Answer 28

If Nozick is right, we prefer to be in touch with reality, but not because it brings us pleasure. Having this preference satisfied is valuable. For a preference to be satisfied, it must be satisfied in reality. It is not enough that the person thinks their preference is satisfied.

Question 29

Preference Utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures)

Answer 29

We can also appeal to preferences to explain Mill's claims about higher and lower pleasures. He defends the distinction in terms of what people prefer. However, instead of talking about the value and quality of types of pleasure, we could argue that whatever people prefer is of more value to them- whether or not most people would prefer pleasures related to thought, feeling and imagination.

Question 30

Preference utilitarianism on satisfaction of pleasure

Answer 30

The satisfaction of many of our preferences will bring us pleasure but many will not. eg a person may say what they want to be done with their possessions after death and having this satisfied will not bring them any pleasure

Question 31

Outline What is the first stage of Mill's 'proof' of utilitarianism

Answer 31

Stage one: Happiness is good what is good is an 'end'. His first stage has three parts.

Question 32

what are means and ends

Answer 32

An 'end' is the purpose of our actions, 'ends' are why you do what you do; means are how you achieve your ends

Question 33

What is Mill's first stage in 'proof' utilitarianism

Answer 33

Happiness is good

Question 34

G.E Moore's objection to Mill's first stage of 'proof' utilitarianism

Answer 34

He commits the 'fallacy of equivocation' confusing two meanings of a word. Its usual meaning is 'worthy of being desired' Anything desirable in this sense is good but another meaning could be 'capable of being desired' to discover what is capable of being desired, look at what people desire. What people actually desire is not the same as what is actually worthy of being desired (good). Mill has assumed that what people desire just is what is good.

Question 35

Response to G.E Moore's objection to Mill's first stage of 'proof utilitarianism'

Answer 35

It misinterprets Mills argument. Mill is asking 'what evidence is there for thinking that something is worthy of being desired?' He argues that people in general desire happiness. Unless people in general desire what is not worth desiring, this looks like good evidence that happiness is desirable

Question 36

What is the objection that Mill commits the fallacy of composition in his first stage of 'proof' utilitarianism and the repsonse

Answer 36

This is the fallacy of inferring that because some part has a property, the whole of which it is a part also has that property. Mill seems to be saying that because each person desires their own happiness, everybody desires everybody's happiness which doesn't follow. The response is that he simply assumes that ethics is about what is good in general, he is not trying to infer that we ought to be concerned for others' happiness.

Question 37

What is the first part of the first stage of Mill's 'proof' of utilitarianism and the objection

Answer 37

If anything is desired as an end, we have the only evidence we could have that it is desirable as an end. In support of this Mill urges that just as the proof that anything is visible is that someone sees it, and just as the proof that anything is audible is that someone hears it, the proof that anything is desirable is that someone desires it. Objection: Visible means; capable of being seen, and; audible; means; capable of being heard.; If anything is actually heard, then it must be capable of being heard. But; desirable; does not mean; capable of being desired.; It means; worthy of being desired.; Hence from the fact that something is desired as an end it does not follow that this something is desirable as an end.

Question 38

What is the second part of the first stage of Mill's 'proof' of utilitarianism

Answer 38

Happiness is desired as an end.

Question 39

What is the third part of the first stage of Mill's 'proof' of utilitarianism and the objection

Answer 39

We have the only evidence we could have that happiness is desirable as an end. Each person's happiness is desirable to that person, therefore the general happiness is desirable to the aggregate of all persons. Objection: from the fact that each person desires her own happiness it does not follow that the general happiness is desirable at all, because the general happiness may be desired by no one.

Question 40

What is Mill's second stage in 'proof' utilitarianism

Answer 40

Only happiness is good

Question 41

Explain an objection to Mill's second stage of proof utilitarianism and his response.

Answer 41

It isn't obvious that everything we desire is a means to happiness. With Nozick's machine, we argued that we want truth, not because it had any psychological effect on us so by this evidence many different things not only happiness is good. Response: Mill says happiness has many different 'ingredients' such as truth and freedom and each ingredient is desirable in itself. For example, knowing the truth for its own sake means their happiness consists in their knowing the truth.

Question 42

Explain the distinction between external and constitutive means

Answer 42

Getting up early to get on a plane to go on holiday is an external means to an end. Later you lying on the beach is a constitutive means to the end of having a good holiday. Having a good holiday is not something 'further' or additional that you can achieve by lying on the beach

Question 43

Why does Mill reject the objection that utilitarianism degrades human beings

Answer 43

He argues that this objection misunderstands what human beings take pleasure in.

Question 44

Identify the aspects of the felicific calculus (only need to know three or four)

Answer 44

1. Intensity (how intense the pleasure will be) 2. Duration (how long it will last) 3. Propinquity (how near it is) 4. Certainty (how certain that pleasure will result) 5. Fecundity (how much it will lead to pleasure of the same type) 6. Purity (how free from pain) 7. Extent (how many will gain pleasure)

Question 45

Explain the objection considered by Mill - calculation towards utilitarianism

Answer 45

It is not possible to work out the consequences of an action for human happiness. How can we know or work out the consequences of an action, to discover whether it maximises happiness or not? It is surely too difficult and time-consuming to do. In practice it is mind-boggling and we can't get the relevant information eg how intense, how long it will last what pleasures or pains it might cause in turn etc.

Question 46

In terms of calculation, what advantage does preference utilitarianism claim over act utilitarianism

Answer 46

In preference utilitarianism, it is easier to know whether someone's preference has been satisfied than how much pleasure someone experiences (though this is little improvement if we still need to compare the strength of different people's preferences, whether satisfying one preference leads to further preferences being satisfied, and so on)

Question 47

Explain the response to the objection considered by Mill - calculation towards utilitarianism

Answer 47

The objection misinterprets what utilitarians say. Bentham does not say an action is right if it 'actually' maximises happiness, he says it is right if it has 'the tendency which it appears to have' to maximise happiness. We don't need to be able to work out the consequences precisely. An action is right if we can reasonably expect that it will maximise happiness. He also says the felicific calculus need not be 'strictly pursued' before each decision or moral judgement. It just needs to be 'kept in view'.

Question 48

Explain Mill's response to the response to his objection to calculation

Answer 48

Mill’s secondary principles Mill: happiness is ‘much too complex and indefinite’ a standard for us to apply directly to actions in many cases but humanity has worked this out over time, giving our moral rules (‘secondary principles’) eg ‘Don’t steal’: because it tends to produce more unhappiness than happiness. If two secondary principles conflict, then we should appeal to the greatest happiness principle we shouldn't attempt to calculate happiness directly unless we have such a conflict. Only in cases of conflict will there be genuine exceptions to the rule.

Question 49

Explain the point within utilitarianism about which beings happiness should we include

Answer 49

Bentham argued that the question of who or what to consider when looking at the consequences of actions is not 'can they reason?' nor, 'can they talk?' but, 'can they suffer?'. There is nothing in the theory that gives us a reason to privilege human happiness over the happiness of non-human animals. The third condition of ut. is that no-ones happiness matters more than anyone else's. So this boundary does not stop at humans. Peter Singer says that the differences between animals and humans such as self-awareness, distinguishment between right and wrong and the depth of our emotional experience are irrelevant when it comes to the capacities that we share eg the basic consciousness needed to experience pleasure and pain

Question 50

Why does saying that all species happiness matters intensify the problems with calculation

Answer 50

It is already difficult to compare the happiness of different people, it is much more difficult to compare the happiness of a person with that of say a pig or a bird. We cannot calculate the effects of our actions on the happiness of non-human animals with any degree of accuracy. Nor can we use our existing moral rules which allow the use of animals for clothes, food, objects of experiments and so on.

Question 51

Explain the problem with fairness, individual liberty and rights in utilitarianism

Answer 51

These three things are questions of justice. Justice is the principle that each person receives their due. Justice is fairness. A situation is unjust if someone has more or less than 'their fair share' and/or if they are favoured or unfavoured in some way that they do not deserve. Utilitarianism requires us to take each person's happiness into account equally. It may, therefore, seem that it respects fairness. But is this so?

Question 52

Explain the objection to utilitarianism: The tyranny of the majority

Answer 52

In a democracy, the policies that lead to the greatest happiness for the majority could have a very negative effect on the minority. Should the government simply overrule what the minority want? The majority have a form of absolute power if this is how laws should be made. They could give a law on the death penalty for homosexuality. Surely there should be constraints on what the majority can do to the minority. For instance, should individuals have certain rights e.g freedom of movement and expression that protects them from such absolute power? Or would it be morally permissible to remove these freedoms from some people if it would lead to the greatest happiness overall?

Question 53

What does Mill note as the first of two ways in which the majority can exercise its power over the minority and how does he argue to change it

Answer 53

The first is through democratic government. For example, a democratic government could pass a law forbidding people to criticise a particular form of religious belief, or a law forbidding them to practice it, if that was what the majority of people in society wanted. He argues that the powers of the democratic government need to be limited by a respect and recognition for individual rights and liberties, but, we might think, utilitarianism has no place for these moral concepts.

Question 54

What does Mill note as the second of two ways in which the majority can exercise its power over the minority

Answer 54

The second is through social opinion. 'The tendency for society to impose...its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent them'. If you think about different cultures traditions of taste in music and attitudes to homosexuality even if there is no law condemning it, the disapproval of it affects how people think and what they do. You could imagine a society where it was 'understood' that the place of people of some minority race should be to serve the majority race.

Question 55

Explain the issue of rights and liberties within act utilitarianism

Answer 55

Act utilitarianism does not rule out any sort of action as immoral (as shown in the tyranny of the majority). There are no constraints on pursuing the greatest happiness. Eg if torturing a lone child produces the greatest happiness to a group of child abusers, then it is right to torture a child. Ut. doesn't respect individual rights or liberties because it doesn't recognise any restrictions on actions that create happiness.

Question 56

Explain the objection to the example of torturing a child within rights and liberties

Answer 56

They tell us to consider the situation realistically. In real life other people would find out and become very upset and fearful that the same could happen to them or their children. So these actions wouldn't lead to the greatest happiness.

Question 57

Explain the response to the objection of torturing a child within rights and liberties

Answer 57

Even if people did find out (which we may question), the theory still implies that if it were very unlikely that someone would find out that it would be right. But other people finding out isn't what makes torturing children wrong. By leaving out rights, ut. misses something of great moral importance, so it can't be the theory of morality.

Question 58

Explain Mill's account of justice in a qoute

Answer 58

Mill calls justice 'the only real difficulty in the ut. theory of morals'

Question 59

What do we think are the six actions that we believe are a violation of justice

Answer 59

1. violating someone's legal rights 2. violating someone's moral rights (sometimes laws are wrong) 3. not giving someone what they deserve 4. breaking a contract or a promise 5. failing to be impartial when this is required eg in what people deserve, respecting rights, cases of public interest 6. treating people unequally

Question 60

Explain in more detail Mill's account of justice

Answer 60

Mill says that 'When we call anything persons right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law or by that of education and opinion.' If we protect interests and rights these become the subject of justice. This contributes to the most happiness long term. The rules that prohibit harm and protect our freedom are more vital to our interests than any others.

Question 61

What is the problem with Mill's individual rights and his response

Answer 61

We can create more happiness by killing one person to save five. On the other hand, we have the individuals right., but this turns out to just be the demands of the greatest happiness as well. If my rights are justified by the general utility, then doesn't the happiness created by overriding my rights justify violating them?Ut. can't offer any reason to respect my rights in this situation. Mill said we should establish a system of rights that would bring the most happiness then defend these rights even when they conflict with happiness in certain situations. (This seems mill has given up on act utilitarianism (act consequentialism) and must adopt 'rule utilitarianism').

Question 62

Explain partiality in Utilitarianism

Answer 62

We need to consider the happiness of each person equally in order to create the greatest happiness. In other words, we should be impartial. This would result in spending less time with people we love and more time spent helping people who need help eg through charity work. Likewise, spend more money on charity and less on people we love in order to lead to the greatest happiness. But does this mean that it is not morally permissible to be partial?

Question 63

Explain the objection to partiality

Answer 63

Ut. is too idealistic, expecting people to give priority to strangers over those they know and love and be motivated by the general happiness rather than the happiness of those they are close to. Ut. also misses importance in treating people equally, eg in abstract they are but to me in my life, each person does not and should not count equally

Question 64

Explain Mill's response to the objection of partiality

Answer 64

There are very few opportunities any of us have to benefit people in general. And so only considering contributing to the happiness of a few people is absolutely fine, and ut. does not require more.

Question 65

Explain the first response back to the response from Mill about the objection of partiality

Answer 65

Firstly, there are many charities that work around the globe and welcome volunteer fundraisers, and the news makes us continually aware of different causes of suffering around the world. It is perfectly possible to dedicate much of one's time and money to helping others 'in general'. So it seems ut. does demand more impartiality than we usually show.

Question 66

Explain the second response back to the response from Mill about the objection of partiality

Answer 66

Secondly, his response fails to understand the moral importance of partiality. It is not that partiality should be just allowed. For example someone visiting a friend in hospital, they say thanks and the person just replies, im only here out of duties , this would make the friend feel upset and if the visitor could've done some other action at that time that would've created more happiness, being completely impartial, then they would've done that instead of visiting the friend. If the general happiness is the ultimate end that we should seek in our action, then we should think of friendships as a way of maximising the general happiness, which doesn't seem right

Question 67

How does Ut. attack our moral integrity

Answer 67

Having integrity involves acting in accordance with your own values and sticking to them even in the face of temptation etc. Just as our actions our guided by our concern for particular people (partiality), they are also guided by our values. But ut. appears to require us to set aside our partiality, it also seems to ask us to set aside our moral values in order to maximise happiness.

Question 68

What is Bernard Williams, 'a critique of utilitarianism' (George the chemist)

Answer 68

If George got offered a chemical weapon job even though he is opposed and wants to have a job making counter chemcial weapons and he takes it, this would be against his moral integrity. But if he didnt do it it would leave a space open for someone who is more enthusiastic and who would create chemical weapons much fatster than him. Ut. says though, that he should take it in order to maximise happiness.

Question 69

What is said about Bernard Williams 'a critique of utilitarianism' (george the chemist) and what could Mill say about it

Answer 69

Why should George be responsible for what someone else does? Ut. says that we are each responsible for our own actions unless what someone does is a consequence of what you have done then it is treated the same ie something you have done. Ut. cannot understand and respect moral integrity. Mill would say that integrity is central to happiness and acting against it doesn't maximise happiness, he appeals to rule ut.

Question 70

What is the issue surrounding Act ut. ignorning intentions

Answer 70

Act ut. claims an action is right if it leads to the greatest happiness. It does not therefore recognise the moral value of our intentions in acting as we do. Eg trying to harm someone and failing- so they end up unharmed is (usually) still blameworthy; trying not to harm someone and failing- so they are accidentaly harmed - is not. But this can't be if all that matters is consequences, not intentions.

Question 71

What does Ut. say about having good intentions

Answer 71

They say it is one of the 'ingredients' of happiness and that an intention which produces morally wrong actions is a bad intention and intentions to produce happiness are good intentions.

Question 72

Explain Mill's response to the objection that someone's intentions make a moral difference to their action

Answer 72

Mill claims that it only makes a moral difference to how we evaluate them as a person not a moral difference to their action

Question 73

What is rule utilitarianism and who is it by

Answer 73

It claims that an action is right if, and only if, it compiles with those rules which, if everybody followed them, would lead to the greatest happiness. They do not look at the consequences of an action but rather the at the consequences of people following rules. A rule is morally right if following it leads to greater happiness than following an alternative rule. An action is only right if it complies with a rule that is morally right. Mill created it as his own response to act utilitarianism after he objected against parts of it.

Question 74

What is Smart's objection to rule utilitarianism

Answer 74

Smart objects that it amounts to rule worship. If a rule in a situation would not bring about the greatest happiness then what reason is there for following the rule. Eg lying would cause more happiness, so there should be an exception to this rule in this case.

Question 75

What do rule ut. respond to Smart's objection

Answer 75

That we should amend the rule to allow the exception in such cases, for example, don't lie should become, don't lie unless telling the truth will hurt someone's feelings.

Question 76

What does Smart point out about the response to her objection of Rule ut.

Answer 76

Smart points out that if we keep amending rules like this then there is no difference between what an act ut. and a rule ut. would recommend. If we try and add all the possible ammendments to the rules in order to make acting on them always produce the maximum happiness, we would end up with just one rule, namely to maximise the greatest happiness. There are so many situations where breaking a rule might lead to greater happiness than following it, no other rule can be certain of maximising happiness and so rule ut. collapses into act ut. It isn't a distinct theory at all.

Question 77

What are two things which rule ut. says that show it is a better theory than act utilitarianism

Answer 77

Look at the bigger picture in terms of right and wrong, actions are right when we maximise happiness overall- even when the action itself doesn't maximise happiness in this particular situation. Secondly, rule ut. has advantages over act ut. which we can see by looking at how rule ut. can respond to objections raised in act ut.

Question 78

How does rule ut. respond to the objection of calculation raised in act ut.

Answer 78

We don't have to work out the consequences of each act, in turn, to see if it is right. We only need to work out which rules create the greatest happiness and only once and together. This is what Mill says human beings have done over time giving us our customary morals ('secondary principles'). Rule ut. gives a formal place in its theory of whether an action is right.

Question 79

How does rule ut. respond to the objection of fairness, individual liberty and rights raised in act ut.

Answer 79

A rule forbidding torture of children will clearly cause more happiness if everybody followed it than a rule of allowing torture of children. So it is wrong to torture children. Individuals have rights, which are rules because if people have to follow these rules, that leads to the greatest happiness. Rules requiring fairness and justice will produce greater happiness in the long run than rules that do not, and these constraints will prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Question 80

How does rule ut. respond to the objection of partiality raised in act ut.

Answer 80

A rule that allows partiality to ourselves, our family and our friends will create more happiness than a rule that requires us to be impartial all the time. Though we shouldn't be completely partial. We still need to consider the general happiness, but we only need act in such a way that, if everyone acted like that, would promote the greatest happiness eg in case of charity, I only need to give as much charity as would be a 'fair share'. This combination of both partiality and impartiality respects both our natural inclinations and the demands of morality.

Question 81

How does rule ut. respond to the objection of moral integrity raised in act ut.

Answer 81

Have a rule which allows people not to follow other rules if they conflict with one's integrity. Generally, rule ut. provides a similar argument to the partiality for integrity

Question 82

How does rule ut. respond to the objection of intentions raised in act ut.

Answer 82

A rule prohibiting murder is not a rule prohibiting self- defence, even if self-defence may lead to death. So whether an action complies with a rule or not depends, at least in part, on the individual's intention in performing the act. And so rule ut. can recognise that the thought does count.

Question 83

What is an objection to rule ut. about partiality and the greatest happiness

Answer 83

Partiality is good, according to rule ut. because it contributes to the greatest happiness. The importance of the individual and making them happy just for their sake seems to be missing though. For instance, if I form friendships because this maximises happiness, does that respect and value my friends for themselves, as the particular people they are?

Question 84

What is an objection to rule ut. about the integrity

Answer 84

A rule that protects integrity could prove very problematic. If what someone values goes very strongly against promoting the greatest happiness, for example, someone might find meaning in their life through making as much money as possible, without constraints. Morality itself may seem in conflict with their integrity. Morality itself probably needs to be a part of people's commitments for rule ut. to respect their integrity.

Question 85

What is the objection to rule ut. (that was also an objection to act ut.) about pleasure being the only good

Answer 85

Is there other, important values such as telling the truth, that matter independent of the pleasure they bring (or preferences they satisfy) (Kant develops this objection in his theory of the good will)

Question 86

What is an objection that rule ut. faces about morality being summed up in rules and the response

Answer 86

Isn't life too complicated for this? The response: one of the rules is 'When no other rules apply, do the action that maximises happiness'.