HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM

IDEAL UTILITARIANISM

-a response to hedonism and to Objection 4: it says pleasure isn't the only intrinsic good ---there are others: success, beauty, friendship, freedom ---an IDEAL utilitarianism that acknowledges 2+ intrinsic goods is called: PLURALISTIC ---one that acknowledges only one (EX: beauty) is MONISTIC -the Rule/Act-utilitarian distinction is applicable -All 3 of the above arguments for utilitarianism might apply to it -It might well fall prey to Objections 1-3 and 5!!!

What does the "experience machine" do?

It tests to see if you're a Hedonist (all about pleasure and avoidance of pain)

Why might a rule utilitarianist love fighting for the right to free speech?

It would mean more happiness in the long run to have free speech

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM:

-says people disagree about what is valuable; and have differing degrees of commitment to values they hold --so the previous versions of utilitarianism are impractical --we should strive to maximize the satisfaction of preferences, rather than to maximize what we (falsely) think of as intrinsic goods ----(if Hedonistic utilitairans pursue the maximization of pleasure because they think pleasure is what people want, then they are wrong if it turns out that people have other preferences besides pleasure -we should find out what people prefer, how they rank them, and decide what to do on that basis -most obvious problem with Preference Utilitarianism: what if the majority despises a minority and wants to see them degraded?

2 types of utilitarianism:

1. Act Utilitarianism (apply PU to each act) 2. Rule Utilitarianism (apply PU to a selection of rules and principles most likely to maximize total net utility in the long run)

Arguments for utilitarianism (simple):

1. It's impartial/egalitarian 2. It's simple and commonsensical 3. It (at least Rule Utilitarianism) is conservative in the right way

Arguments for utilitarianism:

1. It's impartial/egalitarian: each person's happiness counts as much as anyone else's 2. It's simple and commonsensical: its goal is something understood and desired by all, and makes no appeal to controversial notions like God's will --->it appeals to common sense; happiness 3. It (at least rule utilitarianism) is conservative in the right way: it allows us to preserve traditional moral principles, such as those prescribing truth-telling, promise keeping, and preserving innocent human life

General features of Hedonistic Utilitarianism (simple):

1. Value theory is hedonism; happiness is what is intrinsically good; pleasure is complex 2. Consequentialist (morally R/W based on consequences) 3. Non-egoistic: maximize total happiness (not your own) 4. Fundamental moral principle: Principle of Utility

The General Features of Hedonistic Utilitarianism:

1. Value theory, hedonism, happiness, defined as pleasure, is what's intrinsically good. Pleasure is complex 2. Consequentialist: what makes an act morally right or wrong is its consequences 3. Non-egoistic: the point of morality is to maximize total happiness. Not one's own 4. Fundamental moral principle: "the principle of utility: actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" J.S. Mill ---alternative formulation of PU: act so as to produce the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number

Objections to Hedonistic Utilitarianism: (1-5; #1 and reply)

1. its view of human equality is consistent with the claim that each person has little worth: e.g., using one in a grueso medical experiment will clearly maximize total net utility, then we are permitted (required) to do so -REPLY: almost everyone would agree persons should be so used in some cases; reasonable people disagree, not about whether that should ever be done, but only about in what cases it should be done

Objections to Hedonistic Utilitarianism: (1-5; #2 and reply)

2. It doesn't make individual rights sufficiently fundamental: the only point of rights for Rule Utilitarianism is to advance a collective goal: utility maximization. This distorts the real point of human rights: to protect the individual interalia (among other things) against being exploited for the purpose of pursuing such goals -REPLY: Oh come on: do you really believe in inalienable rights?

Objections to Hedonistic Utilitarianism: (1-5; #3-5)

3. Is the alternative formulation of the Principle of Utility coherent? Isn't it a bit like having the following contest: let's see who can write the best story in the shortest time? How do you determine the winner? 4. It's a "pig philosophy": pleasure isn't absolutely good; surely the goal of human life is nobler than that. Consider the "experience machine" 5. Rule Utilitarianism is inconsistent: its goal is to maximize total net utility, but it forbids us to do that if must break a rule-utilitarian rule to do so. If it doesn't forbid that, it's indistinguishable from act-utilitarianism

What is the goal of hedonistic utilitarianism?

>GHP >maximize total net utility; focus on the world as a whole, individual second >First claim you treat/judge everyone equally and impartially; pleasure/pain for one person is equal to another >everyone is equal

Hedonism:

>nordimal (did i mean normative...?) >Hedonistic Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethic >(all about pleasure and avoidance of pain)

Rule Utilitarianism:

A. Cuts down on individual discretion, calculation B. Gives traditional moral principles a firmer foundation than Act utilitarianism does C. Sensitive to the requirement that everyone should follow basic moral principles even if utility could be maximized if a few violated them. D. Makes room for individual rights, e.g., the right not to be covered to participate in medical research only if such rights tends to maximize total net utility apply greatest happiness principle to systems of legal/moral principles -->this drastically limits your freedom/discretion of choice

What is a major objection to Hedonistic Utilitarianism?

Doesn't place sufficient value on every person

Hedonistic Utilitarianism

the theory that the right action is the one that produces (or is most likely to produce) the greatest net happiness for all concerned. Hedonistic Utilitarianism is often considered fairer than Hedonistic Egoism because the happiness of everyone involved (everyone who is affected or likely to be affected) is taken into account and given equal weight. Hedonistic Utilitarians, then, tend to advocate not stealing from needy orphans because to do so would usually leave the orphan far less happy and the (probably better-off) thief only slightly happier (assuming he felt no guilt). Despite treating all individuals equally, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is still seen as objectionable by some because it assigns no intrinsic moral value to justice, friendship, truth, or any of the many other goods that are thought by some to be irreducibly valuable. For example, a Hedonistic Utilitarian would be morally obliged to publicly execute an innocent friend of theirs if doing so was the only way to promote the greatest happiness overall. Although unlikely, such a situation might arise if a child was murdered in a small town and the lack of suspects was causing large-scale inter-ethnic violence. Some philosophers argue that executing an innocent friend is immoral precisely because it ignores the intrinsic values of justice, friendship, and possibly truth.