Objections to utilitarianism

What does Williams (1973) argue about the too demanding objection and single-level act utilitarianism?

argues that it is absurd to just abandon projects because they are traded off against the principle of utility

What does Hare (1981) argue about multi-level act utilitarianism?

argues that there can be a distinction between heuristics and the application of single-level act utilitarian trade-offs

What does Stocker (1976) argue about the integrity objection and multi-level act utilitarianism?

argues that you can get good outcomes for the wrong reasons in his consideration of the alienation critique. Example of visiting your friend in the hospital and you say that you are only there to increase utility

What does Crisp (1997) give as an example for the integrity objection and single-level act utilitarianism?

gives the example of a committee. Aged 22 asked by a group of people who will rule your life and make good decisions for you. Should you allow the committee to rule your life?

What does Nagel (1986) argue about the integrity objection?

summarises Williams (1973) position as one where the good life nor the moral life consistently overrides the other. Nagel (1984) says that he is inclined to think that

What does Chappell (2018) argue about the integrity objection succeeding for single-level act utilitarianism?

Argues that this is powerful because utilitarianism requires individuals to be fully impartial thus: (i) not a decision procedure that is realistic (ii) worse world because projects are not respected

What is the issue with the integrity objection and multi-level act utilitarianism?

May justify trading off these projects for other ends. Negative responsibility still supported (Williams 1973)

Why does multi-level act utilitarianism avid the example of George?

May not choose to not take the job because that is a heuristic. Could not know the utilities otherwise.

What is multi-level act utilitarianism?

Multi-level act utilitarianism employs a utilitarian criterion of rightness. When making decisions, most of the time there is a use of heuristics and a use of act utilitarianism in some specific circumstances. where it is clear that the heuristic will not do the job or the heuristics conflict.

What does Railton (1984) argue about the integrity objection not succeeding for multi-level act utilitarianism?

Railton (1984) argues that there can be a pursuit of genuinely meaningful relationships under dual level. Try pursuing a relationship for love's sake and that will eventually increase utility. Analogy with tennis. Not absolutely everything on winning the tennis match but on the whole you win it eventually

What is single-level act utilitarianism?

Single level act utilitarianism is the application of the utilitarian principle for each and every decision.

Sections to an essay on whether the integrity objection is successful in dealing with utilitarianism (2)

Succeeds for single-level act utilitarianism Does not succeed for multi-level act utilitarianism

What are the sections to an essay on whether the too-demandingness objection to utilitarianism succeeds? (2)

Succeeds for single-level act utilitarianism Does not succeed for multi-level act utilitarianism

What does Nagel (1986) argue about the single-level act utilitarianism position falling to being too demanding?

agent relative reasons for why you act in a certain way

What does Williams (1973) argue about the integrity objection succeeding for single-level act utilitarianism?

gives two examples: (i) killing one Amazonian villager to stop the death of 19 others (ii) George taking the job to produce WMDs. Lost the sense of agency

How may act utilitarianism get around the integrity objection?

i. Act utilitarianism may reach for concepts of projects because these are more worthwhile ii. Higher probability of the projects being achieved compared to a lower probability of someone's life being saved

What is the counter-argumet to single-level act utilitarianism being too demanding?

i. Bite the bullet. Should have to have a demanding theory ii. Singer (1997) gives the drowning child example. Would ruin the suit to save them but in this instance would say that the concept of negative responsibility is reasonable

What are the overal conclusions to single-level act utilitarianism being too demanding? (3)

i. Cannot make utilitarian calculations all the time and this is too demanding ii. Cannot weigh off different outcomes reasonably and this is too demanding iii. Even if (i) and (ii) are untrue, acting in a way that maximises utility all the time is simply too high an ask. For instance, unreasonable to assume that someone will give up all of their income. Better to have a moral theory that is somewhat realistic for people to achieve otherwise they may reject it and have no ethical code at all

What are the overall conclusions to multi-level act utilitarianism being too demanding? (3)

i. Heuristics can be formulated beforehand. It is also very clear when consequences would be maximised. Grasping at straws to say that this is not true ii. Use of multi-level stops the catastrophes that act utilitarianism will fall to iii. Even if it is slightly more demanding than otherwise, it is within the realms of plausibility

What are the overall conclusions to whether the integrity objection succeeds for multi-level act utilitarianism? (3)

i. Right reasons because projects should only really be justified in the sense that they add value to people's lives. Compare the project of learning to play the piano with the project of helping Nazism ii. Multi-level still gives the right outcomes in the majority of circumstances iii. Projects can fairly be traded off under negative responsibility. Singer (1997) gives the drowning child example. Would ruin the suit to save them

What are the overall conclusions to the integrity objection succeeding for single-level act utilitarianism? (3)

i. Single level act utilitarianism not suitable as a decision procedure because it neglects the projects that are important for people's lives ii. Wrong reasoning if projects are prioritised. Could get in some cases but that is just because there is no good alternative moral course of action iii. As a criterion of rightness this seems wrong because there is a clear non-utilitarian desire for projects in the world

How could multi-level act utilitarianism be too demanding?

i. Unclear when to use the heuristics and when not to ii. Williams (1973) calls the idea that heuristics could maximise utility the "act adequacy" premise. If it is true, then single-level would have these anyway and if it is not then there is not really a moral theory iii. The formulation of heuristics is surely a difficult task

Introduction to does the integrity objection to utilitarianism succeed

integrity objection succeeds for critiquing single-level act utilitarianism but not for critiquing multi-level act utilitarianism. Williams (1973) sees integrity as the result of carrying out one's deepest commitments but does not have any causal or motivational force itself. Considers the integrity objection that there is a distinct set of projects and motivations that each individual has.

What is the introduction to whether the too demandingness objection succeeds?

too demandingness objection does succeed for single-level act utilitarianism but not for multi-level act utilitarianism. Too demanding objection is that utilitarianism requires more than common-sense morality and as such should be dropped as a decision procedures.