Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
POLITICAL OBLIGATION
PROJECT PRESENTATION
M.G.ARAVIND RAJ
SECOND SEMESTER
2
POLITICAL OBLIGATION
PROJECT PRESENTATION
M.G.ARAVIND RAJ
SECOND SEMESTER
3
UTILITARIANISM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
What is Utilitarianism? 7
Basic Concepts .. 8
Utilitarianism as a common sensical ideology 9
History of Utilitarianism . 12
Types of Utilitarianism 15
Utilitarianism and its relation to political obligation 20
Positives of Utilitarianism ...... 21
Negatives of Utilitarianism . 24
Conclusion 26
References . 27
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Also, I am grateful to the staff and administration of Tamil Nadu National Law
School who contributed useful resources tremendously in the making of this
project by providing library infrastructure and data connections.
This entire project wouldnt have been possible without the involvement of
precious inputs of my parents and friends who sacrificed their valuable time to
guide and advice me at all times of need to make this project a successful one.
Last but not the least, I am also grateful to God for giving me the courage and
strength to withstand all hinderances during this project and make it
successfully finally since its inception.
7
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?
An Introduction
Lets consider that we are going to plan on doing something. What is among the
first few things that come into our mind? It would be the concept of utility.
We tend to consider whether the decision we are going to make, is it going to be
for a greater good or a part of the greater bad. The same goes with the purchase
of products. We tend to analyse how useful and productive a particular resource
and measure it on a utility scale and then use it. That is when the concept of
utilitarianism comes into existence.
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the moral action is the
one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, including as
pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering. Utilitarianism is a form
of consequentialism, which implies that the consequences of an action are of
moral importance. This view can be contrasted or combined with seeing
intentions, virtues or the compliance with rules as ethically important.1
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
8
BASIC CONCEPTS
In the notion of consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad
produced by the act, whether arising after the act has been performed or during
its performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not
great, some Utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue.
According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if
the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the
agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred
manner.
hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and
believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians
also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two
alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences.
Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist,
he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for
everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the
balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such
precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is
nonetheless necessary for the Utilitarian to make some interpersonal
comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of action.
Notice also that utilitarianism does not recommend that you pay attention to
your own happiness and pleasure. Utilitarianism is not a form of moral egoism
it is not a theory that tells you to put yourself above everyone else.
Utilitarianism does not tell you to put those close to you above all else either.
Clearly, if you did that, you would not be taking into account the benefit or
happiness of the greatest possible number of people. You might be wondering
now: why should one care about the greatest possible number of people? This is
not an objection against utilitarianism in particular any more than it is an
objection against any ethical theory: why should we care about doing the right
thing? This is not always an easy question to answer theoretically but it
becomes an easier question once we pay attention to common sense and to the
ways in which human beings are constituted and known to comport themselves
11
toward other people. If you want to do the right thing, utilitarianism gives you
an objective and almost formulaic answer: act in such a way as to benefit the
greatest possible number of people. In other words, you should act in such a
way as to maximize the happiness of the greatest number or overall happiness.
There are many particular variants of utilitarianism. For some, you maximize
happiness of the greatest number; for other versions, you maximize a utility that
can be minutely calculated; or the preferences of people, after you ask them
directly instead of appealing to expert opinions. But, in any case, for a theory to
be utilitarian, what is maximized must be the happiness, utility curves, average
utility, preferences, happiness, or whatever of the greatest number.
12
HISTORY OF UTILITARIANISM
Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the theological utilitarians such as
Richard Cumberland (16311718) and John Gay (16991745). They believed
that promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by
God. After enumerating the ways in which humans come under obligations (by
perceiving the natural consequences of things, the obligation to be virtuous,
our civil obligations that arise from laws, and obligations arising from the
authority of God) John Gay writes: from the consideration of these four
sorts of obligationit is evident that a full and complete obligation which will
extend to all cases, can only be that arising from the authority of God; because
God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserable: and therefore, since
we are always obliged to that conformity called virtue, it is evident that the
immediate rule or criterion of it is the will of God (R, 412). Gay held that since
God wants the happiness of mankind, and since God's will gives us the criterion
of virtue, the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue,
but once removed (R, 413). This view was combined with a view of human
motivation with egoistic elements. A person's individual salvation, her eternal
happiness, depended on conformity to God's will, as did virtue itself. Promoting
13
human happiness and one's own coincided, but, given God's design, it was not
an accidental coincidence.2
2 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
14
This seems to have been an innate sense of right and wrong, or moral beauty
and deformity. Again, aspects of this doctrine would be picked up by Francis
Hutcheson and David Hume (17111776). Hume, of course, would clearly
reject any robust realist implications. If the moral sense is like the other
perceptual senses and enables us to pick up on properties out there in the
universe around us, properties that exist independent from our perception of
them, that are objective, then Hume clearly was not a moral sense theorist in
this regard. But perception picks up on features of our environment that one
could regard as having a contingent quality. There is one famous passage where
Hume likens moral discrimination to the perception of secondary qualities, such
as color. In modern terminology, these are response-dependent properties, and
lack objectivity in the sense that they do not exist independent of our responses.
This is radical. If an act is vicious, its viciousness is a matter of the human
response (given a corrected perspective) to the act (or its perceived effects) and
thus has a kind of contingency that seems unsettling, certainly unsettling to
those who opted for the theological option.
15
TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM
Classical Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
Preference Utilitarianism
Ideal Utilitarianism
CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM
RULE UTILITARIANISM
Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good
will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in
individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those
instances.
ACT UTILITARIANISM
Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that a person's act
is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other
act that the person could perform at that time. Classical utilitarians, including
Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick, define happiness as
pleasure and the absence of pain. To understand how act utilitarianism works,
compare the consequences of your watching television all day tomorrow to the
consequences of your doing charity work tomorrow. You could produce more
18
PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM
IDEAL UTILITARIANISM
19
In the case of ideal utilitarianism, actions are judged to be morally good or bad
on the basis of the extent to which they help further the development of certain
ideals that are considered to be intrinsically good (e.g. justice, compassion,
etc.). Ideal utilitarianism, recognizes beauty and friendship, as well as
pleasure, as intrinsic goods that ones actions should aim to maximize.
G. E. Moore strongly disagreed with the hedonistic value theory adopted by the
Classical Utilitarians. Moore agreed that we ought to promote the good, but
believed that the good included far more than what could be reduced to
pleasure. He was a pluralist, rather than a monist, regarding intrinsic value. For
example, he believed that beauty was an intrinsic good. A beautiful object had
value independent of any pleasure it might generate in a viewer. Thus, Moore
differed from Sidgwick who regarded the good as consisting in some
consciousness. Some objective states in the world are intrinsically good, and on
Moore's view, beauty is just such a state. He used one of his more notorious
thought experiments to make this point: he asked the reader to compare two
worlds; one was entirely beautiful, full of things which complimented each
other; the other was a hideous, ugly world, filled with everything that is most
disgusting to us. Further, there are not human beings, one imagines, around to
appreciate or be disgusted by the worlds. The question then is which of these
worlds is better, which one's existence would be better than the other's? Of
course, Moore believed it was clear that the beautiful world was better, even
though no one was around to appreciate its beauty.
20
If we want to know which thing gives the maximum happiness we must be able
to measure the utility. What applies to individual morals, applies with equal
force to State craft.
The action of the State is good which increases the pleasure of the largest
number. Everything has to be judged from this point of view. The principle of
utility is held to be the rationale guide both to private morals and public policy.
The end of any legislation should be for the happiness of man. The making of
laws by a state must be in accordance with the one that gives the greater good to
the people, similarly the people must follow the laws based on that which gives
the greater good and are obligated to follow these rules. If they fail to do so then
they can draw a punishment from the authority in power. One cannot disobey a
rule just because he or she found it uncomfortable to obey when it has been
made for a greater idea that is in place.
21
POSITIVES OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism has been in place for a very long period of time and it has been
widely accepted as a good concept too. There are a few reasons accorded to
Utilitarianism that makes the concept nice in its purest sense. Some of the
positives of Utilitarianism are:
2. It fits with the idea that the consequences of our actions matter
3. It fits with the idea that it is right to contribute to happiness rather than
misery
4. People tend to act with happiness, not necessarily their own, in mind.
6. It gives a guide when there is no time to assess the pros and cons of a
situation
10. Given a common desire to benefit the majority of people, and a common
sense of what is to their benefit, it yields results that are in line with common
sense.
22
11. It is easy to demonstrate the Utilitarianism is fair, since its basic principles
are widely accepted.
12. It does not appear to require the acceptance of any prior beliefs about the
nature of the world or religion, and its moral discussions can therefore be
appreciated across different religions and cultures.
14. It relates to actions which can be observed in the real world (e.g. Giving to
charity promotes happiness for poor people and is seen to be good whereas an
act of cruelty is condemned as bad)
including, for instance, Christianity, which also appeals to human beings to love
and benefit and avoid to harm others, and promises recompense of happiness in
the form of a good feeling in this life and heaves rewards in the afterlife.
Utilitarianism also satisfies another intuition we have about what is needed for
an ethical theory: it treats people equally, provided they are equally situated.
Conveniently, utilitarianism finds one common denominator pleasure or
happiness to which consequences of actions are reduced. This allows for a
calculation to be performed, and ones moral duty to be determined, regardless
of how complex and challenging the actual case is.
24
NEGATIVES OF UTILITARIANISM
Just like any other concept, Utilitarianism also as a concept has a number of
negatives accorded to it. There are a number of disadvantages and criticisms
that form a part of this concept of utilitarianism. Some of them are:
3. Calculation problems
10. If morality is determined by results alone, wrong motives can still lead to
right results (e.g. selfishness may motivate a system that yields positive results
for a majority; is it therefore morally right?)
11. Utilitarianism is argued to be too impersonal and does not consider rights of
an individual in its attempt to look for greater good
25
13. Utilitarianism can also advocate injustice, e.g. the innocent man framed for
rape in order to calm riots.
14. People may suffer second or third hand even the immediate consequences of
an action fulfilled the conditions of the principle.
26
CONCLUSION
Utilitarianism like any other concept has its positives and negatives. Beyond all
that, it is considered to be one of the innovate concepts that were introduced in
this world. It can be considered to be the most simple and basic of concepts that
we may adhere to. It basically goes along the line of what is pleasurable and
what is painful which is why it is usually referred to as the pleasure/pain theory.
Any action of a person is determined to be good or bad on the basis of the fact
whether it gives a happy or sad effect to the individual and the society. The
concept has undergone a lot of changes over time with a lot of new thinkers
coming in, however the basis of it all remains the same and it still remains one
of the most important political and philosophical concepts that were invented
over a period of time.
27
REFERENCES
www.wikipedia.org
www.slideshare.net
www.utilitarianism.org
Utilitarianism, By John Stuart Mill A summary in Sparknotes
www.brittanica-thenewencyclopedia.com
www.jstor.org