Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
focal points. There are direct utilitarian theories, which accept only
one evaluative focal point, for instance acts. There are also theories
that accept several direct evaluative focal points.
Indirect utilitarianism
applies the theory of the right (e.g. 'maximize
welfare') only to one central evaluative focal point. Other evaluative
focal points are evaluated only indirectly in terms of their relation
to the central one. Rule utilitarianism is an example of an indirect
utilitarian theory. Rules are evaluated directly in terms of the goal of
maximizing welfare. ('Choose the rule that maximizes welfare.') Acts
are judged right whenever they conform to the right rules.
It is possible for utilitarians to include character as an evaluative focal
point (among other evaluative focal points), either directly or indirectly.
'Character' has been defined as 'the complex of mental and ethical traits
marking a person'.
34
'Character', therefore, can be understood as 'the
set of qualities that make somebody distinctive, especially somebody's
qualities of mind and feeling'.
35
Such an understanding of 'character' is
implied in a claim such as: 'It is not my character to behave that way'.
36
Thus, character is linked to behaviour, in particular also to moral behav-
iour. 'Disposition' is a synonym for character, meaning 'an inclination or
tendency to act in a particular way'.
37
Character is considered as some-
thing rather constant and predictable, but also improvable. Aristotle
has famously claimed that moral instruction should aim at inculcating
good character.
38
Contemporary thinkers have followed up on that idea,
notably Bennett, who claims: 'The central task of education is virtue'.
39
On the other hand, critics have claimed that character does not really
exist; instead, people's actions are typically influenced by other, more
contingent factors.
40
If character were accepted as a direct evaluative focal point, then
utilitarianism would ask people to develop a kind of character that is
most likely to maximise welfare. One may wonder whether and to what
extent it is possible to influence one's character, or that of others, as may
be intended in moral education. What kind of character would gener-
ally help to maximise welfare? Would this be a character that is insen-
sitive to the needs and suffering of others? Would this be a character
that sanctions the use of others as mere means for one's own satisfac-
tion? This is ultimately an empirical question. Yet I am confident that
such a quality of mind and feeling and such an inclination to act would
generally not maximise welfare. Therefore, the intention of the couple
to conceive and keep alive the wretched child can be condemned on
utilitarian grounds as a sign of bad character. This can be done directly,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search