Utilitarianism
we comment on it. If Jones shared chocolate with Smith, who was (unbeknownst to Jones) allergic to chocolate, then we would say: ‘ It was b8d of Jones to share the chocolate. ’ We can also add ‘ Jones had g88d/g44d intentions but there were b8d/b4d results. ’ Henry Sidgwick thought that the general population shouldn’t know that utilitarianism was what underlined their moral decision-making. He also believed that they have a simplistic understanding of utilitarianism and misuse it. 59 Smart has a convincing argument which explains why it’s g88d to praise 60 g88d intentions with b8d consequences. For an extreme utilitarian, moral rules are rules of thumb. In practice the extreme utilitarianwill mostly guide his conduct by appealing to the rules ('do not lie', 'do not break promises', etc.) of common-sense morality. This is not because there is anything sacrosanct in the rules themselves but because he can argue that probably he will most often act in an extreme utilitarian way if he does not think as a utilitarian. For one thing, actions have frequently to be done in a hurry. Imagine a man seeing a person drowning. He jumps in and rescues him. There is no time to reason the matter out, but always this will be the course of action which an extreme utilitarian would recommend if he did reason the matter out. If, however, the man drowning had been drowning in a river near Berchtesgaden in 1938, and if he had had the well-known black forelock and moustache of Adolf Hitler, an extreme utilitarian would, if he had time, work out the probability of the man's being the villainous dictator, and if the probability were high enough he would, on extreme utilitarian grounds, leave him to drown. The rescuer, however, has not time. He trusts to his instincts and dives in and rescues the man. And this trusting to instincts and to moral rules can be justified on extreme utilitarian grounds. Furthermore, an extreme utilitarian who knew that the drowningmanwas Hitler would nevertheless praise the rescuer, not condemn him. For by praising the man he is strengthening a courageous and benevolent disposition of mind, and in general this disposition has great positive utility. (Next time, perhaps, it will be Winston Churchill that the man saves!) We must never forget that an extreme utilitarian may praise actions which he knows to be wrong. Saving Hitler was wrong, but it was a member of a class of actions which are generally right, and the motive to do actions of this class is in general an optimific one. In considering questions of praise and blame it is not the expediency of the praised or blamed action that is at issue, but the expediency of the praise. It can be expedient to praise an inexpedient action and inexpedient to praise an expedient one. Lack of time is not the only reason why an extreme utilitarian may, on extreme utilitarian principles, trust to rules of common-sense morality. He knows that in particular cases where his own interests are involved his calculations are likely to be biased in his own favour. Suppose that he is unhappily married and is deciding whether to get divorced. He will in all probability greatly exaggerate his own unhappiness (and possibly his wife's) and greatly underestimate the harm done to his children by the break-up of the family. He will probably also underestimate the likely harm done by the weakening of the general faith in marriage vows. So probably he will come to the correct extreme utilitarian conclusion if he does not in this instance think as an extreme utilitarian but trusts to common sense morality. […] The extreme utilitarian, then, regards moral
59 Schultz and Zalta 2020. 60 Praise in a sense or further encourage rather than declare ‘ That was right ’.
106
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs