| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''Utilitarianism''' is a political [[moral]] [[philosophy]] which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society, rather than to an individual or to [[God]]. | | '''Utilitarianism''' is a political [[moral]] [[philosophy]] which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society, rather than to an individual or to [[God]]. |
| | | | |
| − | Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[rational actor]]. | + | Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[Rational behavior|rational actor]]. |
| | | | |
| | ==Utilitarianism and utility== | | ==Utilitarianism and utility== |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
| | Nozick also used the analogy of [[The Experience Machine]] to demonstrate that people value something other than pleasure. | | Nozick also used the analogy of [[The Experience Machine]] to demonstrate that people value something other than pleasure. |
| | | | |
| − | It has also been pointed out that Utilitarianism does not acknowledge special relationships, entitlements and agreements. For example, most people consider themselves justified in prioritising the well being of their friends and loved ones, even when more pleasure would be produced by aiding worse off strangers. People would also consider it unjust if their employer decided to give their paycheque to charity, because even though giving the paycheque to charity may service the greater good, the employee is entitled to his paycheque. An agreement like someone promising to do something for someone else could be broken for the greater good, but it is hard to see how this is justified except in extreme circumstances. The utilitarian counter-argument would be that breaking a promise or a contract generally causes unhappiness, and so it is wrong after all. A rule utilitarian would point out that while breaking a contract instead of keeping it may ''occasionally'' cause greater happiness in particular circumstances, consistently keeping contracts causes greater happiness than consistently breaking them, and thus one should follow the rule of keeping contracts. | + | It has also been pointed out that Utilitarianism does not acknowledge special relationships, entitlements and agreements. For example, most people consider themselves justified in prioritising the well being of their friends and loved ones, even when more pleasure would be produced by aiding worse off strangers. People would also consider it unjust if their employer decided to give their paychecks to charity, because even though giving the paycheck to charity may service the greater good, the employee is entitled to his paycheck. An agreement like someone promising to do something for someone else could be broken for the greater good, but it is hard to see how this is justified except in extreme circumstances. The utilitarian counter-argument would be that breaking a promise or a contract generally causes unhappiness, and so it is wrong after all. A rule utilitarian would point out that while breaking a contract instead of keeping it may ''occasionally'' cause greater happiness in particular circumstances, consistently keeping contracts causes greater happiness than consistently breaking them, and thus one should follow the rule of keeping contracts. |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |