Scribd
Upload
246 views

James Rachels - The Debate Over Utilitarian Sim

The document discusses James Rachels' critique of classical utilitarianism. It addresses four key points: 1. Rachels outlines the three main propositions of classical utilitarianism: actions are judged solely by their consequences; only happiness/unhappiness matter in assessing consequences; and everyone's welfare is equally important. 2. Defenders of utilitarianism respond that hedonism does not fully capture the meaning of happiness, as unwanted events can occur without reducing happiness. 3. Objections argue that utilitarianism violates justice by allowing lying, infringes on individual rights, and permits breaking promises by focusing only on consequences. 4. Rule utilitarianism modifies classical utilitarian

Uploaded by

Jenniffer Tan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
246 views

James Rachels - The Debate Over Utilitarian Sim

The document discusses James Rachels' critique of classical utilitarianism. It addresses four key points: 1. Rachels outlines the three main propositions of classical utilitarianism: actions are judged solely by their consequences; only happiness/unhappiness matter in assessing consequences; and everyone's welfare is equally important. 2. Defenders of utilitarianism respond that hedonism does not fully capture the meaning of happiness, as unwanted events can occur without reducing happiness. 3. Objections argue that utilitarianism violates justice by allowing lying, infringes on individual rights, and permits breaking promises by focusing only on consequences. 4. Rule utilitarianism modifies classical utilitarian

Uploaded by

Jenniffer Tan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Jenniffer Tan ITETHIC O0A James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism REVIEW QUESTIONS: 1.

Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequences. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness and unhappiness. Lastly, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone elses. Each persons welfare is equally important. 2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? Hedonism is the idea that happiness is the one ultimate good and unhappiness the one ultimate evil. The defenders of utilitarianism think that hedonism didnt match to the true meaning of happiness. It does not say that if you are not feeling the happiness it is already bad. Sometimes, unwanted things happen accidentally. And no one wanted to happen it. 3. What are the objections about justice, rights and promises? In justice, it requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and merits. And in the case given, the utilitarianism suggested to lie. Therefore it violated the justice. In rights, utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because on anticipates good results. In the case, they think that their actions were right, but what the utilitarianism did violate a persons right.

Jenniffer Tan ITETHIC O0A In promises, utilitarianism suggested in the situation that it is right to break a promise when you can get your work done. It is not more important than the trouble it could make with your friend. But a promise is a promise. It is an obligation that you cannot escape so easily. Thus utilitarianism, which says that consequences are the only things that matter, seems to be wrong. 4. Distinguish between rule-and-act utilitarianism. How does rule utilitarianism reply to objections? Rule-utilitarianism is a new version of utilitarianism which modifies the theory. It is stated that rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will then be judged right or wrong by reference to the rules. Rule-utilitarianism is an unnecessarily watereddown version of the theory, which gives rule a greater importance than they merit. Act-utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a perfectly defensible doctrine and does not need to be modified. Actutilitarianism however is recognized to be a radical doctrine which implies that many of our ordinary moral feelings may be mistaken.

5. What is the third line of defense? The third line of defense, simply says that our moral common sense is, after all, not necessarily reliable. It may incorporate various elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, religion, and the general culture.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable or not? Explain your answer. Smarts defense of utilitarianism is not acceptable for me because to reject a common moral belief is also same on lying to your self.

Jenniffer Tan ITETHIC O0A 2. Utilitarianism is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams? Everything should be given moral consideration because I believe that we also benefit from the animals, not only from animals, but also with lakes and streams. Without these things, this world would be incomplete. 3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree? Yes, I agree that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility because people should be treated on the same way as they treated me.

You might also like