ETHICS : Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? Explain. If I cheat here, I will be more likely to cheat elsewhere. no one would trust me then. So I should not cheat on this test.
...
Act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? Explain. If I do not go to the meeting, then others will not go either. If that happens, then there would not be a quorum for the important vote, which would be bad. Thus, I ought to go to the meeting.
...
Act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? Explain. If doctors generally lied to their patients about their diagnoses, then patients would lose trust in their doctors. Because that would be bad, I should tell this patient the truth.
...
Act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? Explain. We ought to keep our promises because it is a valuable practice.
...
Distinguish between quantity and quality of pleasure. What is the difficulty with such a distinction?
...
Give and explain the basic idea of the "principle of utility" or "the greatest happiness principle".
...
How does MacKinnon suggest that pleasure and pain be calculated?
...
Is utilitarianism a hedonist moral theory? Why or why not?
...
What does Mill say is the only proof of the Principle of Utility? What is the only intrinsic good? Why?
...
What does it mean to speak of utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory? As a teleological moral theory?
...
What is Mill's argument for the difference in value between intellectual and sensual pleasures?
...
What is the Principle of Utility as MacKinnon gives it?
...
What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental good? Give examples of each.
...
Why does MacKinnon say some pleasures are better than others? How can one tell which are better?
...
What is the "cost benefit analysis"?
A version of utilitarianism widely used today. One policy is better than another if it is the least costly compared with the benefits expected. Measure of efficiency. Ex: debate over the U.S. federal budget deficit
How do we know that happiness is a good in itself or as an end?
All which it is possible to require, happiness is a good, that each person's happiness, therefore, a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct and, consequently, one of the criteria of morality.W
Whose happiness or pleasure, then should we promote? Are animals included?
An existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation.
What is the basis for knowing that some pleasures are better in quality than others? Which pleasures are these? How does Mill answer those who might say that people would not always prefer the life of a human being over the life of a fully satisfied animal such as a pig?
If there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both five a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. Few human creature would consent to the life of lower animal for a promise of fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool. It is only in cases of happiness so extreme that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes. He attributes this unwillingness to exchange lives with a lower animal to dignity.
What is the problem with the "cost-benefit analysis"?
It is difficult to put monetary value on many things.
How does Mill defend himself against those who say that this is a crass pleasure theory?
It is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light, since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.
How does Mill describe the basic moral standard of utilitarianism?
Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
According to Mill, how are we to know whether anything is desirable or good?
There is nothing to be desired except happiness. Happiness is the only intrinsic good.
How does Mill respond to the assertion that there are things other than happiness that people seem to desire for their own sake?
Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until it has become so.
