The Debate over Utilitarianism

By James Rachels

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1)    Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?

One of the three proposition is first actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of consequences. This is like doing karma. If we did well to everyone else, then we will receive blessing from God. But if we have made wrong doings, then our action will be judged in the society and even punished us because of doing that certain action. Doing good things to people have the best consequences.

Second of three proposition is what matters is the greater amount of happiness than the unhappiness of the cause of doing that action. We should make sure that happiness is greater than unhappiness. If happiness is greater than unhappiness then we can say that our action is correct. But if it is other way around, then we can say that our action is morally wrong.

Third proposition is we should measure the happiness of everyone else. Everyone will be equally calculated based on their happiness. If many people would be happy, then we can say that the action is right. This also means that majority in the society is important in the decision of the society.

2)    Explain the problem of hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?

Hedonism believed that happiness is the ultimate good while, unhappiness is the ultimate evil. The problem with was discussed by way of giving examples. First example is a young artist who was injured. Because of that injury, he might not play piano which he loves very much. The problem is the young artist did not injure himself, but the misfortunes or fate that the world brought to him. Certainly, he would be unhappy because of that accident. But, this chapter says that we cannot eliminate tragedies because it is not in our hands. Utilitarian tried to respond in this problem by way of different kind of utilitarianism. Some would say they need to put down things that they will regard as good in themselves. But also some would suggest that there are three good things such as pleasure, friendship and enjoyment. Others also suggests ideal utilitarianism which means that right actions are the ones that has the best results, however goodness is measured. In addition to that, many believed in preference utilitarianism which means that we should act on maximizing the satisfaction of people.

3)    What are the objections about justice, rights and promises?

These objections were explained through an example. First, it tackles about justices of an innocent man. The given scenario is if we are utilitarian and we have played a vital scene in the event. What happened is a riot between the whites and blacks. The blacks were accused of doing immoral thing such as rape to a white woman. Even though, we all know that the black really did not do the accusation, but if we are utilitarian, we can bear false witness by telling them that the black really rape the white woman. We based our action because to promote happiness to the majority of whites. We don’t consider the innocent man who we will accused for doing that action. There is no justice if we believed in utilitarian because we will be forced to bear false witness or lie. This is not fair to the minority people.

Second, it talks about the rights when Ms. York was photographed without any dress. The setting was taken in the police department and the guilty people are the policemen. With this event, Ms. York filed a case against the policemen for doing that immoral action. Certainly, Ms. York won the case. If we consider utilitarianism, what happen to Ms. York is correct since according to utilitarianism, we should consider the people who will be happy or unhappy with that action. The action is taking a picture of Ms. York who was forced to undress. The policeman, who is Mr. Story, made that action just for the sake ofbeing happy. With that happiness, he spread the picture to all his other colleagues which we can say maybe happiness for them. Thus, this action is morally correct if we believed in utilitarianism.

Third, it discusses the promises of one’s person to his friend. In fact, that person will meet his friend in a certain place. But when the time comes, he realized that he would be happy if he finished all his assignments for that day rather than meeting his friend in the place. If we believed in utilitarianism, we might not fulfill our promises since utilitarian believed that the right action is in proportion with the happiness it brings. Since doing assignments is greater than fulfilling our promises, then we will not fulfill our promise to our friend which is considered as morally wrong. We made promises so we should fulfill also our promises.

4)    Distinguish between rule and act utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objection?

Rule utilitarianism is the new version of utilitarianism whereas; the old version is called the act utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism is based on the rules established by the principle, while the act utilitarianism based on that principle of utility. Rule-utilitarianism will answer not by way of defining utilitarianism, but by way of asking questions like “what are the general rules of conduct tend to promote the greatest happiness?” Because we know that lying and bearing false witness is a crime, then we can say that it is morally wrong. Thus, that utilitarian should also consider the rules in order to promote happiness.

5)    What is the third line of defense?

The third line of defense does not care much of the justice, right and promises. They say that they don’t need to make sure that their feelings are correct. To relate the example of justices, utilitarian believed that the person who will bear false witness is just doing the interest of many people. He believed that the action is preferable than having faced by other conflicts. Thus, act-utilitarianism is a perfect defensible doctrine that does not need to modify to be rule utilitarianism.

DISCUSSION QUESTION:

1)    Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

I believed that example of justice; a utilitarian who will bear false witness should also consider the fact that he need to tell the truth. Even though by telling the truth will cause many deaths (like what the third defense is telling). As a citizen, we should tell the truth even though it will hurt other people because we are just saying the truth. I don’t believe that if a person will be faced by conflicts against utilitarianism, he should act as a utilitarian.

2)    A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

I believed that we should also give moral consideration to all the people even the animals because I believed that they should also have freedom just like people. For example, we should also not kill animals because they have also one life to live. If we killed them, they will also be unhappy just like people. Also, even the lakes and streams who does not have life should also consider since what we did in the lakes such as throwing dirt will have a corresponding consequence to us. Whatever we do to our environment will also return to us because that will promote unhappiness to all the people.

3)    Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

I agree that merit should be given moral considerations because it just for the welfare of everyone else. If there is merit, all the people will try to do good things to everyone else. But if there are no merits, then I can say they are free to do harm other people and even environment. A person who worked hard each and every day should have merit in order for him to continue his good attitude.