2306 PHIL Summer 2010
Instructor: Francesca Bruno
Khoa Phan
Read the "Debate over Utilitarianism" handout, available in the Unit 3 folder, and answer the
questions below. This assignment is worth 3 participation points.
1) What is the definition of Utilitarianism? Define each of the three components, as we discussed
in class (p. 100).
2) In this chapter, Rachels discusses a number of objections related to each part of the theory,
i.e., consequentialism, hedonism, and the equality principle (see pp. 101-108). Which one do you
find the most convincing? Explain.
3) What is the best response that a Utilitarian could offer in response to the objection? Explain.
(Rachels discusses different possible defenses a Utilitarian can offer on pp. 109-116).
1. Definition of Utilitarianism: it can be summarized in three propositions:
a. Consequentialism:
The RIGHT action is the one with the best consequences. (Actions are to
be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences; nothing else
matters The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, page 100)
b. Hedonism:
In assessing the consequences, the overall amount of happiness is all that
matters. (In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the
amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created; everything else is
irrelevant Rachels, 100)
c. An equality principle:
Every persons happiness counts the same. (Each persons happiness
counts the same Rachels, 100)
2. Most convincing objection
To me, the objection of equality principle is the most convincing. It sounds
plausible when it is stated abstractly, it has troublesome implications. (Rachels,
107). If we have to treat everyone equally, the first thing would happen is that we
have to give away what we have for someone else. For example, we must forgo a
tasteful meal in a restaurant and save the money for the children are who in need
of food. But it keeps going and we have to lower our standard of living until
everyone has the same condition. It is great if someone who can do it, but this
1
PHIL 2306 Summer 2010
Instructor: Francesca Bruno
Khoa Phan
type of action is not morally required. We might do it one or more times but we
cannot do it frequently like a very benevolent person. The second problem is that
we cannot treat everyone equally to the ones who have personal relationship with
us. We are all deeply partial where our family and friends are concerned, To
us, they are not just members of the great crowd of humanity-they are special
(Rachels, 108). How can you let your parents live in poor and donate money to
the charity? In practice, I do not think that anyone is willing to do it. The ones you
loves is always more important than the strangers. Both of the problems prove
that Utilitarianism seems to have lost all touch with reality (Rachels, 108).
3. Best response
In responding to the objection, a Utilitarian could offer the following statement:
Common sense is wrong. We should focus on all the consequences (Rachels,
114). An action has its bad effects and also good effects. Everyone usually notices
the bad effects but does not pay much attention to the good ones. If instead we
focus on all the effects of the act, Utilitarianism may seem more plausible
(Rachels, 114). Consider again the case that we have to forgo a delicious meal in
restaurant to feed the starving children. If we make a comparison about the good
and the bad effects, we might see that feeding the starving children would not
only help them to survive but also bring us the pleasance and serenity. The
deficiencies of moral common sense become obvious if we think for only a
moment (Rachels, 115). The common sense might be right at this time but wrong
in another time.
2