Jurisprudence Assignment II

Name: Date: Lecturer: Word Count:

George Schingh 23/05/12 Mr. Tim Potier ( )

In order to understand the term utilitarian given by the philosophers in question , we must first define what utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences. Two influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism was described by Mill as "the greatest happiness principle" and by Bentham as the "pleasure principle". Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth), pragmatic ethics, virtue ethics(which focuses on character) and deontological varieties of libertarianism, as well as with ethical egoism and other varieties of consequentialism.

Types of utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe generates the most pleasure for particular situations. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action, and determine whether there is a rule that should be followed and what would happen if the rule were to be constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequential calculation specific to a case or generalized to rules. Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that, in some specific circumstances, clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e., laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not. However, within rule utilitarianism there is a distinction between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist theory, which frames strict rules that apply for all people and all time and may never be broken.Weak Rule utilitarianism posits that, although rules should be framed on previous examples that benefit society, it is possible, under specific circumstances, to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule. An example would be the Gestapo asking where your Jewish neighbours were; a strong rule utilitarian might say the "Do not lie" rule must never be broken, whereas a weak rule utilitarian would argue that to lie would produce the most happiness.

Bibliography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm http://www.utilitarianism.com/john-austin.html http://peenef2.republika.pl/angielski/hasla/a/austin-john.html http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-john/