|
|
|
|
|
How can Utilitarianism be attacked as a moral theory?
|
|
|
There is no question of the important status of ethics in the majority of societies. The politics of today reinforce the prominent position of ethics through people like John Major and Tony Blair, illustrating a preoccupation with moral behaviour. Through many centuries moral philosophers have continually attempted to produce a suitable ethical theory which is applicable to all humans and to which there are no severe criticisms. The philosophical theory which has come to be recognised as utilitarianism originally dates from the seventeenth century and is attributed to Thomas Hobbes, but the major body of thought can be seen back in classical times in the shape of Epicureanism. The work of Hobbes was revived by Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century, although John Stuart Mill is more commonly viewed as the father of utilitarianism with his Victorian version of the doctrine. The popularity which stemmed from Mill's impressive formulation, was responsible for the absorption of utilitarianism into the bloodstream of much modern thinking, and subsequently it has been hailed as "a rational alternative to Christianity". Despite the seeming 'perfection' of this moral hypothesis, it is possible to find several faults within the theory, coupled with varying criticisms. However, such problems are not really evident until the actual formulation of the doctrine of utilitarianism has been comprehended in its entirety, as criticisms cannot legitimately be made unless one has sufficient knowledge of the content of the theory. Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy does exhibits several forms which are basically variations on Mill's modification of the doctrine produced by Bentham, and so do not require special consideration. Morality is viewed as the obeyance of particular rules relating to society, and reasons for doing this. Utilitarianism promotes the concept of the only motive for moral action, that being obeying the rules that are necessary for social life, and the pleasure which can be found in the obedience or the pain which results from disobeying them. The 'standard' form of the theory is can actually be expressed as two principles which are combined. The first is the consequentialist principle, that an action can be determined right or wrong depending upon the goodness or badness that results from it. The second half is found in the hedonist principle that pleasure is the only thing that is inherently good, and that the only completely bad thing is pain. The amalgamation of these two separate precepts results in a single principle which forms the basic doctrine of utilitarianism: the rightness of any action can be decided simply by the evaluation of the amount of happiness it contributes to all those affected. This is an accurate summary of the propositions put forward by both Bentham and Mill. This position has been described as the "greatest happiness principle" and as the principle of "utility", which John Hospers defines as "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness". In addition to this fairly simple basis, there are qualifications which are intended to aid utilitarianism and to protect it from unnecessary criticism. It is suggested that utilitarianism as a morality, takes into account the power which humans possess, of sacrificing their own good in order to promote the good of others. Many moralities fail to acknowledge this point and refuse to accept that there are people who are not entirely selfish and can even be altruistic. In connection with this element, many who have entered into the utilitarian discussion have emphasised it similarity with the 'golden rule' which was promoted by Jesus of Nazareth. The moral rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and also the command to "love your neighbour as yourself" are held as being the complete spirit of the ethics of utility, around which utilitarianism is centred. Bentham added other aspects to this philosophy in maintaining that it was necessary for private interest to be "weighted and guided" if it were to be of any benefit at all to the public interest. In light of this, he believed that society is a collection of individuals, the good of which is dependent upon their happiness; an element which can in realiy be summed and calculated. This is a more detailed proposition which results in a stronger approach to morality, especially with Bentham's opinion that goodness and rightness must be defined in the concept of the greatest happiness principle. To refrain from doing so would be, according to Jeremy Bentham, effectively talking nonsense, insinuating that the principle of utility is what every human should logically use in connection with ethical behaviour. It seems reasonable that every human being could understand actions in terms of pain and pleasure as scientists have discovered that these are the lowest emotions which can be experienced. Therefore to assess the consequences of an action using these criteria is an ability which all rational humans should possess. Mill takes a more critical view of his own doctrine by stating that there are some unavoidable difficulties produced by utilitarianism. However, he compensates for this admission of weakness by proclaiming that reason and rationality mean that despite this, a utilitarian would be unable to conceive of abandoning his doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
