Utilitarianism
April 18th 2008 23:12
Utilitarianism is a principle that claims the morally correct action is the one that maximizes happiness. The principle on a micro level suffers from a number of problems, it is difficult to calculate how our individual actions effect overall happiness and making this calculation for every decision would be self defeating, utilitarian conclusions often conflict with our normal moral intuitions and acting in a utilitarian way is too demanding on the individual, there is not enough room for self inetrest.
However utilitarianism is a useful tool for governments. If we accept that the purpose of a government is to look after the welfare of citizens then surely maximizing this welfare is what the government should look to do.
Looking at the theory on a macro level immediately makes two of the flaws apparent on a minor level seem less threatening. The theory does leave little room for self interest however a self interested government is not something that should be desired. It may be difficult to calculate the effects of government policy has on overall utility however a government can look at who the policy advantages and who it disadvantages and make a decision about whether the policy is useful.
The third criticism of utilitarianism is that it often goes against our moral intuitions, leaving aside the idea that it may simply be that our moral intuitions are wrong, we can argue using marginal utility theory that this is unlikely to be the case on the macro level. Marginal utility theory states that it takes less to increase the happiness (welfare) of those who are badly off than it does to increase the happiness of those who are already well off. This seems to be intuitively correct, 100 means more to a poor man than to a rich man. If we take this into account then we can envisage utilitarianism as a possible justification for redistribution of wealth and other similar policies. Utilitarianism viewed in this way can not lead to a society of super rich and super poor which is considered morally acceptable because the overall happiness is positive, redistributing some of the wealth of the rich to the poor would increase this overall happiness and so is the morally right actions.
However utilitarianism is a useful tool for governments. If we accept that the purpose of a government is to look after the welfare of citizens then surely maximizing this welfare is what the government should look to do.
Looking at the theory on a macro level immediately makes two of the flaws apparent on a minor level seem less threatening. The theory does leave little room for self interest however a self interested government is not something that should be desired. It may be difficult to calculate the effects of government policy has on overall utility however a government can look at who the policy advantages and who it disadvantages and make a decision about whether the policy is useful.
The third criticism of utilitarianism is that it often goes against our moral intuitions, leaving aside the idea that it may simply be that our moral intuitions are wrong, we can argue using marginal utility theory that this is unlikely to be the case on the macro level. Marginal utility theory states that it takes less to increase the happiness (welfare) of those who are badly off than it does to increase the happiness of those who are already well off. This seems to be intuitively correct, 100 means more to a poor man than to a rich man. If we take this into account then we can envisage utilitarianism as a possible justification for redistribution of wealth and other similar policies. Utilitarianism viewed in this way can not lead to a society of super rich and super poor which is considered morally acceptable because the overall happiness is positive, redistributing some of the wealth of the rich to the poor would increase this overall happiness and so is the morally right actions.
| 45 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
