James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Quote:

      “Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipates good results. This is an extremely important notion, which explains why a great many philosophers have rejected Utilitarianism.”

What I Expect To Learn:

      My learning expectation for this topic is James Rachels’ stand on Utilitarianism. I also expect to learn about hedonism. Aside from that I also expect to learn the rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism.

Chapter Review:

     According to Rachels, the classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions which were: Actions are to be judged wrong or right solely in virtue of their consequences and only the ones with best consequence are considered right actions, The only thing which matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused and only those which provide more happiness than unhappiness are considered right actions, and The happiness of one person is equivalent to the happiness of another which means that the happiness of one person is not more important than the other because their happiness are considered to be equally important.

     The objection about justice is that one must bear false witness against the innocent for the greater good. Just like the example which Rachels gave, the witness must bear false witness against the victim in order for riots and executions to stop since it will bring about more “good” than telling the truth and trying to save the innocent.

      The objection of rights on the other hand is that actions are defensible if happiness outweighs unhappiness because this tells us that an action is right only when it causes more happiness than unhappiness.

      Finally, the objection of promises is that one cannot break a promise easily since it imposes an obligation. It can only be broken by very heavy gains or interferences such having to rush someone to the hospital.  

What I Learned:

      At the end of Rachels’ discussion, I learned the concept of rule- and act-utilitarianism. I have also learned about the concept of hedonism and the classical utilitarianism. Not only that, I have also learned about the objections about justice, rights and promises.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is hedonism?
2. What is rule-utilitarianism
3. What is act-utilitarianism?
4. Why is hedonism considered as a problem?
5. How are actions judged as with regards to whether it’s right or wrong?

Review Questions

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?

These three that summarizes the idea of classical utilitarianism are:

·         Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters and only the ones with the best consequences are the right actions.

·         The only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. The only right actions are those which provide more happiness than unhappiness.

·         The happiness of one person is not more important than the happiness of another. Instead, both are considered equal.

2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?

           Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other           things appreciated only as a means of bringing it about.

G.E. Moore suggests that there are three obvious intrinsic goods which are pleasures, friendships and aesthetic enjoyment and that right actions are those that increase the world’s supply of the said things. On the other hand, other utilitarian say have tried to bypass or ignore the question of how many things are good in themselves and saying that the only right actions are the ones with the best result.  

3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?

The objection about justice is that in order to even out odds, one must bear false witness against the innocent person as it will be for the better good. As his example stated, if he bear false witness against the innocent, the riots and lynching would stop. If you weigh that against telling the truth in order to save the innocent, bearing false witness outweighs the truth.

Meanwhile the objection about rights is that actions are defensible if they produce a favourable balance of happiness over unhappiness. In the case of the police and York, Rachels said that there may be more happiness from the pictures taken by the police officer than the unhappiness York has gained.

The object about promises is that it imposes an obligation which is hard to escape. It can be broken only with very important costs such as you have to rush someone to the hospital while it cannot be easily broken with something of light weight such as breaking your promise because you felt lazy to do so.

4. Distinguish between rule- and act-utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?

Rule-utilitarianism is rules which are established by reference to the principle and individual’s acts will be judged right or wrong by referring to the rules. Rule-utilitarianism, according to Rachels is the new version of act-utilitarianism which is the original theory.

5. What is the third line of defense?

The third line of defense is a small group of contemporary utilitarians who had very different response to the anti-utilitarian arguments and these arguments point out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights and so on.

Discussion Questions

1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer.

Truthfully, I don’t find this acceptable for the reason that I cannot simply reject my moral beliefs just so they won’t conflict with utilitarianism. For me, my moral beliefs weigh more than utilitarianism because these moral beliefs are things I have believed in for a very long time and I cannot imagine abandoning my beliefs just so that it would not conflict with utilitarianism. I am not against utilitarianism although I don’t really think I am a utilitarian and for me, my moral beliefs are more important than utilitarianism itself. 

2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?

Basing on John Stuart Mill’s discussion, I would say that a utilitarian gives importance to the happiness and welfare of the greater good meaning of all people. Though it is not directly stated that the greater good include animals and bodies of water, I think that it is quite clear that a utilitarian must also give moral consideration to these as it may also cause happiness and unhappiness to people.

3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

Analyzing the word merit and concluding that it refers to values, I agree that one must give moral consideration to it separate of utility because a person’s values is highly important.

||Go Home||Read Next||Read Previous||