utilitarianism. main claim: utilitarianism main claim: something is right to the degree that it...
TRANSCRIPT
Utilitarianism
UtilitarianismMain claim:
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
Impartial
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
Impartial
Long-term consequences
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
Impartial
Long-term consequences
Duty to be informed
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
Impartial
Long-term consequences
Duty to be informed
Indifference to distribution
UtilitarianismMain claim:Something is right to the degree that it increases overall well-being, and wrong to the degree that it decreases overall well-being.
Impartial
Long-term consequences
Duty to be informed
Indifference to distribution
Results vs. intent
Arguments against:
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Personal relationships
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Personal relationships
Against consequentialism
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Personal relationships
Against consequentialism
Complexity
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Personal relationships
Against consequentialism
Complexity
Backward-looking obligations
Arguments against:
Against hedonism
Happiness not the end
"A doctrine worthy only of swine"
Against impartiality
Supererogatory acts
Personal relationships
Against consequentialism
Complexity
Backward-looking obligations
Justice
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found.
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found. Cecilia also volunteers in a community clinic once a month. One day while she is alone there, Jeb walks in. Jeb is new in town, has no friends or family, no job, no place to live, and is a high-school dropout. He asks to be given a routine physical examination. As Cecilia analyzes his blood sample, she realizes that Jeb is an excellent tissue match for the four people who need organs (they all need different organs, so Jeb by himself has the organs that could save them).
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found. Cecilia also volunteers in a community clinic once a month. One day while she is alone there, Jeb walks in. Jeb is new in town, has no friends or family, no job, no place to live, and is a high-school dropout. He asks to be given a routine physical examination. As Cecilia analyzes his blood sample, she realizes that Jeb is an excellent tissue match for the four people who need organs (they all need different organs, so Jeb by himself has the organs that could save them).
Assume that Cecilia has exactly two choices of action: Allow Jeb to leave the clinic, and let the four people die;
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found. Cecilia also volunteers in a community clinic once a month. One day while she is alone there, Jeb walks in. Jeb is new in town, has no friends or family, no job, no place to live, and is a high-school dropout. He asks to be given a routine physical examination. As Cecilia analyzes his blood sample, she realizes that Jeb is an excellent tissue match for the four people who need organs (they all need different organs, so Jeb by himself has the organs that could save them).
Assume that Cecilia has exactly two choices of action: Allow Jeb to leave the clinic, and let the four people die; Kill Jeb, harvest his organs, and save the four people (assume she can do this without getting caught).
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found. Cecilia also volunteers in a community clinic once a month. One day while she is alone there, Jeb walks in. Jeb is new in town, has no friends or family, no job, no place to live, and is a high-school dropout. He asks to be given a routine physical examination. As Cecilia analyzes his blood sample, she realizes that Jeb is an excellent tissue match for the four people who need organs (they all need different organs, so Jeb by himself has the organs that could save them).
Assume that Cecilia has exactly two choices of action: Allow Jeb to leave the clinic, and let the four people die; Kill Jeb, harvest his organs, and save the four people (assume she can do this without getting caught).
Which action would produce the best consequences if Cecilia were to perform it?
Defenses:
Defenses:
Examples calculate consequences wrongly
Defenses:
Examples calculate consequences wrongly
Rejection of moral intuitions as standard
Defenses:
Examples calculate consequences wrongly
Rejection of moral intuitions as standard
Overgeneralizing
Defenses:
Examples calculate consequences wrongly
Rejection of moral intuitions as standard
Overgeneralizing
Rule utilitarianism
Cecilia is a surgeon who specializes in organ transplants. She is distraught about four prominent citizens at the top of the waiting list for organ donations, all of whom perform valuable services to society, all of whom have large families who depend on them, and all of whom will soon die unless organ donors are found. Cecilia also volunteers in a community clinic once a month. One day while she is alone there, Jeb walks in. Jeb is new in town, has no friends or family, no job, no place to live, and is a high-school dropout. He asks to be given a routine physical examination. As Cecilia analyzes his blood sample, she realizes that Jeb is an excellent tissue match for the four people who need organs (they all need different organs, so Jeb by himself has the organs that could save them).
Assume that Cecilia has exactly two choices of action: Allow Jeb to leave the clinic, and let the four people die; Kill Jeb, harvest his organs, and save the four people (assume she can do this without getting caught).
Which action would produce the best consequences if one million doctors in roughly the same situation were to perform it?
Against consequentialism
Complexity
Backward-looking obligations
Justice
Defenses:
Examples calculate consequences wrongly
Rejection of moral intuitions as standard
Overgeneralizing
Rule utilitarianism
Problem of exceptions to rule