2. Forms of Consequentialism

What does Mill hold actions are right in proportion to?

“actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (II, 2)

What does Mill hold in regard to moral obligation when no secondary principles are involved?

“There is no case of moral obligation in which some secondary principle is not involved”

When does Mill think that we call things wrong?

Only when “we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of his fellow creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience”

What does Mill believe gives the ground of obligations to abstain from actions?

“In the case of abstinences, indeed - of things which people forbear to do from moral considerations though the consequences in the particular case might be beneficial -, it would be unworthy of an intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a class which, if practised generally, would be generally injurious, and this this is the ground of the obligation to abstain from it"

How does Smart define utilitarianism?

“Utilitarianism is the doctrine that the rightness of actions is to be judged by their consequences"

How does Smart define extreme utilitarianism?

Rules don't matter except as rules of thumb and as identifying the importance of social institutions with which the utilitarian has to reckon when estimating consequences.

How does Smart define restricted utilitarianism?

The rightness of an action is to be tested by considering whether or not it falls under a certain rule. Whether the rule is to be considered an acceptable moral rule is to be decided by considering the consequences of adopting the rule.

How can we apply Brandt to defend restricted utilitarianism?

Not only would the ideal moral code outline exceptions, it would probably have a clause under most lower-level rules, e.g. ‘unless the agent is in extenuating circumstances that other people could not claim’

The ideal moral code is also not simply those rules whose rigid following would maximise the good, but rather the rules whose general motivation to follow and accompaniment of guilt following the breaking would maximise the good. So rules can be broken

What is Urmson’s interpretation of Mill’s moral philosophy (Mabbot adjustments)?

 A. A particular action is justified as being right by showing it is in accord with some moral rule. It is shown to be wrong by showing that it trangresses some moral rule.

 B. A moral rule is shown to be correct by showing that the recognition practise according to that rule would promotes the ultimate end.

 C. Moral rules can be justified only in regard to matters in which the general welfare is more than negligibly affected.

 D. Where no moral rule is applicable the question of the rightness or wrongness of particular acts does not arise, though the worth of the actions can be estimated in other ways

What does Mabbot articulate is Urmson’s difficulty in conflict resolution?

Mill says that when secondary principles conflict the first principle should be invoked, but how?

Urmson’s reading seems to suggest that it would be the rule which in general promotes the most happiness would be the one to keep, but this is very hard to answer

Seems to make more sense to say we should keep the rule which on this occasion does more good than keeping the other

But this would collapse into AC

Mill ‘chief exception’ passage:

We can lie when it “would save an individual from great and unmerited evil”

What is the difficulty with Mill’s ‘chief exception’ passage?

It makes the production of the greatest happiness an obligation in itself, which means in accordance with RC it is also the basis of every other obligation, and the arbiter between conflicting obligations. So it just collapses into AC

What is Railton’s main aim?

To defend consequentialism against the objection that it alienates us from our personal commitments, relationships, and feelings

What is subjective hedonism?

You should consciously deliberate by asking what will maximise your happiness.

What is objective hedonism?

You should do what in fact maximises your happiness, even if this means not thinking hedonistically.

What is subjective consequentialism?

The agent should deliberate by consciously calculating which act will have the best consequences.

What is objective consequentialism?

The right act is the act that in fact has the best consequences, whether or not the agent deliberates consequentialistically.