Applied Ethics Utilitarian creed
Applied Ethics Utilitarian creed. Read the excerpt from Mill’s Utilitarianism* and watch the video Putting a price tag on life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2Rq4HJBxw&ab_channel=HarvardUniversity)
- Answer to all the questions. The rubrics will be applied only to the last question.
- Read through and comment only on the forth answer of someone else’s post.
“1.The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.
To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
2. Now, such a theory of life excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French, and English assailants.
3. When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other.
The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle.
To do it in any sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian elements require to be included. But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation.
It must be admitted, however, that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc., of the former—that is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they might have taken the other, and, as it may be called, higher ground, with entire consistency.
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.”
1. According to Mill, when would actions be considered right? When would they be considered wrong?
2. Why is utilitarianism reproached by some?
3. How did the Epicureans respond to the criticism exposed in the text?
4. Take part on the Sandel’s pool and provide an argument for your answer. Which is the highest experience (or pleasure): Shakespeare or the Simpsons?
Someone else’s post:
1. According to Mill, when would actions be considered right? When would they be considered wrong?
According to Mill, actions will be considered right when it brngs happiness and considered wrong when they bring sadness or sorrow or negative consequences.
2. Why is utilitarianism reproached by some?
Utilitarianism is reproached by some people because it compares people life with $$ value. For example Ford pinto engines placed behind the car. As a consequence some people believe it is not a good way to compare life. Also to fully follow the principle one should have educated and experienced it. Sometimes education and experience doesn’t come side by side.
3. How did the Epicureans respond to the criticism exposed in the text?
Epicureans have actively responded to the criticism placed on their beliefs.They are trying to put forward their views by stating that its other people who compare a human life to life of pig. The philosopher are comparing human’s pleasure to that animals.
4. Take part on the Sandel’s pool and provide an argument for your answer. Which is the highest experience (or pleasure): Shakespeare or the Simpsons?
Out of three experiences I like Simpson’s clip the most because I can experience the joy and pleasure myself. Whereas if we see the clip of Shakespeare, we have to educate ourself first and understand the basis of the clip and eventually enjoy it later on. There was intense pleasure experience if I watched Simpson rather than the Shakespeare. I prefer intense pleasure than distributed pleasure over the life. However if I am able to interpret Shakespeare saying, I would go with that.
