Untitled Flashcards Set

• Introduction to Section 2 (Utilitarianism) •

• What is consequentialism? >Consequentialism is the view that actions are right or wrong based on their outcomes.

• Non-consequentialism? >is the view that actions can be right or wrong regardless of their outcomes. • Is ethical egoism consequentialist?

• >Yes, ethical egoism is consequentialist because it judges actions by their outcomes for the individual. -Is utilitarianism consequentialist?

• >Yes, utilitarianism is consequentialist because it judges actions by their outcomes for the greatest good.

  • What is the point of the organ harvesting case thought experiment?

  > The point is to challenge the moral justification of sacrificing one innocent person for the benefit of many others, raising questions about individual rights, utilitarianism, and ethical boundaries. - The underwater cave field trip thought experiment?

• >Should we blow up the prof because he was being selfished and dove inn (not our fault he dove in before, group of people lives more valuable than one) Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation • Why are we reading Bentham? Jeremy Bentham, along with James Mill (J. S. Mill’s father) was one of the modern founders of utilitarianism. Bentham offers a simple (hedonistic) version of utilitarianism, which makes it a good introduction to the basics of how the theory works.

• • What does Bentham think is the fundamental moral principle? >believes the fundamental moral principle is the "greatest happiness principle," which says actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. • What does ‘utility’ mean? >Utility = pleasure/absence of pain • Is utilitarianism egoistic? >No, utilitarianism is not egoistic; it focuses on the happiness of everyone, not just the individual.

 Is it subjective?

>Yes, utilitarianism can be considered subjective because it depends on individual preferences or perceptions of happiness.

 • What is intrinsic value?

>Intrinsic value is something that is valuable in itself, independent of its consequences or external factors.

 Instrumental value? 

>Instrumental value is the value something has because it helps achieve something else that is valuable.

• What is hedonism?

>Hedonism is the belief that pleasure or happiness is the highest good and ultimate goal in life.

 • How does Bentham think we should decide how to act? 

>Bentham believes we should act based on the principle of utility, choosing actions that maximize happiness and minimize pain for the greatest number of people.

What sorts of things does Bentham think we need to take into account?

>Bentham thinks we need to consider the intensity, duration, certainty, and proximity of the pleasure or pain caused by an action, as well as how it affects everyone involved.

 • What is Bentham’s argument in favor of the principle of utility?

>Bentham argues that the principle of utility is based on human nature, as people naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain, making it a rational guide for moral decision-making that promotes overall well-being.

ohn Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, chps. 1, 2, and 5

• Why are we reading Mill?

>We read John Stuart Mill to explore a refined version of utilitarianism, where he emphasizes individual rights, justice, and the importance of personal freedom in maximizing overall happiness.

• How is Mill’s Utilitarianism different than Bentham’s?

>Mill's utilitarianism differs from Bentham's by focusing on qualitative differences in pleasure, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures are more valuable than physical ones, while Bentham only considered the quantity of pleasure.

• What is quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism?

>Quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism, as proposed by Bentham, focuses on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, measuring all pleasures by their quantity, regardless of their type or quality.

•  Qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism?

>Qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism, as proposed by Mill, argues that some pleasures (like intellectual or moral pleasures) are more valuable than others (like physical pleasures), and should be given more weight in decision-making.

• Does Mill think we can prove the principle of utility?

>Mill does not think it can be proven in the strict sense but argues that it can be justified by showing it aligns with human experiences of happiness.

• If so, what sort of proof does Mill think one can give in favor of it?

>Mill argues that the principle is self-evident because happiness is universally desired and sought after.

• What is Mill’s argument/test for qualitative hedonism?

>Mill asserts that some pleasures are qualitatively superior to others, based on preference of informed individuals (e.g., intellectual over bodily pleasures).

• What is the point of Roger Crisp’s story about Haydn and the Oyster?

>It illustrates the difference between higher and lower pleasures—Haydn, despite his musical genius, would not trade his life for the life of a simple oyster.

• Why does Mill talk about Socrates, fools, and pigs?

>Mill uses this analogy to argue that the life of a philosopher is more valuable than that of a fool or a pig because it involves higher pleasures, even if it might not seem happier in simple terms.

• How does Mill defend Utilitarianism against objections?

Mill defends it by addressing concerns that it’s too demanding, overly simplistic, or ignores justice, arguing that in practice, utilitarianism accommodates justice and rights.

• What are the 7 potential criticisms of utilitarianism that Mill addresses in Chapter 2? How does he respond to each criticism?

It’s a doctrine worthy only of swine: Mill responds by differentiating higher and lower pleasures.

It’s too demanding: Mill claims it’s practical because most people already act in ways that maximize happiness.

It ignores justice: Mill argues utilitarianism includes justice as it promotes societal well-being.

It’s too vague: Mill defends it by explaining that the principle is straightforward and derived from human nature.

It leads to tyranny: Mill says utilitarianism respects individual rights within the framework of overall happiness.

It’s too optimistic about human nature: Mill argues that utilitarianism accounts for both our base and elevated desires.

It’s incompatible with individual rights: Mill defends it by showing that individual rights are a component of overall happiness.

What is the main point of Chapter 5 of Utilitarianism?

• What is the challenge/objection to which Mill is responding here?

>Mill is responding to the objection that utilitarianism can't adequately account for justice, as it might justify actions that seem unjust (e.g., sacrificing individual rights for the greater good).

• What is Mill’s response to this challenge/objection?

> Mill argues that utilitarianism can support justice, but justice is rooted in social feelings and sentiments that promote happiness, such as the desire for fairness and the protection of rights. He contends that justice involves rules that safeguard individual rights, and these rules ultimately promote the general well-being.

• What do rules and sentiments have to do with his response?

>Rules are essential for maintaining justice, and sentiments like a sense of fairness underpin the moral drive to protect rights. These rules help cultivate social stability, which in turn benefits overall happiness.

• How does Mill characterize the sorts of cases about justice that people might appeal to in making this challenge?

> Mill argues that justice involves cases where individuals are harmed by others, typically violating established rights or fairness. People appeal to these cases to argue that utilitarianism overlooks the significance of personal rights and fairness.

• What does Mill ultimately say about justice?

>concludes that justice is a critical component of promoting happiness and must be grounded in the protection of individual rights and fairness. While justice may not always align with maximizing happiness directly, it creates the conditions for greater overall well-being.

• What does the “Brandon’s Exploitative Restaurant” case have to do with Chapter 5?

>This case illustrates how a utilitarian might face difficult choices in balancing individual rights with greater happiness. Mill’s discussion in Chapter 5 addresses concerns about exploitation and justice by emphasizing that respecting rights and fairness, even if it doesn't maximize happiness in every instance, ultimately contributes to the broader social good.

Peter Singer, Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

• Why are we reading Singer?

>We read Singer to explore his arguments on ethical issues, particularly related to global poverty, animal rights, and the moral obligations of individuals in a world with significant inequalities.

• What is the point of Singer’s argument in this article?

>The point of Singer’s argument is to challenge our moral intuitions about helping those in need, proposing that we have a strong moral obligation to prevent suffering when we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.

• What is Singer’s argument?

>Singer argues that if we can prevent suffering or death without sacrificing something of equal moral value, we are morally obligated to do so. This applies to issues like famine relief, where affluent individuals have a duty to help those in desperate need.

• What is the “strong” version of his principle?

> The strong version of Singer’s principle states that we should prevent suffering or death whenever we can, regardless of how much we have to sacrifice. This implies a very demanding ethical obligation to help others.

• What is the “moderate” version of his principle?

> The moderate version of Singer’s principle suggests we should prevent suffering or death unless doing so would require a significant sacrifice of our own well-being. It allows for more leeway in how much we are expected to give.

What is “marginal utility”?

>Marginal utility refers to the additional satisfaction or benefit gained from consuming or using one more unit of a resource, like money. In Singer’s argument, it means the point at which giving more resources to help others no longer significantly improves our well-being.

• What clarifications does Singer make about the relevance of proximity and distance? About the fact that others are in a similar position to you?

> Singer clarifies that proximity (geographic or emotional distance) should not affect our moral obligations. Whether someone is close by or far away, the suffering is equally significant, and we are equally obligated to help. He also notes that the fact that others are in similar situations (or that many people are able to help) doesn’t reduce our own responsibility to act.

• What are the four objections Singer addresses? What are his responses to those objections?

Objection 1: "It’s not my responsibility to help others."

• Response: Singer argues that we are morally obligated to help, especially when we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable importance.

Objection 2: "It’s unfair to expect so much from individuals when the government or organizations should help."

• Response: While organizations and governments can help, this doesn't absolve individuals of their moral responsibility to act when they are able to do so.

Objection 3: "If everyone helps, it won't make a significant difference."

• Response: Singer counters that if everyone thought this way, no one would act. Collective small actions can lead to a significant impact.

Objection 4: "People in poverty are in a similar position to me, so I shouldn’t feel obliged to give more."

• Response: Singer points out that our moral obligation is based on the fact that we can alleviate suffering, not on how much others are doing. If we have the ability to help, we should.

Bernard Williams, selections from “A Critique of Utilitarianism” (Sections 3 and 5)

• Why are we reading Williams?

>We’re reading Williams to understand his critiques of utilitarianism, particularly how it conflicts with personal integrity and moral commitments, as well as how it may force individuals to act in ways that go against their values.

• What is the “doctrine of negative responsibility” Williams discusses?

> The doctrine of negative responsibility, as discussed by Williams, is the idea that individuals are morally responsible for not preventing bad outcomes, even if they don't actively cause them. Essentially, if you could prevent harm and don't, you’re morally responsible for the harm.

• Why does he discuss it?

>Williams discusses it to critique utilitarianism, which often demands individuals take responsibility for preventing harm, even when it requires acting against their personal values or making decisions they find morally troubling.

• What is the George example?

> In the George example, George, an individual considering a job in a pharmaceutical company, learns that his work will help create a harmful drug for profit. He’s torn between the job’s personal benefits and the harm it may cause to others.

• What is the point of the example?

>The example is used to highlight the tension between utilitarianism, which would focus on the overall good or bad consequences of George’s choice, and personal integrity, which considers George’s moral opposition to the harm he would help cause.

• What would a utilitarian think is the right thing to do in this case? Why?

>A utilitarian would likely argue George should take the job, as the benefits (e.g., financial well-being and possibly helping others in other ways) outweigh the harm of the drug’s negative impact.

• What does Williams think is the right thing to do in this case? Why?

>Williams argues that George should reject the job, as doing so would preserve his personal integrity. He believes individuals should act according to their moral commitments, even if it means not maximizing overall utility.

What is the Jim example?

> In the "Jim and the Indians" example, Jim, a man in a foreign country, is offered the choice to kill one innocent person to save the lives of 20 others, who are being held hostage.

o What is the point of the example?

>: The point of the example is to challenge utilitarianism by showing how it can demand actions that violate an individual’s moral integrity. Jim is put in a situation where, although utilitarianism would justify killing one person to save many, it would conflict with his personal moral beliefs and sense of responsibility. Williams uses this to argue that utilitarianism overlooks the importance of personal integrity and moral commitments.

o What would a utilitarian think is the right thing to do in this case? Why?

>A strict utilitarian would likely argue that Jim should kill the one villager. Their reasoning would be based on the principle of maximizing overall happiness (or minimizing overall suffering).

o What does Williams think is the right thing to do in this case? Why?

>Williams argues Jim should not kill the innocent person, because doing so would violate Jim's integrity and personal moral beliefs, even if it results in a better outcome.

• Overall, what is William’s criticism of utilitarianism?

>: Williams criticizes utilitarianism for disregarding the importance of personal integrity and moral commitments, as it can force individuals to act in ways that conflict with their deeply held values.

o What does “integrity” have to do with his criticism?

>, for Williams, refers to maintaining consistency with one’s personal values and commitments. Utilitarianism can violate integrity by demanding actions that go against what an individual morally stands for.

o What does his discussion of “projects” have to do with it?

>: Williams discusses "projects" as personal goals or commitments that define a person’s life and identity. Utilitarianism, by focusing solely on outcomes, may force individuals to abandon their projects, undermining their personal identity and long-term value