Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism Utilitarianism or Consequentialism UtilitarianismConsequentialism

Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism or Consequentialism • “Utilitarianism”=“Consequentialism. ” • Consequentialism: An action is morally right if and only if it maximizes good consequences (is “optimific. ”)

Good Consequences: Some Options • “Hedonistic” Consequentialism: The good consequences are pleasure (and/or minimize pain). • “Eudaimonistic” Consequentialism: The good consequences are human flourishing. • “Liberty” Consequentialism: The good consequences are human freedom. • “Per capita” Consequentialism: Maximize per capita good consequences. • “Absolute” Consequentialism: Maximize overall good consequences.

Why be a Consequentialist? • • Clearly, part of moral reasoning involves reasoning about good and bad consequences of action. Because of this, everyone will agree that good and bad consequences are relevant to the moral status of actions. Consequentialism claims that all the other apparently morally relevant considerations— such as moral rights, moral rules, and moral virtues—ought to be understood in terms of good and bad consequences, and are morally relevant only when they are optimific. – A character trait counts as a ‘moral virtue’ because it brings about the best consequences in a certain context. – A moral rule like “lying is prohibited” is true because lying fails to bring about the best consequences. – Persons have a “right to life” because the best consequences are achieved when people are not intentionally killed. This makes moral reasoning pretty easy: it’s just a matter of calculating the effects of actions. – This is particularly true of extreme consequentialism rather than restricted consequentialism. It means that no moral dilemma is irresolvable, because for every situation there will be at least one action that is optimific relative to the other options.

Extreme and Restricted Consequentialism • Extreme Consequentalism A particular action is morally right if and only if that action maximizes good consequences. • Restricted Consequentialism A particular action is morally right if and only if that action falls under a certain rule whose complete adoption by every member of society would maximize good consequences. • Smart’s paper concerns the relationship between these two versions of consequentialism and moral rules—rules like “do not lie, ” “do not break promises, ” and so on.

Extreme Consequentialism and Moral Rules • Extreme consequentialism says that a particular action must be optimific in order to be morally right. • But in many or most cases, following a moral rule like “do not lie” will be more optimific than calculating the consequences of each action. – We have to take actions in a hurry, and we’re not good at calculating in a hurry. – We are biased in our calculation of the consequences. – Breaking a moral rule that is widely accepted in society would have bad consequences. • So extreme consequentialists can adopt moral rules as “rules of thumb, ” rough guides to action to be followed much of the time. • But whenever an extreme consequentialist follows a rule, he will be doing the right thing only to the extent that following the rule in that particular case really is optimific. Whenever following the rule in a particular case is not optimific, following the rule is not morally right.

Restricted Consequentialism and Moral Rules • Restricted Consequentialists say that a particular action is morally right if and only if the action falls under a rule whose complete adoption by members of society would be optimific. • So according to the rule consequentialists, following a rule is morally right even when the consequences of doing so in a particular case are not optimific. • That’s because what makes an action morally right is its conformity to an optimific rule, rather than its being optimific.

Smart’s Argument against Restricted Utilitarianism 1. Sometimes, not following a moral rule is optimific and we know it. 2. If we know that not following a moral rule is optimific, then not following a moral rule is the most rational thing to do. 3. If not following a moral rule is the most rational thing to do, then it is the morally right thing to do. 4. Therefore, sometimes, not following a moral rule is the morally right thing to do (from 1, 2, 3). 5. If restricted utilitarianism is true, then an act is morally right only if it follows a moral rule (by definition). 6. Therefore, restricted utilitarianism is false (from 4, 5).

An Example: Breaking a Promise • I have promised a friend dying on a desert island that I will see that his fortune is given to a jockey club. However, a hospital can do more good with the money than the club and I know it. • Following the moral rule would not be optimific (premise 1). – The hospital can do more good than the jockey club. – No one knows about my promise. • It would be most rational for me to give the money to the hospital (premise 2). • Given that it would be most rational to give the money to the hospital, it is morally right for me to do it (premise 3).

Questions • Which premise of Smart’s argument do you find most and least compelling? • Can you think of cases in which a virtue-ethics account of morally right action would conflict with a consequentialist account? • Are you more compelled by virtue ethics or consequentialism, or neither?

For Tuesday • Read Christine Korsgaard “Kant’s Formula of the Universal Law”