Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues

This is the book for the class: Waller, B. (2011). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (3rd ed.) New
York, NY: Pearson Longman.

This is the reading for this week: Ethics 200
Week 4 Study Notes
Utilitarians appeal to neither intuition nor abstract reason, but
believe that the starting point of ethics is what feels good.
Ethics becomes a matter of calculating how to produce the greatest
balance of pleasure over suffering. How do we calculate what is the
right thing to do?
For utilitarianism, we must measure the balance of pleasure over
pain that will be produced by a proposed act or policy. The exact
way to measure this may be complicated, but as much as possible,
we should evaluate actions by how much pleasure- and painproducing
properties they have.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results
This makes sense in some ways. It may feel good to not have to pay
for something, but the consequences/pain of getting caught and
spending time in jail are not enough to make stealing worthwhile.
Utilitarianism is known by two other terms that can help illuminate
the theory.
Sometimes utilitarianism is referred to as a consequentialist theory.
As the name implies, the doer of the action always has the
consequence of his or her actions in mind.
The ethical view that the right act is
the act that will produce the greatest
balance of pleasure over suffering
for everyone affected.
Utilitarianism is also a type of teleological ethics. “Teleology” is
from the Greek word “telos” which means “end.” So teleological
ethics is concerned with the end that is accomplished by the action.
Utilitarianism is known by two other terms that can Remember the
distinction between consequentialists and Kantians. Kant thought
that a person did not have to worry about the consequences of an
action for that action to be moral. Reason itself could find out what
was right by examining the categorical imperative, remembering to
never treat people as a means to something, but only as an end in
themselves.
Now the utilitarian comes along and tells us that consequences have
a profound influence on ethics. Even Aristotle thought that it is just
a fact that we strive for what makes us happy.
So Kantian ethics or deontological ethics (duty-based ethics) is
opposed to utilitarian ethics or teleological (consequence-based
ethics) ethics.
Remember the distinction between consequentialists and Kantians.
Kant thought that a person did not have to worry about the
consequences of an action for that action to be moral. Reason itself
Ethical theories that base ethics on
consequences and results, rather
than on rules or inherent goods or
rights.
© Hondros College Page 2 of 4
could find out what was right by examining the categorical
imperative, remembering to never treat people as a means to
something, but only as an end in themselves.
Utilitarianism, also called consequentialism, tries to maximize
pleasure and minimize suffering for everyone:
• What goes into the calculation?
• What is good (produces more pleasure, less pain) for me?
• What is good for others?
• Does our own pleasure or pain count more, less, or the same as
the pleasure or pain of others?
Many things go into a utilitarian calculation that make it a lot more
complicated than it first seems. For instance, a utilitarian does not
look at just immediate pleasure. A shot hurts, but it is an overall
good thing because it will minimize pain in the long run. So pain
and pleasure are measured in an overall way.
Many of us hate exercising and eating healthy. It is easier and
seemingly more pleasurable to save the time and not exercise and
enjoy the foods that we want. But the effects of these things are not
pleasurable. No one likes to be overweight and feel groggy all the
time. Because the overall benefits outweigh the temporary
discomfort, exercise can be considered a moral choice in utilitarian
ethics.
A second qualification that many utilitarian make is that the pain
and pleasure that result from my actions are not always just my
pleasure and pain, but the pain and pleasure of others, also.
It is not acceptable, therefore, to take advantage of another person if
it brings him or her pain. Yet at the same time, it is acceptable to do
something that would give him or her pain temporarily but would
help out in the long run.
So a doctor should not cut corners because she is tired, yet at the
same time she should perform a painful surgery if it helps the
patient out.
The qualifications just made can be seen in two types of
utilitarianism. The first type is act utilitarianism and the second
type is rule utilitarianism.
Act utilitarians claim that we must calculate what specific act
would produce the best overall consequences; for example, more
pleasure and less pain. The act is not evaluated on a morality
separate from pleasure and pain like Kant did. Whatever maximizes
pleasure and minimizes pain across the board for the most people is
what it means to be right.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results
The version of utilitarian ethics that
insists that all acts must be judged
purely on their likelihood of
maximizing pleasure and minimizing
suffering.
© Hondros College Page 3 of 4
Act utilitarians focus on one act at a time. If this particular act gives
the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain, then it is good.
Think back to Kant. An act utilitarian would have no problem
saying you should lie to the Gestapo to hide the Jewish people as
long as you could get away with it. Lying may be wrong in general
or in another situation, but in this particular case, lying provides
more benefits to more people than telling the truth would.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results
Rule utilitarians believe that they must take into account societal
practices and institutions in making ethical calculations. Some
things are better for the overall pleasure of society. If we all lied,
then no one would ever believe another person. Therefore, it is
better to tell the truth even if it may bring harm to us sometimes.
In this example, we can see that the societal practice of telling the
truth provides value to our society. Although lying might
sometimes bring us more personal pleasure than telling the truth,
we must factor in the value of our societal practice of telling the
truth when we calculate whether or not we are going to lie in a
specific instance.
Jeremy Bentham was the first proponent of modern utilitarianism.
He was more interested in political philosophy than ethics, but his
ideas would become very influential in the realm of ethics as well.
Bentham proposed what he called the “greatest happiness
principle,” or the “principle of utility.” This is simply the
recognition that pain and pleasure play a role in our decision
making, and that we often think pain implies evil and pleasure
implies good.
But Bentham did not think we were driven by some uninhibited
desire for pleasure for ourselves. Just read this quote from him and
notice the role of creating happiness for others.
“Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the
misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you—will
invite you to add something to the pleasure of others—or to
diminish something of their pains. And for every grain of enjoyment
you sow in the bosom of another, you shall find a harvest in your
own bosom—while every sorrow which you pluck out from the
thoughts and feelings of a fellow creature shall be replaced by
beautiful flowers of peace and joy in the sanctuary of your soul.”
Advice to a young girl, June 22, 1830
There is an important distinction to make within utilitarianism
regarding pleasure. Some think that there are degrees of pleasure
and others think that there is only pleasure. For instance, some think
that there are pleasures of a good life that are of a higher nature than
Judges practices in terms of their
likelihood to promote pleasure and
minimize suffering, but insists that
acts falling within the practices
follow the rules of those practices
that pass the utilitarian test.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results
© Hondros College Page 4 of 4
mere physical pleasures, and that the higher pleasures are the ones
we should take into account. Others, however, think that we cannot
distinguish between types of pleasure, and that all types of pleasure
should be taken into account for our decisions.
John Stuart Mill believed there were degrees of pleasures while
Bentham thought all pleasures were the same.
Think about the difference of these views. Mill might be willing to
give up a lot of small pleasures (sleep, food, leisure) for big
pleasures (education, honor); while Bentham thought there was
only pleasure.
Although utilitarianism is very convincing for many people, there
are some important criticisms to note. Many believe we do not
always act to maximize pleasure or minimize pain. Sometimes we
do not calculate pleasure and pain in our head before we act. Other
times, our choices seem to result in neither pain nor pleasure. One
can see Kant raising his head here. Have you ever told the truth
about something or someone and it seemed to hurt everyone, yet
still seemed the right thing to do?
Why is utilitarian ethics useful?
Is it only a justification for allowing injustice or suffering? Or for
causing suffering, as Peter Singer posits?
We may not think that pleasure is our primary goal, but we seek
pleasure all the time. Most utilitarian ethics are useful in the general
sense. They also help in evaluating some of the social policies we
have.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results
Doesn’t it seem that many government or social policies are made
simply to reduce pleasure and increase pain? Think of any
restriction that is sometimes put on a city. Water may be restricted
for the overall happiness of a city. It isn’t because there is
something inherently wrong about watering your plants or having a
swimming pool, especially if you can afford the water.
Nevertheless, it seems right to restrict the water for the overall
pleasure of everyone, making sure there is necessary water for all
These are the objectives for this week: Describe the utilitarian theory.
?Distinguish between reason and feelings and the balance of pleasure over pain.
?Analyze the consequences and practices involved with balancing pleasure over pain.
?Explain the qualities of pleasure.
?Explain the uses and criticisms of utilitarian theory

Writings from Mill and Bentham, two utilitarian philosophers, conflict when discussing the quality of pleasure. Are all pleasures equal or are some more sophisticated than others? Write a two-page paper answering this question: “Is it better to be wise and dissatisfied or to be a satisfied fool?”

The documents “Writing an Ethics Paper” and the “Turnitin Reference Guide” in the “Course Resources” folder on the course’s main page may be helpful. Papers should include a title page and reference page. Abstracts are not necessary.

Use at least two pieces of information from this week’s textbook reading(s) to support your argument. You have an option to supplement your paper with additional material if needed, which must be from scholarly sources (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles, books, etc.). Wikipedia is not a credible source. The paper should be a minimum of two full pages.