CONTEMPORARY MORAL PRINCIPLES

Utilitarianism

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of
pleasure.

John Stuart Mill, What is Utilitarianism?

Brief Historical Prelude

Late 18th and 19th centuries: It became a very influential way of thinking about morality. It urged that morality
is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality, it claims, is nothing
more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in the world. (Rachels, The Elements of
Moral Philosophy, pp. 79-80)

Two Early Formulations:

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Quantity over Quality

By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever,
according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question; or what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. (The
Principle of Morals and Legislation)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) :Quality over Quantity

Utility must take account of the fact that some pleasures (e.g. pleasures of knowledge) are qualitatively
preferable to others (e.g. the pleasure of a full stomach). By introducing the quality of pleasures sought, over
and above quantity, Mill introduced a second factor: moral superiority

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the
question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

What is Utilitarianism?

General View: The criterion of ethical conduct is to produce as great a balance of good over bad as possible.
Happiness is the only intrinsic good, and unhappiness the only intrinsic bad. Each person's happiness is as
important as is anyone else's.

Utilitarianism in three stages:

(1) Principle of Utility: At the heart of utilitarianism is the Principle of Utility which asserts: The doctrine
that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of good over evil.

(2) Pleasure Principle: We must figure out what the good is. For utilitarians, the good is Pleasure. Thus,
utilitarianism asserts - The doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of pleasure over
pain.

(3) Maximization Principle: Utilitarianism also asks whose pleasure is to be maximized. The answer is the
greatest number of people. And so utilitarianism asserts - The doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the
greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Page 1
Critical Evaluation of Utilitarianism

1. Radicalness of the theory: Gone are all references to God or (at least originally) to abstract rules
"written in heaven." Instead the point of morality is seen as the happiness in this world.

Is utility (happiness, pleasure) the only thing that matters?:

Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things
appreciated only as means of bringing it about. Instead, happiness is a response we have to the attainment of
things that are recognized as goods, independently and in their own right.

Are Consequences all that matter?:

The most fundamental idea underlying the theory is that in order to determine whether an action would be right,
we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. The claim against utilitarianism is that more than
consequences are required to determine the morality of an action or decision.

John Rawls: Justice as Fairness

We are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles
which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Men are to decide in
advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of
their society. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system
of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to
count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation
of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the principles of
justice.

Original Position

In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory
of the social contract. This original position is not, of course, thought of as an actual historical state of affairs,
much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so
as to lead to a certain conception of justice.

Features of the Original Position

1. Specific Task: To reach a consensus on the principles to govern the basic structure of society.

2. They are conceived of as choosing behind a veil of ignorance

Veil of Ignorance

Behind the veil of ignorance, people are ignorant of two things: first, their own talents and abilities and their
place in society; second, their own conception of what gives value to life (their conception of good, which may
include religious and aesthetic ideals or even tastes and preferences.

Why? So people cannot tailor the principles of the just society to suit themselves. The veil of ignorance
implements the idea of impartiality which is an essential component of the justice as fairness.

Page 1
Two Principles of Justice

In the Original Position, people will come up with two principles to govern the basic structure of society:

FIRST PRINCIPLE: Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all.

(This principle generates specific rights and duties, such as those regarding speech, assembly, conscience, etc.)

SECOND PRINCIPLE: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a)
reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all. . . .

(This principle regulates the fair distribution of wealth and power.)

DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

The second principle is called the Difference Principle. It states that social and economic inequalities are
acceptable only in so far as they benefit the least advantaged.

DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

The best way of understanding this principle is as a radical alternative to the principle of equality of
opportunity. The proponents of equality of opportunity argue for a market society in which people who have the
same talents, and a similar willingness to use them, enjoy the same prospects of success. Rawls, however,
argues that it is not only wrong that our lot should be determined by our class or educational opportunities, it is
equally unjust that our position should be determined by our abilities and talents.

This is a better way of dealing with the unfair distribution of abilities: by allowing inequalities that benefit the
worst off. Rawls argues that unlike the inequalities we see around us, inequalities based on the difference
principle would not be felt by the less well-off as unmerited or degrading.

Page 1