Download to read offline
Utilitarianism.pptxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- 1.
- 2. • Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the proponents of this theory. • The central thesis of this theory is that it judges the morality of an action according to the outcomes or consequences.
- 3. • The outcomesare “right” when they are “good”, that is, produces greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. • An agents intentions, feelings, or convictions are irrelevant to the question, “What is the right thing to do?” It judges the departure from social norms with regard to the total happiness. • “Good” is determined by the net happiness and each is given individual and equal worth.
- 4. Objections To Utilitarianism •1. Utilitarianism judges everything extrinsically or according to outcomes, and not intrinsically or according to the value of the thing itself; the question is, can everything be judged extrinsically or according to how much happiness it produces, things like health, friendship, creativity and intellectual attainment have intrinsic value.
- 5. • Utilitarianism reliestoo much on probable future and it is impossible to judge all the consequences of the future. • Utilitarianism has no place for responsibility, and intentionality, as it is only bothered with the end result. • Such actions as killing one to save many are contrary to our moral intuitions although the good outweighs the bad.
- 6. Rule vs ActUtilitarianism • In Act Utilitarianism we judge the morality of an action (an action token, such as, S’s lying under circumstances C). • Rule Utiltiarianism judges types of actions, such as lying, and also it uses the utility principle to justify moral rules, correct moral rules are those that promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
- 7. Is Rule anImprovement Over Act? • Rules are regarded differently by rule Utilitarianisms they are not devices to figure out what will maximize happiness, they are rules that maximizes happiness even if in a particular case.
- 8. Critiques of RuleUtilitarianism • 1. If a general rule is to maximize happiness, then how can one justify breaking it, when it increases the general welfare rather than sticking to it dogmatically? • 2. Everytime one break a rule, it collapses into Act U. • 3. Should there be a general policy for example, for legalizing euthanasia, or should it be completely illegal on the ground that it will be abused. Is each case different?