User:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture5

Credit: S. Castleberry Do intentions matter or do consequences matter?

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, according to John Stuart Mill (the son of the close friend of the father of utilitiarianism is Jeremy Bentham), is a normative ethical principal that revolves around the idea that an action that serves the most happiness for a greater audience is the morally correct action. J.S. Mill believed that a "moral theory should not distinguish between types of people" and believed in anti-slavery/women's suffrage.

In Utilitarianism (book), Mill claims that every human being's main objective is to push for their own happiness. Therefore, the right action is the action that can bring the most happiness to most people. It essentially squashes the minority.

Hedonism, Preference & Harm Principle
The first problem is derived from what "happiness" really is. Happiness is up to the individual's perception, therefore it is subjective. Hedonistic utilitarianism equates happiness with pleasure. Bentham comes up with the concept of utilitarianism calculus, a way to measure the subjective concept of pleasure. This includes the following categories: intensity, duration, certainty, how soon the pleasure will take place, how likely it is to create other pleasures, purity, ethics & impact on other people. Create your own scale and judge your deed through these categories. Which ever has the highest number is the action we go through with. This is still pretty subjective in of it itself.

Plus - if we were to live in a perfect world where everyone is happy, there would be a lack of diversity and individuality (Aldous Huxley’s book, A Brave New World).

J.S. Mill addressed hedonism with preference utilitarianism. Higher pleasures are pleasures that are most preferred vs. low pleasures being pleasures that are less prefered (reading a book vs. getting drunk). Again, this is subjective. Mill slaps back with one last principle: the Harm Principle. This states that the government canot restrict a person's right unless it harms another individual. Mill is more of a "paternalist" than an "elitist" (complete control over what is done), as he teaches but leaves it up to society to apply these principles in whatever way they want. The harm principle is a sweet attempt, but nonetheless - this removes the power of indirect harm.

Counterarguments

 * The Lonesome Stranger - hedonism prefers to kill the poor newcomer as he can be framed as the killer, therefore the town won't riot and will rejoice in happiness. Preference believes that it's up to society: if they prefer innocents to not be killed, then they should not kill him - if they don't care, then to hell with the fella'.
 * Fanatical Majority - The Nazis claim that Jews are a problem to society, as ISIS claims that the Yazidis are a problem to society.
 * Personal Loyalties - Save your own son (preference = which pleasure is higher for you?) vs. 2 children (hedonism = greater good for more people).

Conclusion
Kantianism and utilitarianism - both go against each other and cannot intertwin. Intentions > consequences, consequences > intentions (respectively).