Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarianism | Newen Vs Utilitarianism | New I 144 Def Classic Utilitarianism/Newen: Thesis: it is about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Logical form: the main institutions of society should be such that they produce the greatest amount of happiness for all the members. Two conditions: 1) Substitution Principle: the satisfaction of the interests of one individual can be replaced by those of another individual. 2) Principle of Equivalence: dispenses with the difference between action and omission. I 145 Utilitarianism is a rational theory. Benefit/Calculation/Newen: Suppose the benefit for each person could be quantified. Then a benefit value: Ni can be specified for each individual i = 1,2, ... n ( "luck factor"). General Benefit/Common Good: W: sum of the benefit of all individuals: W = N1 + N2 + ... + Nn. VsUtilitarianism: it is not possible to specify what constitutes the happiness of a person. UtilitarianismVsVs: Modification: preference utilitarianism. Def Preference Utilitarianism/Newen: the "happiness" of the individual is no longer assessed, but their preferences are taken into account. I 146 VsUtilitarianism/VsPreference Utilitarianism/Newen: both ignore the intuition that a society in which all are doing approximately equally well is more just than one in which some are doing much worse. E.g. a society is be considered as fairer if a person is put 5 points up while at the same time two people are put 2 points down. E.g. W1 (29) = N1 (7) + N2 (7) + N3 (15) mean benefit 29: 3 = 9.66 W2 (30) = N1 (5) + N2 (5) + N3 (20) mean benefit 30: 3 = 10 W3 (31) = N1 (4) + N2 (4) + N3 (19) + N4(4) mean benefit 31: 3 = 7.75 population growth Utilitarianism: for him, the overall benefit would be increased, i.e. W2 more just than W1. Vs: intuitively, this world is not more just for us, because more people are worse off. (Rawls ditto). UtilitarismVsVs: further modification: instead of overall benefit: mean benefit. I 147 RawlsVsUtilitarianism: makes an unrestricted population growth desirable, because this would achieve an increase of overall benefit without anyone having to be better off. Even new people at the lowest level increase the overall benefit (see above, W4). Mean Benefit/VsMean Benefit/Newen: does not help to explain why W1 is more just than W2, because the mean benefit is increased in W2. Problem: also the mean benefit is ultimately independent of the individual distribution of benefit to the people. I 148 VsUtilitarianism/Newen: E.g. according to utilitarianism, it would be necessary for a healthy person to donate their heart and liver in order to save the lives of two patients and thus to shift the benefit from one person to two. UtilitarianismVsVs: Solution: rule utilitarianism (see below) Def Action Utilitarianism/Newen: every single action must be assessed according to its consequences. Def Rule Utilitarianism/Newen: this is about types of actions, the rule utilitarianism may judge a rule morally superior, because it usually has positive consequences, although there are exceptions. I 149 RawlsVsUtilitarianism/Utilitarianism/Newen: utilitarianism binds morality to a moral-independent criterion. Happiness/Rawls: it is completely open what someone defines as happiness. I.e. it is also counted if it makes somebody happy e.g. to discriminate against others. Rawls: but discrimination is wrong in itself. It violates a principle, to which we ourselves would agree in its original state. (Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, ThdG, p. 49). |
New II Albert Newen Analytische Philosophie zur Einführung Hamburg 2005 Newen I Albert Newen Markus Schrenk Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie Darmstadt 2008 |
| |||