2023-02-23 14:40 Tags: # Utilitarianism Based in consequences. Agent neutral - any two people can look at an issue to come to the same agreement. So many events happen all the time, so unlikely things are going to happen. ## History Prior to enlightenment (17th and 18th century) all ethics were [virtue ethics](virtue%20ethics.md). Proto utilitarians said you should act in a way because God instructs you. Enlightenment - progressivism, more secular, hedonistic. ## Classical Utilitarianism (in a common sense referring to this) Jeremy Bentham - grandfather of utilitarianism. Looked at world seeing laws and social norms. Hedonist - all that drives humans is pleasure and pain. We should be trying to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Still under development. John Stewart Mill - fanboy of Bentham. How do you add up pleasure? There are different types which should be considered differently. Then it starts to stop making sense, because he says thinking is more pleasurable than sensual - asked a bunch of mates and they agree. ## Preference Utilitarianism Maximise achievement of individual desires. ## Negative Utilitarianism Minimise suffering. ## Welfare Utilitarianism Maximise human welfare. ## Dichotomies ### Objective Utilitarianism Judge moral value based on actual consequences ### Subjective Utilitarianism You should be judged on what you reasonably thought could happen. Self-defeating point that you have built an entire theory where you are accepting that humans don't have a chance of knowing the future but should still do it anyway. ### Act Utilitarianism Classical utilitarianism. ### Rule Utilitarianism Instead of making calculus every decision, we should follow rules that would generally lead to a maximisation of utility. Different to rule based ethics (in duty ethics)! These rules don't need to exist anywhere, but they can pass some sort of thought experiment where everyone did this thing. Where it comes from is different to [Deontology](Deontology.md) ## My personal thoughts and issues we identify Very difficult to predict actual consequences. Issues with money - we measure everything by money. But... would you take $1M for your pinky? Most likely! You don't know how people are going to value it. Increasing population is an issue because you are trying to keep increasing numbers of people happy - there is no end! Ignores the individual. [^1] --- # References [^1]: [Week 2 Seminar](../../../Spaces/University/ELEC4122/seminars/Week%202%20Seminar.md)