Utilitarianism

Meg Robinson
Mind Map by , created over 6 years ago

(Ethics) Mind Map on Utilitarianism, created by Meg Robinson on 04/30/2013.

182
1
0
Tags
Meg Robinson
Created by Meg Robinson over 6 years ago
Carbohydrates
Jubby
A2 Ethics - Virtue Ethics
Heloise Tudor
English Language Revision
saradevine97
Relationships in Streetcar
Alanna Pearson
1PR101 1.test - 10. část
Nikola Truong
Utilitarianism
Alexa Smith
UTILITARIANISM - "The greatest happiness for the greatest number"
j.donaldson97
Utilitarianism
caryscallan
Camera Angles
saradevine97
situation ethics
96arthur.g
Utilitarianism
1 Act- Bentham
1.1 Principle of utilty
1.1.1 Usefulness of the outcome of an action
1.1.2 the greatest good for the greatest number
1.2 An act is moral if it causes pleasure and reduces pain
1.3 'nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain'
1.4 Hedonic Calculus
1.4.1 Intensity
1.4.2 Duration
1.4.3 Certainty
1.4.4 Propinquity
1.4.4.1 how near/immediate it will be
1.4.5 Fecundity
1.4.5.1 how continous it is/will it cause pain or pleasure in the future
1.4.6 Purity
1.4.6.1 if it's mixed with pain
1.4.7 Extent
1.5 Bentham
1.5.1 child prodigy
1.5.2 concerned with social reforms
1.6 about benefitting the majority
1.7 Humans are motivated by an increase in pleasure
1.8 Published in the principles of moral legislation
2 Rule-Stuart-Mill
2.1 Placed importance on happiness not pleasure
2.2 Followed Bentham but disagreed with some ideas
2.2.1 Act utilitarianism could allow immoral acts
2.2.2 Act utilitarianism ignore minority rights
2.3 Qualiaitive
2.3.1 Higher and lower pleasures
2.3.2 intellectual/cultural/spiritual pleasures vs. physical pleasures
2.3.3 'Better to be a human being disatisfied than a pig satisied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
2.4 Greatest happiness for the greatest number
2.5 Secondary Principles
2.5.1 we shouldn't evaluate each action but develop rules which make the greatest number happy
2.5.2 prevents immoral acts being allowed
2.5.3 Protects individual rights
2.5.4 If followed universally would produce the greatest happiness
2.6 Universability
2.6.1 Everyone should aim for the happiness for everyone else
2.6.2 We should protect the common good
2.7 Strong/ weak
2.7.1 Strong utilitarians- should always follow rules
2.7.2 Weak utilitarians- it's okay to break them sometimes
3 Preference
3.1 A good action is one which is in the best interests of most
3.2 Hare
3.2.1 'equal preferences count equally'
3.2.2 everyone should be treated with impartiality
3.2.3 we should 'stand in someone else's shoes'
3.3 Singer
3.3.1 It's preference not human life which should be valued
3.3.2 our own preferences should have the same weight as those of others
3.3.3 animals also experience pain- should be given the same consideration as humans
3.4 Brandt
3.4.1 Morality should be objective- not based on feelings
3.4.2 Talks about the preferences one would have if you went through cognitive psychotherapy: explored the reasons for preferences
4 Basic principles
4.1 teleological
4.1.1 actions are right or wrong dependant on the consequences
4.2 Based on hedonism
4.2.1 Pleasure is good
4.3 Based on ideas of eudaimonia-living well
4.4 Consequentialist
5 Evaluation
5.1 Preference
5.1.1 Strengths
5.1.1.1 Takes cultural diversity into account
5.1.1.2 Doing something in someone's best interests can be better than that which makes them happy
5.1.1.3 Doesn't seek authority from a higher power- rooted in humanity
5.1.1.4 Gives animals rights
5.1.2 Weaknesses
5.1.2.1 has the potential to justify any action
5.1.2.2 Impractical to suggest we can work out what's best for us in the long term
5.1.2.3 We don't always know what others' preferences are
5.1.2.4 Requires you to predict consequences
5.2 Rule
5.2.1 Strengths
5.2.1.1 Promotes happiness
5.2.1.2 Tries to take the minority into account as well
5.2.1.3 About benefitting people
5.2.1.4 Don't need to use the hedonic calculus
5.2.1.5 Doesn't allow immoral acts
5.2.1.6 More intellectual
5.2.1.7 Doesn't seek authority from a higher power:rooted in humanity
5.2.2 Weaknesses
5.2.2.1 Ignores importance of duty
5.2.2.2 can't predict consequences
5.2.2.3 Deontological
5.2.2.4 Higher/lower pleasure
5.2.2.4.1 Who can decide which pleasures are worth more
5.2.2.4.2 why are intellectual pleasures worth more?
5.2.2.4.3 shouldn't physical pleasures be more important
5.2.2.4.4 Elitist
5.2.2.5 How much lower pleasure is equal to higher pleasure
5.3 Act
5.3.1 Strengths
5.3.1.1 About happiness
5.3.1.2 Makes you consider consequences
5.3.1.3 Easy principle to understand
5.3.1.4 Realistic-understands not everyone can be happy
5.3.1.5 Can be applied to all situations
5.3.1.6 Can be used by all cultures and religions
5.3.1.7 Not selfish- about what benefits the majority
5.3.1.8 Natural- we naturally do what will cause happiness
5.3.1.9 Not reliant on a deity /divine knowledge
5.3.2 Weaknesses
5.3.2.1 An evil majority could prevail e.g. allow immoral acts
5.3.2.2 No concept of duty
5.3.2.3 Difficult to predict consequences
5.3.2.4 Doesn't consider intentions
5.3.2.5 Doesn't consider individuals
5.3.2.6 what about pain which is good for us?
5.3.2.7 Difficult to use the hedonic calculus
5.3.2.8 Use of the hedonic calculus is subjective
5.3.2.8.1 Easy to make a decision and twist the hedonic calculus to fit this decision

Media attachments