how sucessful is benthams utilitarianism when making moral descion making

intro

• utilitrianism is a telelogical theory first put forward by hedonist jeremeny bentham through act utlitranism

• the theory focuses on achievening the greatest good for the greatest many

• it is a simplistic theory with the focus being on human happiness which makes it sucessful towards moral descion making

• however there are issues within the telelogical nature of the ethic which hinders its usefulness since the consquences of our future actions are unknown it weakeness its ability to make moral descions

para 1 → hedonic calclus : determines whether or not you should commit an action to fufil the principle of unity

• A = 7 principles which do not all have to be applied - highlighting its flexabiltly toward situation showing its sucess to moral descions

• A = e.g → intensity, how instense the postivity of a situation shall lead to the fufilment of the principle of unity

• C = telelogical nature however… it requires knowledge of the future in order to work and for a morally good action to occur we need to be cetain of the consqunces

• C = example shown with intensity - if a women were to have an abortion so that she could do her job and then got fired.

• C = shows how a utlitiranism only focuses on the pressent action rather than the LT consquenes

para 1 → evaluation

• although theorectially sucessful, and does maintian sucess through its flexibity, its teleogical nature hinders its sucess when put into real life sceneros

para 2 → mill develops but also critques bethams approach

• A = development of rule utlitiriansim, where the intersets of everyone is upheld

• A = claims that AU creates a tryanny of the majorty, throwing christians to the lions and pushpin is as good as poetry

• A = not a good method of moral descion making since it systemtacitally ingores the value of pleasure to which we gain by taking a quantative approach as supposed to a qualative one

• C = bentham defends himself by suggesting that mill creates snobbishery around moral descion making

• C = who is to decide whether somethings are better than others? a more indivudal approach can be more sucessful

• C = more important that the majorty are happy when it comes to moral descion making

para 2 → evaluation

• benthams utitlrianism does however fail in its sucess toward moral descion making because of tryannt of the majorty which is created, which means that it makes people vunraible to immoral things happening to them when moral descions are tryning to be made

• mill utlitriaism also fails

para 3 → practicalitly of AU

• A = it is a relativist approach, since it is acceptable to do anything as long as it is maxmsing pleasure and minimising pain allowing for flexbililty within the ethic → e.g = lying is neither right or wrong

• A = quanative - counts the amount of people who benefit rather than using other abstract methods prevelent in moral descion making ethics such as katian ethics

• C = however in making a relatvisit apporach kant creates a naturalsitic fallacy by assuming that just because something is pleasureable it means that it must be moral. there is more to moralitly that just pleasure and avioding pain

• C = so it seems to have a surface level understanding meaning it cannot be useful

• C= it also becomes difficult to know whether you have performed a good or bad action through the quanative approach taken, for example you saved a drowing child who grew up to be a serial killer, to what extent are you still morally obligated to this?

• C = bethnham has no answer, thus with its teleogical nature there are issues highlighted as in comparision to a deonotoligical approach such as kataiin ethics which shows how an action based approach is better towards moral descion making since it aviods the very problem

para 3 → evaluation

• although there is usefulness with AU approach, when it is actually applied it has limited sucess in moral descion making because of its teleogical nature and natrualstic fallacies it creates