This paper will object to Sidgwick’s axiom that from the point of view of the universe, the good of one is no more important than the good of another on the ground that it is analytic. I present the purpose and content of the axiom with a further explanation of what I take ‘the point of view of the universe’ to mean. I then consider the response of the Egoist to the axiom and Sidgwick’s counter-response to illustrate the tautology of the argument. The tautology of the argument brings it in line with other axioms that Sidgwick rejects as insignificant. Thus, I argue that the third axiom fails to meet Sidgwick’s own standards, making its utility and significance questionable. In response to this, I consider that the axiom may be analytic but in a nontrivial way and thus still valuable. However, given that the axiom is still easily refuted by the Egoist I ultimately conclude that it fails to be significant in a meaningful way.
During his examination of Common Sense Morality, Sidgwick puts forth a series of propositions he believes pass his tests for achieving the highest possible certainty. Additionally, these axioms provide the bases of his argument for the adoption of Utilitarianism. Arguably the most important of these axioms is the third, which holds that “the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view... of the Universe, than the good of any other; unless, that is, there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to be realised in the one case than in the other.” What Sidgwick meant by the “point of view of the universe” is not explained in the methods, though in a later paper he suggests that it is “what all rational beings, as such, ought to aim at realizing.” By this, I tak...
... middle of paper ...
...nt of view of the universe, its utility and significance is limited to those who would likely not have originally objected to it. Thus, I do not think that the axiom represents a “self-evident moral principle of real significance” , as Sidgwick intended, unless one is already inclined to accept the axiom, as, say, a Utilitarian likely would.
Works Cited
Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1981), p. 379
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 382
Class lecture, Feb. 25, 2010
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 382
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 382
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 420
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 374
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 375
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 379
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 379
Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 379
Abbate, Cheryl. "Utilitarianism." Philosophy 2310. Marquette University. David A Straz Jr. Hall , Milwaukee, Wi. 03 March 2014. Class lecture/PowerPoint
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
Many people agree on the fact that society needs to act with a sense of morality. However, there are differing opinions on how to go about this. One popular idea is that a person should always consider the greater good of society in order to be moral. This moral principle is known as utilitarianism. The end result of this theory is happiness for all, which appeals to many people, since happiness is typically a goal everyone can agree to strive towards. The following examines the approach of utilitarianism from the perspective of John Stuart Mils, as well as looks its strengths and weakness’s through a thought argument, to demonstrate how this is played out in society.
“This is a tough-minded world we’ve got going here, George. A realistic one. But as I said, life can’t be safe. This society is tough-minded, and getting tougher yearly; the future will justify it. We need health. We simply have no room for the incurables, the gene-damaged who degrade the species; we have no time for wasted, useless suffering” (Le Guin 122). Le Guin illuminates the ambition of utilitarianism to reduce suffering for the greatest number of people. The quotation illustrates the harshness of utilitarianism to exclude those who do not conform to society in order to achieve the greatest amount of human pleasure in favor of the majority. The psychiatrist Dr. Haber aspires
The views which are put forward in this treatise derive from the doctrines of Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
These are the means that are useful to everyone for achieving and developing their plan of life (Angier, 2015: slide 14), e.g. money and self-respect. And thus, with choices being behind the veil of ignorance in the original position, will allow us to maximise the share of these primary goods in an equal manner (Leif, 2013).
...terests of all who could be affected by the course our actions. Obviously, as human beings we can never consider all possible choices, calculate and compare consequences quantitatively, and be without bias. Your obligation is to do the best you can, while considering as many choices as possible. One could argue that, amidst the capitalist climate of our current world, utilitarianism calls upon us to look beyond the self for the greater good. Wouldn't it be admirable if all governments could follow this maxim? To conclude on the same point at Mills, “Whether it is so or not, must now be left to the consideration of the thoughtful reader”.
It looks as though, even in this deliberately simplified case, means-end reasoning, combined with some knowledge of the world, is enough to tell us something about what he ought to do. This is not, to be sure, a moral ‘ought,’ but we seem to have generated a normative conclusion, an ought-judgment of a modest sort, without appealing to any mysterious non-natural properties ...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory of Jeremy Bentham. It defines that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest amount of pleasure at the end. According to Bentham’s official argument, we are morally required to perform actions that brings the most pleasure as consequences. Conversely, considering Bentham’s real case for Utilitarianism, many objections and alternatives could be raised facing the theory. In this paper, I would explain Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism, provide a counterexample, and also discuss an alternative of the theory.
The utilitarianism theory holds that an action is moral if it produces the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people that are affected by the consequences of the action DeGeorge 44). Jeremy Bentham believed that one should measure the intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, or purity and their opposites when evaluating for each person that is affected (DeGeorge 46). For example, a consequence that gives a more desirable quality like pleasure would be favored, just like if one would receive a good immediately rather than at a later time, the sooner would be favored. To know whether the action produces the absolute greatest good, one must compare it with alternative actions as well. To determine whether an action is moral or not, one should calculate the action and its opposite. An action is moral if it produces more good than harm and its opposite produces more harm than good. Utilitarianism should also be interpreted as requiring one to choose the best action among good actions. For example, if two actions produce the same amount of good, then they are both moral and either may be done (DeGeorge 47).
I criticize Laudan's constraints on cognitive aims as presented in Science and Values. These constraints are axiological consistency and non-utopianism. I argue that (i) Laudan's prescription for non utopian aims is too restrictive because it excludes ideals and characterizes as irrational or non-rational numerous human contingencies. (ii) We aim to ideals because there is no cogent way to specify in advance what degree of deviation from an ideal is acceptable. Thus, one cannot dispense with ideals. (iii) Laudan does not distinguish difficult from impossible goals, making his injunction against utopianism imprecise. It is "semantically utopian" and, furthermore, a prescription for conservatism and mediocrity. (iv) Goals often contradict each other or are at least partially incompatible. Since Laudan does not say how to prioritize incompatible aims, axiological consistency is an utopian desideratum. Thus, his constraints on cognitive aims contradict one another. Finally, (v), Laudan's axiological constraints are too weak and in order to strengthen them, he must invoke without justification some implicit pre-philosophical cognitive aims. This opens the logical possibility of axiological relativism, which Laudan attempted from the beginning to avoid.
Concerning the Principles of Morals." ; 1983 Hackett Publishing Co.
Furrow, Dwight. Ethics- Key Concepts In Philosophy. New York, NY: Continuum, 2005. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.