Philosophy: Utilitarianism Concept - Assignment Example

1. James S. Mill is the father of modern Utilitarianism. The earlier important narratives of Utilitarianism, to which Mill frequently refers, are that of Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, Bentham and James Mill. Utilitarian professed the aim of philosophy to strive for the greatest goodness (pleasure enhancement) of the highest number of individuals, with exemption from pains. “It better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Mill states this argument as a culmination of his condemnation of the critics of this theory who Utilitarianism who interpret it grossly and “habitually express it in rejection of pleasure in some of its forms.” Utilitarian principle can be understood and measured in the effectiveness of a decision or judgment is based solely on the premise that it would yield maximum good to maximum number of people. The argument for interpretation of pleasure and pain had been going on ever since Epicurus firs stated Utilitarian, or the Principle of Happiness. James S. Mill in the makes the argument: “Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Mill tries at once to conclude, as well as instigate further discussion into understanding of Hedonism. Mill tries to contradistinguish between the pleasures and happiness of an enlightened man (like Socrates) from that of a foolish being whose pleasures may be comparable to that of swine. By making this statement Mill is trying to address those concerns where detractors of Epicureanism understand his philosophy as a ‘craving fro fulfillment of sensual appetites. Mill finds it degrading to the philosophy, its proponents and followers its understanding pleasure in its ‘grossest form’ as a form of beauty, ornament or amusement alone. Mill is confident of the fact that man (more so an enlightened man’s) pleasure are not sensual but morally, intellectually and emotionally gratifying. Mill expounds that human beings are endowed with ‘faculties’ that are more elevated than animal appetites. On the contrary, the pleasures from which a swine or a foolish person may attain happiness are sensuous and base in nature. Mill describes pleasure through quantifiable terms than qualitative means. Mill believes that the good of the largest number of people, or on acts on which there is a concurrence of thought, agreeability are ‘more desirable’ and ‘more valuable’ than others. Thus quantity discourse might help to prove the Hedonistic principle. However, quantifying pleasure thus, Mill uses the indices of highness and lowness, agreeability and higher agreeability of people, which contradict the principle of Hedonism. Hedonism qualifies pleasure as base or morally, intellectually, emotionally superior, to which, men are entitled. The highest pleasure is found in the submergence of Godhood itself. Further some may find the claim of Mill incompatible with Utilitarianism or Hedonism itself. In the excitement of the moment, Mill forgets that he is contradicting the very basic principle of Hedonism. The pleasures of swine and human cannot be compared because both the beings have a different perception of pleasure. The pleasure of a human being and more so of a man of Socratic stature will be much more refined, intellectually gratifying than the pleasures of a swine and a fool that can be measured in terms of fulfillment of appetite and deriving sensual pleasures. Yet, the quantity/quality distinction is of no avail as it does not help us to draw out meaningful conclusions and establish metrics to determine as to what constitutes a utilitarian act. A base and quantifiably large act may prove to be more utilitarian than an act that is morally higher yet small to yield maximum good to maximum number of people. 2. The two examples used by Kai Neilson to show the philosophical tenets do not hold good for all times and circumstances. They are not unalterable dogmas, but provide an enlightened way out of a dilemma. The examples used by him are that of the execution of an innocent criminal and blasting of a fat man in the movie “The Battle of Algiers.” Through these examples Nielson raises the impracticability of utilitarianism in the former and effectiveness and ethicality in the latter. The first example is of an innocent individual who is undergoing felony charges. The justice systems deems it fit to execute him, in order to placate the uproarious masses, who are appalled by the crime ,and are bent upon going on rampage destroying property, maiming and killing others. The justice system finds a utilitarian rationale in executing an innocent to save others from violence. But herein lies the dilemma; the curious circumstance of a justice system executing an innocent to prevent loss of large number of lives. Though, according to Nielson this serves the Utilitarian doctrine of maximum good to maximum number of people, yet it contravenes the basic principle of dignity of human life, and the principle of justice. No innocent person should be punished whatever may be the consequences. Nielsen through this forceful example tries to prove that means do not justify the end. Nielson uses the strategy of creating a situation where justice delivery authority and public pressure create an ethical dilemma that has to be decided on the spur of the moment. He suggests that when a practitioner is in doubt he should consult the deontological rule, which states that morally right action only produces the right result. In the second example, Nielson depicts that some combatants, in a movie, led by a fat man are finding their way out of a cave. However the fat man gets lodged at the entrance of the cave and is unable to move. The rising tide threatens to kill everyone including the fat man. The option available is to blast him off the way. The deontological theory doesn’t justify his killing. No action that is bad in character can justify the end. However, here Nielson suggests that deontology becomes ineffective and utilitarianism provides the answer that he be blasted to make way for others. Nielson also moots that the fat man should also understand the dilemma that his blasting is necessary for the good of the most. Nielson by the way of these examples is successful in explaining that no philosophical premise can become an unalienable and unalterable truth. He suggests that philosophical principles are not dogmatic and vary from one circumstance to another. 3. Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept based on the principle of doing maximum good of the highest number of people as the moral basis of an action. However, utilitarianism often finds itself at crossroads. This crossroad consists of deciding between Act and the Rule. Thus utilitarianism bifurcates into two kinds:- i) Act Utilitarianism ii) Rule Utilitarianism. In any circumstance a person decides the course of action, and makes a decision based on the utilitarian philosophy. He/ she can choose any of the kind of the utilitarianism based on the effectiveness of a particular Act or Rule to the circumstance. Under the former, a person acts according to the moral notion of a utilitarian action, and in the latter, a person follows a stated rule. Since Act Utilitarianism presented a few problems, the philosophers devised Rule Utilitarianism to overcome them. To understand Act Utilitarianism and its problems, let us suppose a situation where a soldier has to press trigger of a gun to shoot an opponent. If he decides to configure the entire sets of pros and cons, it may take a lot of time and yet he may not fathom all of them to arrive at a conclusive utilitarian decision. Such a moment in which action is to be made becomes laden with conflict thus posing a threat to duty. To overcome this philosophers propounded the Rule Utilitarianism. The rule in this circumstance is that it is justified to shoot at an enemy soldier in combat. But the Rule utilitarianism can also put a person in an ethical dilemma. All rules don’t hold good always. In this case, if the enemy soldier surrenders, the international regulations prohibit shooting at him. He has to be taken as a Prisoner of War (POW). But our soldier acting on Rule Utilitarianism may shoot at him without realizing its utilitarian consequences. The most important problem of Rule utilitarianism is that it fixes the outcomes even before an action is made, whereas the utilitarianism states that ethicality of action and its consequences studied at that time are supreme. Such rules that are framed in advance may beat the very purpose of the deontological nature of Utilitarianism. All rules cannot be held valid under all kinds of circumstances. Thus utilitarianism calls for a mix of rule and act utilitarianism in actual circumstances. 3. To understand Act Utilitarianism and its problems, let us suppose a situation where a soldier has to press trigger of a gun to shoot an opponent. If he decides to configure the entire sets of pros and cons, it may take a lot of time and yet he may not fathom all of them to arrive at a conclusive utilitarian decision. Such a moment in which action is to be made becomes laden with conflict thus posing a threat to duty. To overcome this philosophers propounded the Rule Utilitarianism. The rule in this circumstance is that it is justified to shoot at an enemy soldier in combat. But the Rule utilitarianism can also put a person in an ethical dilemma. All rules don’t hold good always. In this case, if the enemy soldier surrenders, the international regulations prohibit shooting at him. He has to be taken as a Prisoner of War (POW). But our soldier acting on Rule Utilitarianism may shoot at him without realizing its utilitarian consequences. The most important problem of Rule utilitarianism is that it fixes the outcomes even before an action is made, whereas the utilitarianism states that ethicality of action and its consequences studied at that time are supreme. Such rules that are framed in advance may beat the very purpose of the deontological nature of Utilitarianism. All rules cannot be held valid under all kinds of circumstances. Thus utilitarianism calls for a mix of rule and act utilitarianism in actual circumstances. 4. Bernard Williams believed that the moral concept of Utilitarianism emphasized the exigency of situation more reducing the human players in the action to mere puppets who had to trudge a path predestined that of consequentialism. The consequences of an action made the actors (humans) to decide which way to go. Utilitarianism reduced the human kind to the role of an agency that was obliged to act under the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of an action. Not satisfied with a theory that reduced human beings to puppets always conferring, acting, seeking consequential moral answers to their acts, Bernard Williams mooted the concept of integrity. From a strict philosophical standpoint integrity is the moral substance of a man or a woman. It is the virtue of a person to adhere to moral convictions under various circumstances. Thus it is the self coordinated aspects of the inner strength of person that guides his/her actions. Quite simply put integrity is the character of a person. However, Bernard Williams studied integrity in another light especially that of its inherent contradiction with consquentialism. Williams contended that integrity is the collection of desires of an individual that carries him/her forward in life. It is the ‘condition of one’s existence.’ According to him, it is not a virtue that sets aside the right or wrong notions for him/her but it gives a person an impartial identity. Integrity is what a person is a known for, “that makes the person act from a standpoint that is essentially his/her own” thus bringing it in conflict with consequentialism. The person will act according to desires, ideas, whims, and conditions that are his/her own and not derived from the morality of action. To explain the concept of integrity, Bernard Williams creates two fictitious circumstances with two key characters, Jim and George. Jim is a scientist in a Latin American country, who is given an option of killing one rebel Indian from a group of twenty. If Jim doesn’t do that, Pedro, the army man would proceed to kill all twenty of them. The utilitarian answer for Jim is simple; to save nineteen lives, but would he do it, is his integrity. What does reason of Jim say to him; to kill or not to kill? There is an inner ‘squeamishness’ in Jim to proceed with killing one Indian. It is against his integrity. But he will have to do it for a utilitarian cause. Through this moral dilemma, William has tried to highlight the importance of human integrity in the ‘neutral’ utilitarian background. Similarly, George is working on a project of biological warfare that can wreak havoc on humanity. Should he be working on it, especially when he knows that he is merely a scientist with little effectual power on unleashing of chemical-biological warfare. He has a family to look after; it is his bread and butter. Even if George doesn’t work on this project, there are others ready to fill the vacancy. The project will go on, with or without George. What is his call? The answer again lies in the integrity of George. Williams is non-committal about what George and Jim should do. Through this imaginary example he has highlighted the dilemma of integrity and utilitarianism. William is trying to suggest that utilitarianism doesn’t have the answer for all ethical and moral dilemmas. Read More