Presentation on theme: "Revision Notes Utilitarianism. General Long history - Epicurus, Caiaphas, Hume, Adam Smith Characterised by Pojman as teleological aspect and utility."— Presentation transcript:
Rule GHP applied to rules “An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative” From rules acts deduced as wrong Brandt, Smart, Nielsen Mill and 'tendencies'
Preference Individuals decide what is pain/pleasure for them Preferences unless outweighed by others e.g. Peter Singer and abortion.
General Strengths Simplicity but Mill/Hedonic Calculus Social change and Bentham Purpose of morality (Aristotle/Epicurus/Pojman)
General Weaknesses Incommensurate values (number/happiness) but internal debate Immeasurable consequences but Mill and CILewis (actual/expected/intended consequences) No rest; no personal integrity; not for all as difficult to follow (Pojman) Justice but Mill (punitive/distributive) Intuition and intrinsic/instrumental values and absurd implications (WDRoss) Ends and Means (Kant)
General responses Split level utilitarianism (general/lower: rule, rare but difficult/higher: act)
Overall response Kant and categorical imperative So right on purpose of morality wrong on need for rules and justice Frankena and principles of beneficence and justice Or Ross, objectivism and actual vs.. prima facie duties