PHIL 240 Justifying the State - Utilitarianism & Fairness
This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Primary value is not autonomy but happiness. For utilitarians, the state is justified
if and only if it produces more happiness than any alternative. Whether consent is
given is irrelevant.
Problem: is happiness quantifiable?
Problem of interpersonal comparisons of utility: comparing happiness in two or
Indirect utilitarianism: although one action may result in an individual's increase in
happiness, if all of society does the same action then there will be a collective
decrease (stealing, etc.) Therefore, it is good to enact a set of Laws that would
prevent the collective erosion of happiness from such acts.
1) Laws should be passed if, and only if, they contribute more to human
happiness than any competing law (or the absence of law) would do.
2) Laws should be obeyed because they are laws (and will be obeyed because
disobedience means punishment), and should only be disobeyed to avoid
3) Laws should be repealed and replaced if they fail to serve the proper
–scapegoatism: innocent individuals can suffer for the overall happiness of
–counter-criticism: indirect utilitarianism
–counter-counter-criticism: why the lack of faith in utility? Error in
Principle of Fairness
Hume believes that reason itself is not sufficient as a motivating factor, and that
reason is the slave of passions in human beings.
He also believes that a State and its corresponding legal system is in the long-
term interest of all citizens, but that as man is incapable of being fully motivated
by reason, that in the absence of punishment men would seek the short-term gain
of breaking the law over the long-term gain of adhering to the law.
Therefore, Hume reasons that the threat of punishment must be enacted to deter
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version