Topic 2b: Evaluating Utilitarianism’s Theory of the Good

Objections to the theory of the good

Too demanding, cannot account for supererogatory actions, cannot make sense of agent-centred morality, the problem of contingency can occur

Idea that utilitarianism is too demanding

For almost every action we do there is some other action that would have produced more happiness

Over-demandingness objection: morality cannot state that almost everything we do is morally wrong

The supererogation objection

Utilitarianism has no distinction between duty and supererogation → you must always do what makes the most amount of pleasure, there is no such thing as going “above and beyond”

Supererogation: doing more than what one is required to do

Doctrine of negative responsibility

We are just as responsible for the things we don’t do as the things that we actively do

Utilitarianism and agent-centred morality

Agent-centred morality: the idea that a large part of morality depends on our particular relationships

Utilitarianism doesn’t recognize the difference between feeling more morally obligated to help a friend than a stranger

Scapegoating

Example: having to give up one innocent person to save a whole city’

Utilitarianism would see this as the morally right thing to do as it maximizes happiness

Deontological

The right action is defined in terms of following a set of moral rules

Alternative to utilitarianism

Virtue ethics

The right action is defined in terms of acting as a virtuous person

Alternative to utilitarianism