Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The second, and far more significant, criticism of utilitarianism is that the utilitar-
ian calculus is solely interested in the total amount of happiness produced. Suppose
one course of action results in every member of a society receiving 100 units of good,
while another course of action results in half the members of society receiving 201
units of good each, with the other half receiving nothing. According to the calculus
of utility, the second course of action is superior because the total amount of good
is higher. That doesn't seem right to many people.
A possible response to this criticism is that our goal should be to promote the
greatest good of the greatest number. In fact, that is how utilitarianism is often
described. A person subscribing to this philosophy might say that we ought to use
two principles to guide our conduct: (1) we should act so that the greatest amount
of good is produced, and (2) we should distribute the good as widely as possible.
The first of these principles is the principle of utility, but the second is a principle
of distributive justice. In other words, “act so as to promote the greatest good of
the greatest number” is not pure utilitarianism. The proposed philosophy is not
internally consistent, because there are times when the two principles conflict. In
order to be useful, the theory also needs a procedure to resolve conflicts between
the two principles. We'll talk more about the principle of distributive justice in the
next section.
The criticisms leveled at utilitarianism point out circumstances in which it seems
to produce the “wrong” answer to a moral problem. However, rule utilitarianism treats
all persons as equals and provides its adherents with the ability to give the reasons why
a particular action is right or wrong. Hence we consider it a third workable theory for
evaluating moral problems, joining Kantianism and act utilitarianism.
In the spring of 2003, a coalition of military forces led by the United States invaded
Iraq and removed the government of Saddam Hussein. When the police disappeared,
thousands of Baghdad residents looted government ministries [23]. Sidewalk arms mer-
chants did a thriving business selling AK-47 assault rifles to homeowners needing pro-
tection against thieves. Are Iraqis much different from residents of other countries, or
should we view the events in Baghdad as the typical response of people to a lack of gov-
ernmental authority and control?
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1603-1679) lived during the English civil war and saw
firsthand the terrible consequences of social anarchy. In his book
Leviathan
, he argues
that without rules and a means of enforcing them, people would not bother to create
anything of value, because nobody could be sure of keeping what they created. Instead,
people would be consumed with taking what they needed and defending themselves
against the attacks of others. They would live in “continuall feare, and danger of violent
death,” and their lives would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” [24].
