Overview
I'm working on a philosophy writing question and need a sample draft to help me learn.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarian theory claims we should, from a moral standpoint, do what we need to do to our fullest potentiality, that which promotes and increases happiness over suffering. The philosophers Jeremy Bentham (Chapter Reading for this Week) and John Stuart Mill claimed an action is morally right if said action promotes happiness, and wrong, if actions produce the opposite of happiness. This includes the happiness of the person committing an action as well as all who may be affected by that action. To this end, it means making actions maximize the good and do so in a way that affects the greatest amount of good, for the greatest amount of people. Both philosophers believed that human motivation to do right or wrong is dependent upon pleasure and pain. This drew criticisms claiming utilitarianism is hedonistic. Hedonistic meaning the pursuit of pleasure and is typically self-indulgent. However, Bentham and Mill argued it is only in the context of pleasure and pain that human beings will choose what they ought to do, do right, and recognize wrong. The central argument of utilitarianism is that we will do that which creates the greatest amount of pleasure while seeking to avoid any equal amount of pain. Both Bentham and Mill argued that utilitarianism, if it is to work, does need to step beyond hedonistic tendencies surrounding individual pleasure, towards supporting everyone’s pleasure. It is also argued that pleasure extends beyond the physical senses to also include such things as the pursuit of knowledge, virtue and other human interests in life.
The central question of utilitarianism asks, “What ought a person do?” Utilitarianism, framed in a societal/social context, would then mean working collectively for the greater good. The practice of utilitarianism means maintaining impartiality and neutrality as it is important to consider that everyone’s happiness is the same. Utilitarianism uses an ethical approach to focus on right and wrong based on the outcomes of actions. In this context, philosophy calls this kind of approach consequentialism. Think about this in terms of asking if there is ever a right or wrong time to go to war? Do ends justify the means? This means deeply asking what are the consequences of actions before actions are committed? What will best serve the greatest amount of good? Happiness? Consequentialism does present problems in that we can never ultimately know what future actions might entail in terms of cause and effect (good or bad). Modern governmental institutions often use utilitarian approaches to decide major issues that will affect justice and individual rights. It is argued that utilitarianism can fall short of adequately addressing these issues.
Utilitarianism argues that there are subordinate rules that guide choice and action concerning the greater good. This is referred to as commonsense morality. The subordinate rules include keeping your promises, no cheating, no stealing, and obeying the law. There is a caveat. If breaking one of the rules would cause there to be a greater amount of happiness, versus following that rule, then break the rules. Circumstances surrounding breaking subordinate rules include being in situations that the rules don’t cover, when subordinate rules conflict, or when an individual is deciding which rules to practice and disseminate. Justification needs to accompany such breaking of subordinate and accepted rules and norms. Think about this in terms of social justice or war. One leader, or political party, may determine that their ideology is what is required for greater happiness. However, their ideology will have detrimental consequences to others or the environment. Criticisms of utilitarianism argue that it can be easy to use this approach to exploit others or the environment in the name of one group of peoples happiness over that of others i. e. cheap labor, sweat shops, children labor, and exploitive methods of production for consumerism. Ruthlessness in terms of enacting largely harmful actions or activities in the name of the greater good i.e. shock and awe bombing, prisoner torture, unlawful detention of asylum seekers or cultural/religious/gender/choice differences. Paternalism in terms of Big Brother knows what is good for you so this what you now have to do in order to be happy.
The Utilitarian/Ethical philosopher Peter Singer will argue the issues as just discussed in our reading for this week. Singer sustained in the face of utilitarian approaches to individual, collective, and governing actions, wouldn’t this mean that we should be alleviating famine present within and across borders in our local and global community? If we can, isn’t that what we ought to do? Doesn’t utilitarianism even state people should always act towards maximizing general happiness? Singer (2016) maintained, “…if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (p. 519). Singer argued, “we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance….Since most people are self-interested to some degree, very few of us are likely to do everything that we ought to do” (p. 523). With this sentiment in mind, poverty in the form of famine, continues to remain a national and global problem.
Singer (2016) used the following example:
“When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look “well-dressed” we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called “supererogatory” – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so” (p. 521) (Bold and Italics are Dr. Mike’s).
Singer (2016) argued, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” and “we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.” This kind of approach to greatest happiness, as proffered by Singer, is the very definition of a utilitarian approach to ethical choices and actions in terms of greatest happiness. You do it for the sake of doing it. This does not mean you have to starve or go broke in giving money or food to charity. You balance that out. There is no harm no foul and you are not left out in the cold if you keep old clothes that are still wearable if you instead give that money that would have been spend on clothes to famine relief. If you have give. The act of giving, in and of itself, benefits the greatest happiness without any form of sense-based, emotional, or religious gratification. It is commonsense and will benefit a greater amount of peoples’ happiness in and of its own terms. In turn this bolsters human global happiness and quality of life. How you feel or what it looks like in terms of religious goodness does not matter. It is done for doneness’s sake. Nothing more. Nothing less. Utilitarian.
Some Quotes from Peter Singer:
“The result of everyone doing what he really ought to do cannot be worse than the result of everyone doing less than he ought to do, although the result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to do could be” (p. 521).
“As I have already said, I need to assert it only in its qualified form: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we out, morally to do it” (521).
Questions for Reflection:
*Bentham argued that pain and pleasure “govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.” Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
*The Editors of our book ask a great question concerning Singer’s thoughts: “Should you feel guilty about spending money on new clothes, rather than giving it to famine relief? Why or why not?”
*How important is it to consider the consequences of our actions relative to our pursuit of happiness on individual, local, and global levels? Use an example from our world today in supporting your answer.
For Further Reading/Information
On Utilitarianism:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Jeremy Bentham:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/
Peter Singer:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Singer
Source: Bratman, P., Bratman, M., & Fischer, J. M. (Eds.) (2016). Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Objectives:
*Define Utilitarianism.
*Understand Utilitarianism from a historical and contemporary perspective via the philosophers
used in this discussion.
Discussion Post Created by Dr. Michael lees