Bentham, Utalitarianism & Rights
greatest-happiness-principle
calculus
[THE GOOD AS PRIOR TO THE RIGHT]
utility: good, happiness, pleasure, the abscence of their opposites…
- pain and pleasure determine all conceptions of good and bad
- if it brings pain → bad; if it brings pleasure → good
- for utilitarians people are no more than pain-pleasure receptors
- pleasure - pain = how good it is…
- a community is just a bunch of people, the good of the community is that which brings more pleasure, overall
- utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism: all about the consequences of our actions (pleasure or pain?)
- law is only deterrent, made just by reference to a general goodness
Act Utalitarianism:
All about the acts, yada yada, what we’ve seen so far
Rule Utalitarianism:
Too much calculation, so just make sure you have rules that overall will bring us more pleasure and less pain. Also what about bad calculations?
- for Bentham utilitarianism is a way to approach politics by removing any subjective moral judgements, engaging purely with people’s immediate emotions, etc.
PROBLEMS WITH THIS BULLSHIT:
- undermines moral complexity and pluralism & moral boundaries
- certain pleasures are of a greater quality (Bentham didn’t think so, it’s just hyper-simplified pleasure for him).
- John Stuart Mill: we all prefer intellectual pleasures, bro, they ain’t equal, bro
- utilitarianism can easily justify a shitload of unjust acts
- rule utilitarianism would not allow the mass slaughtering of euthanized babies, because this would generally be bad
- can lead to persecution of some minority
- in mixing all interests the individuality of people is easily forgotten, as well as the social group dynamics
- 1% may be sacrificed for 99%, etc.
- Rights Theorists: utilitarianism has no conception of human rights
RIGHTS AS BOUNDARIES:
[THE RIGHT AS PRIOR TO THE GOOD]
- rights as overpowering properties that go over the general will for certain, or, all people
- different people have different spheres of rights, etc.
- creating moral boundaries, high focus on individual persons
- Mills: individuals pursuing their own interests regardless of governments or other individuals
- Nozisck: rights are constraints on actions
- non-consequentialist, deontological
- my right for X imposes an obligation on others to either perform or not prevent X (my right to life, to not kill me…)
- rights: that which allows for our individual flourishing, etc.
PROBLEMS WITH RIGHTS:
- sometimes difficult to explain why any one person should be singled out for special treatement
- Bentham: law is the only creator of rights, there are no natural rights
- Bentham: rights should be abolished and put up based on utility for him, there’s nothing inherent about them