Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
talk about are not spontaneous, unscrutinised, emotional responses.
10
So,
intuitionists do not take spontaneous beliefs at face value. While a moral
theory should retain a critical potential to unmask and correct prejudices
and false judgements, even if they are persistent and broadly shared, it
seems also hard to completely neglect intuitive judgements about what is
right and wrong in the evaluation of a moral theory. If counter-intuitive
implications are not considered beforehand either as knockdown argu-
ments against a moral theory, or completely irrelevant, what can be an
appropriate reaction to appeals to counter-intuitive implications? Those
who accept a certain theory that has a counter-intuitive implication can
bring forward reasons for accepting the theory in spite of its counter-
intuitive implications. Maybe the theory is built on some highly attrac-
tive basis that one is not prepared to give up. Maybe it can be shown that
rival theories fare even worse in terms of intuitive appeal. Alternatively,
one can attempt to discredit the intuition and argue that it has to be
abandoned as morally irrelevant or prejudiced after further reflection.
Traditionally, the fiercest opponents to the idea that counter-intuitive
implications are morally relevant can be found among utilitarians.
Utilitarianism has a history of being used to challenge what counts as
accepted wisdom. Utilitarianism has been brought forward against broadly
accepted ideas and religious prescriptions that certain sorts of actions are
plainly wrong or that some sentient beings count for less than others. As
we have seen, according to utilitarianism, no class of action is wrong as
such; it always depends on the consequences. Furthermore, each counts
for one, and no one for more than one. Utilitarians have always defended
positions that 'challenge prevailing orthodoxy'.
11
Utilitarians have always
criticized many broadly shared beliefs as untenable prejudices that ought
to be abandoned. Utilitarians have defended moral requirements and
implications that indeed many people have found repugnant.
The founding father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832), and its famous scholar John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) were influ-
ential social reformers. Bentham was a political radical. He defended
the separation of church and state, equal rights for women, the right
to divorce, and the decriminalisation of homosexual acts. He opposed
slavery, and he spelled out the basis of a utilitarian view on animal
rights. Mill argued for women's rights, such as suffrage. Mill was aware
that he attacked 'an almost universal opinion' at his time.
12
More recently, utilitarians have become infamous for their denial
of the moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, the
claim that we ought to give significant amounts of our possessions to
needy strangers, and the argument that the alleviation of a big enough
number of headaches can justify the killing of an innocent person.
13
Search WWH ::
Custom Search