PHIL 2270 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Consequentialism, Thought Experiment, Kantian Ethics
14 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
UTILITARIAN VS KATIANISM
Utilitarian Ethics (consequentialism) - actions are right if they promote the general
happiness. Focuses on how things turn out in the end. Or, actions are right if their social
benefits outweigh their social costs
John Stuart Mill’s version:
Theory of the good: The highest good for humanity is happiness defined as pleasure
(given that it is the highest good for each person).
Principle of Utility: An action is morally right if it promotes the general happiness. General
is like majority rules. What is important is not everyone but rather “society as a whole” or
the “social aggregate”
→ EX: have a social welfare system that is tough for people to take part in to avoid
fraud. Although some honest & deserving people may slip through the cracks, overall,
society is happier vs. if people collected based on fraud.
Problem with Mill’s Theory:
→ Under restricted circumstances it would allow for slavery. There were more free
people than slaves, so one could argue that the “majority” was happy and work was
getting done.
Mill argues that his principle of utility can be “proven” by deriving it from his theory of
the good.
● G --> R
• G
• Thus, R
Mill’s proof that happiness is the only thing desirable:
→ We desire many things - such as wisdom, money, power - none of which may bring
happiness. Mill’s way out is to argue that happiness is really an “aggregate” consisting
of everything we.
The Sanction of the Principle of Utility:
Mill argues that moral principles are worthless if they have no binding force on people.
According to Mill, there are 2 sanctions that apply to moral principles:
1) External sanctions - such as disapproval from peers. Rewards/ punishments
2) Internal sanctions - feelings of guilt that follow when one disobeys a moral principle.
Conscience/ satisfaction
Mill argues that conscience is necessary because without it, there is no point in being
moral. The actions of a person who lacks a developed conscience are neither moral
nor immoral - they are amoral. Amoral: you don’t even have a conscience
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Rachel’s characterization of utilitarianism:
3 distinct related claims:
C1: Only consequences matter in terms of evaluating actions.
C2: Happiness is the only consequence that matters. (Contrary to Mill)
C3: No person’s interests are more important than another’s.
Problem with C1: If only consequence matter in evaluating actions, then when the
social benefits outweigh the costs, it is acceptable to break promises, violate human
rights, and to punish the innocent. EX: punishing the innocent to set an example to
others.
With capital punishment, sometimes people are found to be innocent after they have
been killed. Utilitarians would say this is okay because the majority of people will learn
from what can happen to them, deterrence.
After Objections, Rachel notes 2 key responses:
Response 1: If our intuitions disagree with a new theory, sometimes it is reasonable to
abandon the intuitions rather than the theory.
→EX: The Copernican Revolution (before this people thought the earth was at the
centre of the universe), the theory of general relativity, quantum mechanics.
Response 2: Plain old “act utilitarianism” that assess actions according to their
consequences is too short-sighted, since it ignores longer-term consequences.
→ EX: if we punish an innocent person to appease society, this may have good short-
term consequences. But if we did this routinely, it would not be a happy society.
Rule Utilitarianism: An act is morally right if the rule that it falls under has more favorable
long-term consequences than short term ones. Instead of focusing on consequences of
actions, we should focus on the consequences of the rules governing these actions.
****************************************************************************************************
Kantian Ethics (deontology) - actions are right if they are motivated by duty. Duties are
derived from a universal moral law.
→ Deontology = Duty-Based
→ This shifts focus to the consequences of actions for society. IT doesn’t matter what
they are as long as the person acts from the motive of duty.
Duty: specific command or imperative with respect to a particular type of action.
Serves as correctives to a weak will that wants to act self-interestedly.
→ Duties derive from one universal moral rule, the “categorical imperative”
→ The will is what enables us to deduce duty from moral law. A good will isn’t
influenced by selfishness and emotions, and it is the highest good for humanity.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Utilitarian ethics (consequentialism) - actions are right if they promote the general happiness. Focuses on how things turn out in the end. Or, actions are right if their social benefits outweigh their social costs. Theory of the good: the highest good for humanity is happiness defined as pleasure (given that it is the highest good for each person). Principle of utility: an action is morally right if it promotes the general happiness. What is important is not everyone but rather society as a whole or the social aggregate . Ex: have a social welfare system that is tough for people to take part in to avoid fraud. Although some honest & deserving people may slip through the cracks, overall, society is happier vs. if people collected based on fraud. Under restricted circumstances it would allow for slavery. There were more free people than slaves, so one could argue that the majority was happy and work was getting done.
