Are criticisms of utilitarianismconvincing ?
Aiken Furlong
My essay is in two sections. First, I redefine utility then utilitarianism, and propose we shift our conception of morality. Secondly, I evaluate the criticism that utilitarianism is not palatable.
I begin by re- defining utility in order to assist tackling the ‘is - ought’ fallacy and the confusion that is morality. In doing so I try to pick out the parts of morality that may be the cause of the confusion. From here, I find the best solution is to form several new terms based on varying levels of altruism, in the hope that we can shift the endemic social understanding of ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘rightness’ etc. away from ‘good’ and towards these new terms which havemore clarity. Armed with a clear definition of morality, I then address the mistakes that people commonly make when forming criticisms of utilitarianism. I cover: the ‘more or maximum’ fallacy ; the fallacy of resource allocation; the utility monster; pain’s necessity for pleasure; justice; impartiality; usefulness and intentions; and the issue of moral luck. In addressing moral luck, I also investigate how my new utilitarianism could provide a response against determinism. I hope I manage to provide wholly conclusive rebuttals which show how the new utilitarianism is immune to the classical criticisms. I then demonstrate how the new utilitarianism can address the plight of the position of animals in morality with an interpretation of utilitarianism inspired from Peter Singer. In addressing the subject of animals, we can also find a natural utilitarian solution to the issues of abortion and euthanasia. One concerning problem that arises from these developments is the idea of utility through illusion. However, one can question if this is really an issue at all. Finally, I address a criticism which may be leveled against my utilitarianism (and indeed all act-centered moral theories). This concerns false individualization and the taxonomy of actions.
SECTION ONE: A NEWMORALITY
Re-Defining Utility
Bentham assumed that happiness is what people desire as ‘ Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, ’ 1 but we now accept that there are many things humans desire that are not means to the end of happiness. So, we should define utility as happiness, but also as the desire for community and socializing, the desire for knowledge, 2 and the desire for experiences. Note that knowledge may often not bring happiness but from an evolutionary perspective it remains a human desire. 3 The desire for experiences is similar to the desire for 1 Bentham 1948: 1. 2 This is backed up by evidence that (some) knowledge (like pleasure) is rewarded by the chemical dopamine in our brains; see González-Burgos, Feria-Velasco 2008. 3 The curiosity (desire for knowledge) is why we watch youtube videos of teenagers mailing themselves to China, as much as they’re also entertaining.
87
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs