For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

UTILITARIANISM.
  Term Paper ID:29951
Essay Subject:
Examines changes in the definition of the principle of utility.... More...
9 Pages / 2025 Words
7 sources, 21 Citations, APA Format
$36.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Examines changes in the definition of the principle of utility. Compares Jeremy Bentham's theory of utility to modern versions. Discusses increase in happiness element, right action, intrinsic & extrinsic (instrumental) value, Consequentialism & Utilitarianism. Concepts of "right" and "wrong;" Equality & Utilitarianism. " Cites a number of criticisms of the theory of Utilitarianism.

Paper Introduction:
Utilitarianism Introduction: What is Utility? The definition of the core of the theory -- the principle of utility -- has changed over the years, such that the modern version has a number of significant differences from that given by Jeremy Bentham: By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness (Bentham, 2000, p.11). The modern definition is effectively this: An action is right if it produces as much or more of an

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


So of two exclusive actions, both of which wouldincrease the level of happiness compared to the present level but bydifferent positive amounts, the modern principle would call the betteraction "right" and the not-so-good "wrong", whereas Bentham's utility wouldapprove of both - but approve of the better one somewhat more - and holdthat both actions are right, and ought be done, or at least that they arenot wrong, that it is not the case that they ought not be done. A standard disagreement is illustrated by the fact that anegative utilitarian would believe that, if it were possible to exterminateall life in the universe instantly and painlessly and permanently, it wouldbe correct and ethically required that we do so, in order to prevent anyfuture suffering. The principle of utility states that an action is "right if itproduces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by itthan any alternative action, and wrong if it does not"(Singer, 1993, 4).Its basis is the idea that pleasure and happiness are intrinsicallyvaluable, that pain and suffering are intrinsically disvaluable, and thatanything else has value only in its causing happiness or preventingsuffering. If rights aren'tjustified in these terms, how are they justified? This means that a utilitarianrejects egoism, racism, sexism, and other forms of unfair discrimination.It does not mean that one denies there are differences between individualsor between groups of individuals -- i.e, some individuals are cleverer,taller, stronger, more emotional, etc., than others -- but that there is nologically compelling reason for assuming that a difference in abilityjustifies any difference in the consideration given to their interests(Singer, 1993, 41-43).Negative Utilitarianism In classical utilitarianism, happiness is regarded as positivelyvaluable, and unhappiness - pain, suffering, etc. Utilitarians support equality by the equalconsideration of interests, i.e., they reject any arbitrary distinctions asto who is worthy of concern and who isn't. 4. For most people, going to the dentist would not bedesirable if itdid not have these consequences. To illustrate: ifone is trying to show that the specific action they have just performed wasthe right one, it is not only those who were affected by this action -compared to inaction - who must be considered, but also all those who wouldhave been affected had another action been chosen instead. A utilitarian would examine the purpose of thecontract or promise to see what the outcome would be. There are two very important questions that need to be answeredbefore this definition can be of value: First, what is intrinsically good? Anylimit suggested for the scope of consideration only lengthens theexplanation and introduces the potential for misunderstanding. By negativeutilitarianism, the only goal is the reduction of suffering. In the usual courseof things, a utilitarian would agree that keeping a promise or adhering toa contract is the choice that promotes the greatest good; thus, thiscriticism is sophomoric at best. Regularutilitarians and negative utilitarians agree on some issues, and disagreeon others. The person who actually takes into consideration the thoughts andphilosophy of the utilitarians will take actions that tend to create asociety they and others would choose to live in. (Lyons, 1965, 12) If the world would be a slightlybetter or happier place if one broke a promise, then, according to theutilitarian, they should._ However, most utilitarians would have to look atthe specific agreement, and how the parties to it had come to it. The important issuesthat utilitarianism raises should be discussed in contexts more rewardingthan that of utilitarianism itself. Bentham's definition is of utility for some particular party, whereasthe modern version is for everyone affected by the action. Lewis, ed.; London: Allen andUnwin, 1976. If all one ever wantedwas pleasure or happiness, this would reduce to one of the other views, butin fact most seem to have desires for things other than theirown pleasure or happiness, for example the well-being of those close tothem (Sidgwick, 1998, 34). Some things seem to be good onlybecause they lead to other things that are good, not because they areintrinsically good. There is really no need for this ambiguity: it can be said simplythat the right action is simply the one that "maximizes total utility" or"maximizes total happiness" or whatever; one need not say for whom. A deontological moral theory is one which denies this:_ whichasserts, that is, that the notions of rightness and wrongless are just asbasic as the notions of goodness and badness - or possibly even more basic- and cannot be defined in terms of them (Sidgwick, 1998, 15). If Adolph Hitler would be happier werethere no Jews on the planet, his happiness is far more outweighed by thegood or happiness of all. Thus, each counts for one, and none for more than one and one'sown interests cannot count for more - simply because they are one's own -than the interests of others. In particular, consequentialism holds that therightness of wrongness ofactions is definable in terms of the goodness or badness of states ofaffairs (Sidgwick, 1998, 14). Hedonistic consequentialists hold that the only thingthat is intrinsically good is pleasure. Therefore, something that is intrinsically good is somethingthat is good in itself, and not because it leads to something else that isgood. Utilitarianism seems to have no room for special moral obligationsto one's family and close friends. This isactually highly arbitrary and unethical. Negative utilitarianism denies the positive aspect: itdenies that happiness is intrinsically valuable. (Singer, 1993, 33) Consequentialists typically take one of three views about what isintrinsically good. Amongthem are these: 1. This ambiguityis very common in discussions about Utility, especially those involving aneffort to explain utilitarianism in simple terms. For instance, going to the dentist is a good thing, butonly because it leads to healthier teeth, and therefore to less pain,better digestion, etc. In addition, a utilitarian wouldlook at the overall situation. Augustine Press, 1998. Utilitarianism gives no special moral weight to things likepromises and contracts. The definition of the core of the theory -- the principle of utility-- has changed over the years, such that the modern version has a number ofsignificant differences from that given by Jeremy Bentham: By the principle of utility is meant that principle whichapproves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to thetendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of theparty whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in otherwords, to promote or to oppose that happiness (Bentham, 2 , p.11).The modern definition is effectively this: An action is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not (Singer,1993, p.3). Benthamhimself can have the last word here: "A man may be said to be a partizan of the principle ofutility, when the approbation or disapprobation he annexes to anyaction, or to any measure, is determined by and proportioned to thetendency which he conceives it to have to augment or to diminish thehappiness of the community." (Bentham, 2 , 21) Thus, an individual must consider the good of those beyond himself,which generally results in decisions we would define as "good" or "right."Utilitarianism and Equality Utilitarianism is concerned with happiness, and utilitarians acceptthe idea that value is universal; utilitarians believe that the intrinsicvalue of happiness is unaffected by the identity of the being in which itis felt. Utilitarianism makes choices that are difficult, in which it isnot obvious what the right thing to do is, seem too easy.(Williams, 1976, 123) If the justification of a right depends on itstendency to promote happiness and prevent suffering, then it is entirelyredundant since this is the sole purpose of utility. 3. The modern version is quite different on this point. Kantis using a very subjective standard - his own determination of who isworthy and who is not according to his interests and principles. If theone party had been overbearing and therefore there was no real negotiationbetween equals to come to the decision, then it would not be a moralpromise or contract. Eudaimonistic consequentialistshold that the only thing that is intrinsically good is happiness, which onsome views is a broader notion than pleasure. To distinguish it from intrinsic value, this latter kind ofvalue is given the name "instrumental" (or, less commonly, "extrinsic")value, andrepresents value (usefulness) as means to an end -- that end beingintrinsic value (Singer, 1993, 23).The Moral Theory of Consequentialism We can distinguish between two main varieties of modern ethics:consequentialist theories and deontological theories. References Bentham, Jeremy: "The Principles of Morals and Legislation;"http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/text/bentham/benthpri.htm Kant, Immanuel: "Groundwork of the Metaphysics ofMorals;"http://ethics.acusd.edu/theory/Kant/Groundwork/Groundwork.html Mill, John Stuart: "Utilitarianism;"http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill/htm Williams, Bernard: "Utilitarianism and Moral Self-Indulgence;" in"Contemporary British Philosophy," H.D. (Williams, 1976, 121) A number of criticisms of utilitarianism have been offered. A consequentialist moral theory is one which holds that theevaluation of outcomes or states of affairs is more fundamental than theevaluation of actions. Singer, Peter: "Practical Ethics, 2nd Edition;" Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1993. Thus, while a consequentialist would say that an action like stealingyour neighbor's lawn mower is wrong because it has bad results, i.e., itmakes your neighbor very unhappy, the deontologist will say that it iswrong because of intrinsic features of the action or of the general policyyou are acting on, and would be wrong even if the results were not bad.Consequentialism and Utilitarianism A utilitarian is someone who accepts the principle of utility -- andis therefore concerned with maximizing the value of the universe -- whichmakes utilitarianism a consequentialist theory of ethics, as opposed to adeontological theory. UtilitarianismIntroduction: What is Utility? 27 pages.----------------------- 1 - is regarded isnegatively valuable. In his view,utility approves of an action if it makes things better, it disapproves ofit if it makes things worse; it approves of one action more than another ifthat action makes things better than the other. In most cases, it can be shown that making anawful person happy would not accord with the utilitarian's belief that "Anaction is right if, and only if, it produces more intrinsic good than anyalternative action."Conclusions There is some potential for confusion in Bentham's definition of theprinciple of utility, as given at the start of the "Introduction to thePrinciples of Morals and Legislation," but the meaning becomes clearer inlater parts of the text. 2. (Kant, 2 , 1) Kant -- forexample -- finds this completely unacceptable, holding that happiness is ofno value unless the happy person is morally good. The second question which must be answered is: more intrinsic goodfor whom? (Lyons, 1965, 14)_Because utilitariansbelieve in the principle of equality, they believe that the intrinsic valueof happiness is unaffected by the identity of the being in which it isfelt. Third, preferentialconsequentialists hold that what is intrinsically good is desiresatisfaction, or the satisfaction of preferences. Sidgwick, Henry: "Philosophy : Its Scope and Relations;"New York: St. Lyons, David: "Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism;" Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1965. The day cannot be too far off in whichwe hear no more of it. Whether that can actuallybe done when there are people who refuse to consider anything but their ownselfishness is a question with no final answer: the philosophy ofutilitarianism is still in conflict with the belief in egoism. Let us distinguishbetween two main varieties of consequentialism: egoism, which holds thatthe right action is the one that produces the most intrinsic good for theagent, and utilitarianism, which holds that the right action is the onethat produces the most intrinsic good for everyone affected (Singer, 1993,21). In itself, this is not a very attractiveprospect. Utilitarianism regards all happiness as equally good, regardlessof who gets it; making an awful person happy, for the utilitarian, is justas valuable as making a splendid person happy. Thus, each counts for one, and none for more than one and one's owninterests cannot count for more than the interests of others merely thefact they are one's own. In attempting to explain the rightness of actions in terms of thegoodness of their results, most consequentialists would employ somethinglike the following definition: An action is right if, and only if, it produces more intrinsicgood than any alternative action (Singer, 1993, p.3). A classical utilitarian might decide either way,depending on their estimation of the relative amounts of future sufferingandhappiness (Sidgwick, 47-51).Criticism of Utilitarianism The demands of political reality and the complexities of politicalthought are obstinately what they are, and in the face of them the simple-mindedness of utilitarianism disqualifies it totally. There are many possible answers here: for the individual, forhis friends and family, for members of his community or nation, for allpeople, or all rational beings, or all sentient beings. Utility considers all relevant interests, which isnot necessarily what is being said in the modern version. Benthamdecided that "the greatest happiness principle" is a better mnemonic forthe principle of utility than its predecessor "the greatest happiness forthe greatest number" (Sidgwick, 1998, 42-47)."Right" and "Wrong" Bentham is concerned with augmentation and diminution of happiness,which is to say the changes from the present situation. Neither isreally what is meant. What is comparedagainst is not the current situation, but the situations that would resultfrom alternative actions. 395 pages. If one is concerned with stating Utility clearly-- in a free-will- agnostic fashion -- allowing for degrees of approval orright and wrong, and avoiding the ambiguity on scope already mentioned, onemight define it thus: "By the principle of utility is meant that principle whichapproves or disapproves of any action, or of any measure, according andproportioned to the tendency it has to augment or diminish thehappiness of the community." (Singer, 1993, 85)Or, rather more simply, as Mill did: (Mill, 2 , 1 ) "Actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness, wrongas they produce the reverse of happiness". Utilitarians supportequality by the equal consideration of interests, i.e., they reject anyarbitrary distinctions as to who is worthy of concern and who isn't. Or, as it is sometimes put, the good is morefundamental than the right.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject