Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism to the approach taken by the author of the sweater essay.
My Answer/Response:
In comparing anything with Utilitarianism you must first state what Utilitarianism is. Using R.J. Snell’s lecture I will be evaluating the sweater essay and the elements of utility. Snell gave three points that give a good general idea of what Utilitarianism is.
-Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
The sweater is not an easy purchase to make for Tennant. She is obviously struggling with the purchase of the sweater. In some regards you could say that the only reason she is having any hesitation is because of the large price-tag that the sweater has with it. However, it becomes evident in the entirety of the article that she is conscious of her small purchases too. She mentions her consumption of cage free chickens and eggs as well as the consumption of fairly traded coffee. From the evidence presented in the article she is a well educated consumer. She can not simply say she will buy things based on a single rule she has concocted in her head. As a result she breaks it down into parts trying to weigh her options in some sort of “hedonic calculus” trying to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. As she goes through the different bonuses that could be found she checks it off as either beneficial or not. She is judging her actions based on the virtue of the consequences. At this point it would be easy to label her as a Utilitarian. However, the article finishes by stating that she did not in fact buy the sweater.
In the final paragraphs of the article we find Tennant struggling with the decision of whether or not to buy the sweater on a new level. She progressed from the Hedonic calculus of Utilitarianism to a more internal struggle of conceit. She recognized in her informed state that she was in danger of becoming conceited. This approach is not Utilitarian. If she had remained with her original assessment of the situation she would have been maximizing her pleasure. She could have had a fine time thinking about all of the benevolent results her purchase incurred. But the seeds of hesitancy were evident in the way she prolonged the virtue calculations. This hesitancy and deliberation is not a maximization of happiness and therefore cannot be viewed as a utilitarian method of approaching the issue.
Noticing the utility in certain situations is almost unavoidable. Most humans, particularly my American acquaintances, live life based on the utility of the situation. Though there was evidence of utilitarianistic tendencies in Tennant, it is safe to say that she is not in fact a Utilitarian.
Showing posts with label utilitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label utilitarianism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Jotting #12 Utilitarianism vs. Natural Law
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Be sure to include evidence from HARRIS and Dr. Snell.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jotting #11 - Utalitarianism
NOTE: Jotting#9 and 10 have been skipped on purpose. In case you are curious this is what they were on.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
- Jotting #9: Pick one of the questions at the end of The Hummer Case and give it an honest answer. (basically I ranted about the drawbacks of a Hummer)
- Jotting #10 What aspect of consumption would you like to focus on in your research paper? Use class readings and discussions and the Brain Teasers listed above to come up with a solid topic.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
