Philosophy quiz 1

qualitative vs. quantitative pleasure: higher and lower pleasures

Higher pleasures/noble virtues are simply those that produce stronger, longer pleasure. Bentham recognized no qualitative distinction among pleasure. pleasure=pleasure. Pain=pain. to the majority of the people.

City of Happiness Individual rights

The first objection to Bentham's utilitarianism, the one that appeals to fundamental human rights says it is not correct, even if it leads to a city of happiness.

Throwing Christians to the lions: Individual Rights

For entertainment and amusement purposes for the crowd which is the majority but suffering for the Christian individual. -

Torture: Utilitarians might argue that.. for & against

For: It's morally justified to inflict intense pain on one person if doing so will prevent death/suffering on a massive scale. Against: -seldom works, unreliable info. -Worry if our country engages in torture, our soldiers will face harsher treatment if taken prisoner.=reduce overall utility.

Describe how John Stuart Mill "tried to save utilitarianism by recasting it as a more human, less calculating doctrine" in terms of 1) reconciling "individual rights with utilitarian philosophy" (as in "individual liberty and the right to dissent")

He believes that there can be higher pleasures which rejects Bentham's belief that all values can be measured/compared on a single scale.

Higher Pleasures (Mill's response to the criticism that utilitarianism reduces all values to a single scale)

He believes that there can be higher pleasures which rejects Bentham's belief that all values can be measured/compared on a single scale. leans more on moral ideals independent of utility. Some pleasures are higher, worth more, than others. Better quality.

How does the example of "pauper management" illustrate Bentham's utilitarianism?

He established a workhouse for the poor to reduce presence of beggars on the street b/c beggars reduce the happiness of paserby. Either makes them feel the pain of sympathy or disgust. aka reducing the utility of general public.

Objection to utilitarianism: Individual Rights:

Utilitarianism fails to respect individual rights by caring only about the sum of satisfaction.

What are the two objections to utilitarianism?

Individual rights and Common Currency.

John Stuart Mill. 2 objections to Benthams "greatest happiness" principle-

that doesn't give adequate weight to human dignity&individual rights &that it wrongly reduces everything of moral importance to a single scale of pleasure/pain.

Objection to Utilitarianism: Torture.

torturing, causing pain/unhappiness to 1 person but save thousands of innocent lives.

Two ways of thinking about justice on the boat/ what two rival approaches to justice emerge? 2nd approach:

-Morality is about the proper way for humans to treat each other. -Consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties&rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences. -Rejects idea that the right thing to do is simply a matter of calculating consequence- cost & benefits.

Objection to Utilitarianism: Christians to the lions. Utilitarians may worry that...

-such games will coarsen habits & breed violence in the streets. -lead to fear that they too might one day be thrown to lions.

Sandel's two reasons for denying Mill's argument that the social goods of liberty provide an adequate moral basis for individual rights.

1. Respecting individual rights for the sake of the promoting social progress leaves rights hostage to contingency. 2.basing rights on utilitarian considerations misses the sense in which violating someone's rights inflicts a wrong on the individual, whatever the effect is on welfare. ex: If the majority adherents of an unpopular faith, it is injustice to them, as individuals. Regardless of any bad effects such intolerance may produce for society as a whole over time.

three reasons to uphold individual liberty and right to dissent

1. it will promote society's welfare in the long run. 2. the dissenting view may be true and so offer corrective to prevailing opinion. 3. if not true, subjecting prevailing opinion to a vigorous contest of ideas will prevent its from hardening into dogma and prejudice. 4. and b/c society that forces its member to embrace custon&conviction is likely to fall into conformity, depriving itself of the energy&vitality that prompt social improvement.

Two ways of thinking about justice on the boat/ what two rival approaches to justice emerge? 1st approach:

1st approach: The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences. The right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered. -It accepts the utilitarian assumption that morality consists in weighing costs & benefits. -Idea that the right thing to do is simply a matter of calculating consequences-cost&benefits.

Objection to utilitarianism: Common Currency of value.

Everyone's preference counts equally. In order to aggregate preferences,it needs to be measured on a single scale. Objection: is it possible to translate all moral goods into a single currency of value without losing something in the translation? The 2nd objection to utilitarianism doesn't agree b/c all values can't be captured by a common currency value.

Maximizing utility for long run, not short run:

Leaving a couple individuals out b/c their preference is not the same as the other might create intolerance in a society in the long run.

What is the "highest principle of morality" in utilitarianism in the thought of Jeremy Bentham?

The right thing to do is whatever maximizes utility. By "utility" he means whatever produces pleasure/happiness and whatever prevents pain/suffering.

What is the strongest argument for the defense in the killing of the cabin boy?

The strongest argument for the defense is that given the circumstances, it was necessary to kill one person to save three lives.

Objection to Utilitarianism. Perspective of UUU: common currency.

Utilitarians think we need to overcome the impulse of putting monetary value on human life, it obstructs clear thinking & rational social choice.

Two immediate objections for the argument of the cabin boy?

Whether the benefits of killing the cabin boy outweighed the costs. 1. Even counting the lives saved & happiness of survivors & their families, allowing such killing=bad consequences for society. -weakening the norm against murder. -increasing people's tendency to take the law into their own hands. -making it difficult for captains to recruit cabin boys. 2.Even if, all things considered, benefits outweigh the costs, isn't it wrong to use a vulnerable, defenseless human in this way:taking his life w/o consent-even if doing so benefits others?

Lower pleasures

can be perverse pleasures/preferences as a whole-quantity- Why satisfy wrong things rather than try to change those prefernces.

Sandle's criticism of this distinction

if certain pleasures are base/degrading why should they have any weight at all in deciding what laws to adopt? He believes he can make this distinction without relying on any moral ideas other than utility itself.