52
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: − + + + + + + +
→Critiques of utilitarianism
Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus." In fact, this is exactly what Bentham is arguing for.
Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus." In fact, this is exactly what Bentham is arguing for.
In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.
In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.
[[Robert Nozick]] used the [[utility monster]] argument to demonstrate that given the existence of something extremely efficient at turning resources into pleasure large scale neglect of human needs and wants would be justified, potentially to the extent of obliging us to allow the human race to go extinct.
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 causes unhappiness and so is wrong after all. But this is inadequate, as breaking a promise causes unhappiness because it is wrong, it is not wrong because it causes unhappiness.
== See also ==
== See also ==