![]() If faced with the eternal suffering or nonexistence dilemma, a utilitarian would pick non-existence because eternal suffering cannot sustain any further happiness/benefit. Utilitarianism is also consequentialist in that it judges the good/bad based on outcome. Utilitarianism does make a presupposition: that happiness/benefit of the majority is the necessary outcome that gives moral status to an action. ![]() I understand that someone who is a hard core individualist might not see utilitarianism as compatible in that it requires humanity's wellbeing to be valued above the individual. In act, the ends can justify the means however this seems counter intuitive since we often look at the nature of the act as determining whether it is morally right or wrong. Why are these two often presented as incompatible. As a consequentialist theory of ethics, utilitarianism looks at the consequences as opposed to the nature of the action. However, this is not fair on these scapegoats 5. Act would also say permit the justice system even if a few wrongful convictions occur, since the justice system will lead to greater overall happiness. the scapegoat has not done anything wrong, does not deserve it. counter-intuitive since act utilitarianism allows a scapegoat and this goes against key principles of common sense morality such as justice, deserts, rights. Ignores preferences - Nozick's experience machine 4. tyranny of majority - could be seen to endorse intuitively bad acts if they benefit a large group 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |