06 May 07
Hi,
First off, I wanted to ask: What exactly is the difference between Consequentialism and Utilitarianism?
The second thing is: I have an ethics exam tomorrow, and we already know that the question will be something concerning abortion, and we have to discuss it from an utilitarian and a consequentialistic point of view.
I'd say Utilitarian depends on the situation (what benefits the woman would have either way versus the downsides and killing the unborn child), but what would the Consequentialist say?
And what do you think, from what point on can an embryo be regarded as having rights in both cases? (And why)
Thanks for replies,
Angie
06 May 07
Originally posted by angie88Hey Angie,
Hi,
First off, I wanted to ask: What exactly is the difference between Consequentialism and Utilitarianism?
The second thing is: I have an ethics exam tomorrow, and we already know that the question will be something concerning abortion, and we have to discuss it from an utilitarian and a consequentialistic point of view.
I'd say Utilitarian depends ...[text shortened]... an embryo be regarded as having rights in both cases? (And why)
Thanks for replies,
Angie
Any view that takes the rightness or wrongness of an act to be completely determined by that act's consequences is consequentialist. So, ethical egoism counts as consequentialist, since on this view whether an act is right or wrong is determined completely by its consequences for you. Ethical chauvinism is consequentialist, since it takes an act's rightness or wrongness to be determined by that act's consequences on some privileged group. Utilitarianism is a special type of consequentialism (an egalitarian type, you might say) since it takes the rightness or wrongness of an act to be determined by its consequences for everyone affected by the act (in other words, by the overall effects on utility). What is unique to Utilitarianism is that it is the only form of consequentialism that it asks us to make things best off overall, to maxmize utility, where other consequentialist theories may take the domain of moral concern to only extend over individuals or members of a group.
What counts as a good consequence, or what is taken to be intrinsically valuable, will differ from theory to theory. Some consequentialist may be hedonists, and thus think that only the effects on an act on pleasure matter morally. Some consequentialists may be preference-satisfaction or desire-fulfillment theorists, and thus think that only the effects of an act on satisfying our preferences or desires matter morally. The point here is that consequentialist theories can radically differ depending on what they take, ultimately, to be of fundamental and intrinsic value.
If you want to know about the moral status of some embryo according to any consequentialist theory, you'll need to know at least three things. First, you need to know what is of fundamental value according to the theory. Second, you need to know just how far the theory mandates you extend moral concern. Third, you need to know whether the structure of the theory can accomodate rights at all (e.g., it is pretty clear that act-utilitarianism is inconsistent with rights, but rule-utilitarianism can accomodate them).
06 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrTo some up then, please let me know if I'm right:
Hey Angie,
Any view that takes the rightness or wrongness of an act to be completely determined by that act's consequences is consequentialist. So, ethical egoism counts as consequentialist, since on this view whether an act is right or wrong is determined completely by its consequences for you. Ethical chauvinism is consequentialist, since it takes an ac ...[text shortened]... ct-utilitarianism is inconsistent with rights, but rule-utilitarianism can accomodate them).
Consequentialism is about the acts consequences on the individual and utilitarianism is that the acts consequences on everyone?
07 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirUtilitarianism is the greatest happiness of the greatest number whereas consequentialism is, as bbarr typed, that the morality of an action is based upon its consequences.
To some up then, please let me know if I'm right:
Consequentialism is about the acts consequences on the individual and utilitarianism is that the acts consequences on everyone?
Morally speaking both philosophies are suspect but that doesn't stop politicians from employing them with regularity.
Edit: Utilitarianism covers the greatest number but not neccessarily everyone which is one of the principal reasons why it is considered suspect. So, you are not completely right but a good effort, he oozed, patronisingly.
07 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirNot quite. "Consequentialism" refers to a broad array of theories, of which Utilitarianism is one. Ethical Egoism (the view that you should do what is in your best interests, or do what is good for you) is also a consequentialist view, because it, like Utilitarianism, thinks that only the consequences of an act matter regarding the moral assessment of that act as right or wrong. The difference between Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism is, basically, that according to the former what you ought to do in any case is what is, overall, best for you alone, while according to the latter what you ought to do in any case is whatever would maximize the goodness of the consequences.
To some up then, please let me know if I'm right:
Consequentialism is about the acts consequences on the individual and utilitarianism is that the acts consequences on everyone?
07 May 07
Originally posted by demonseedNo, Utilitarianism does not entail that one ought to maximize the number of people benefitted by an act. If you have the option of making one person incredibly better off, or making two people only very slightly better off, then Utilitarianism entails you ought to do the former.
Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness of the greatest number whereas consequentialism is, as bbarr typed, that the morality of an action is based upon its consequences.
Morally speaking both philosophies are suspect but that doesn't stop politicians from employing them with regularity.
Edit: Utilitarianism covers the greatest number but not ...[text shortened]... onsidered suspect. So, you are not completely right but a good effort, he oozed, patronisingly.
07 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrCould you give some examples of what quality is to be maximised in different utilitarians theories and which people, in the context of these theories, determine this?
No, Utilitarianism does not entail that one ought to maximize the number of people benefitted by an act. If you have the option of making one person incredibly better off, or making two people only very slightly better off, then Utilitarianism entails you ought to do the former.
demonseed claimed to have said something patronising, but any patronising words pale into insignificance next to Mill.
07 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakySure. Some Consequentialists are also hedonists, which means they think that pleasure is intrinsically valuable. Some are preference-satisfaction theorists, which means they think that it is only the satisfying of preferences (or desires) that is intrinsically valuable. Some are objective list theorists, which means that they think there are a set of intrinsically valuable things (like knowledge, contentment, health, etc.). Some are eudaimonists, which means they take flourishing in accord with one's kind to be intrinsically valuable.
Could you give some examples of what quality is to be maximised in different utilitarians theories and which people, in the context of these theories, determine this?
I do not understand what you mean when you ask "which people...determine this?".
07 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrWell, suppose a society codifies some part of some utilitarian ethical theory in its laws or something. Unless there is universal agreement about whether to encourage individuals to act in a way that maximises pleasure, or satisfaction of preferences, or contentment, or whatever, then someone is going to have to decide which quality is to be maximised, and they are going to have to impose that decision on other people -- some members of the society will find themselves acting in a way that maximises something which they do not hold to be valuable. What is the justification for this imposition, which could occur regardless of the particular choice of ethical theory?
Sure. Some Consequentialists are also hedonists, which means they think that pleasure is intrinsically valuable. Some are preference-satisfaction theorists, which means they think that it is only the satisfying of preferences (or desires) that is intrinsically valuable. Some are objective list theorists, which means that they think there are a set of intrin ...[text shortened]... luable.
I do not understand what you mean when you ask "which people...determine this?".
07 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyPolitical theorists differ on this question, but on liberalistic views folks confer legitimacy on the state (and their elected representatives) via some form of consent. Some, like Locke, think that actual consent is necessary. Others, like Rawls, think that ideal hypothetical consent is sufficient.
Well, suppose a society codifies some part of some utilitarian ethical theory in its laws or something. Unless there is universal agreement about whether to encourage individuals to act in a way that maximises pleasure, or satisfaction of preferences, or contentment, or whatever, then someone is going to have to decide which quality is to be maximised, ...[text shortened]... on for this imposition, which could occur regardless of the particular choice of ethical theory?
07 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrI phrased it as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" which is the way Bentham summarised it but if you feel more au fait with utilitarianism than Jeremy Bentham feel free to correct me.
No, Utilitarianism does not entail that one ought to maximize the number of people benefitted by an act. If you have the option of making one person incredibly better off, or making two people only very slightly better off, then Utilitarianism entails you ought to do the former.