Class Notes (807,051)
Canada (492,572)
Philosophy (915)
PHLA11H3 (144)
Lecture 6

Lecture 6.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Julia Nefsky

Lecture 6 – Jan 28 Utilitarianism The morally right act is the act that will produce the greatest sum of pleasure minus pain. Can be broken down into 2 parts 1. Consequentialism about Morality – the morally right act is the one that will produce the greatest total amount of good (the least amount of bad) out of the acts available to you. 2. Hedonism about the Good – the only thing good in itself is pleasure and the absence of pain Nozick’s Experience Machine A challenge to Hedonism • Argues that something else matters to us other than how much pleasure and pain we experience How can Utilitarians reply? Two options: 1. Argue that Nozick is incorrect and that Hedonism is true after all 2. Adjust their view – adopt a broader view than Hedonism about the good Today’s Lecture – focus on the consequentialist component of Utilitarianism A way to think of the question: • Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Hedonism is true • Should we, then, accept that the morally right act is the one that brings about the greatest sum of pleasure minus pain? The ‘Too High for Humanity’ Objection (Last Tuesday’s lecture) “It is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society.” (p. 175) New Argument Suppose that a person must choose between two courses of action: A and B Your choice will have on the following people – there are 6 people, one is you. • Act A: Utility (A) = (10+15+24+2) – (6+40) = 5 o Good things for 4 people, bad things for 2 • Act B: Utility (B) = (10+4+5) – (5+6+9) = -1 o Good things for 3 people, bad things for 3 people The right thing to do is act A. It would be morally wrong to do act B • Even though, really, B is more equal. A does give more good but two people have to suffer for the good of four. But in other cases… Example: “Suppose that the sheriff of a small town can prevent serious riots (in which hundreds of people will be killed) only by ‘framing’ and executing (as a scapegoat) an innocent man.” (Smart, p. 69-70) • The sheriff knows that no one will find out about the framing Utilitarianism – the right thing to do is to frame and execute the innocent man. For example, it could be • The utility of framing and executing 1 innocent man = -500 • The utility of letting the riots occur = -250 (per death) X 150 deaths = -37, 500 Justice and Punishment Justice: getting what one deserves The common-sense view of punishment: one should only be punished when one deserves it Utilitarianism’s view of punishment: • What matters is not whether the punishment is just or unjust • What matters is whether it will produce the greatest sum of pleasure minus pain In Utilitarianism’s Defense Situations like the sheriff situation are ‘empirically unlikely”. (Smart, p. 70) Is this a satisfactory reply? Just because the situation is unlikely, doesn’t mean that it might never happen. This doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be thought of and that utilitarianism shouldn’t have a response to it. A More General Problem Utilitarianism: the morally right act is the one which produces the greatest total amount of pleasure minus pain • The distribution of pleasures and pains (i.e. who gets what) does not matter Rawls On this view, “There is no reason in principle why the greater gains of some should not compensate for the lesser losses of others; or more importantly why the viola
More Less

Related notes for PHLA11H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.