Philosophy 230
Some Anwers to Study Questions:  Rachels Chpts. 7 and 8 (Utilitarianism)


1.  The one thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure or happiness--not just one's own
    happiness but everyone's.  Out of this we get an account of morally right action as follows:
    An action is right just in case it maximizes overall, long-run happiness compared with
    alternatives.  In other words, in any situation a person will have a variety of alternative
    actions that she could perform.  This theory says that what she morally ought to do
    is whatever will best promote overall, long-run happiness.

2.  I think the strongest objection to utilitarianism is that it seems to be incompatible with
    justice in certain cases.  In other words, the theory seems to tell us that, in certain situations,
    a fundamentally unjust act is the morally right one to perform--because that act best
    promotes overall happiness.  It is true that examples of such situations are usually unrealistic,
    such as the example Rachels discusses in which a person can avert a race riot by framing
    an innocent person for murder.  In "real life" it would be very unusual for a person to find
    herself in a situation in which she knew that she could save dozens of people's lives by
    framing an innocent person.  (Instead she might have some reason to believe that she
    could do so, without being certain.)  Still, such cases are imaginable, and it is likely
    that they sometimes occur.  It is troubling that utilitarianism seems to tell us that such
    an unjust act would be the right act to perform.

    I don't know if utilitarians have an adequate response to this objection, but here is one
    response that is worth further consideration:  Most of us have a strong moral intuition that it
    is wrong to frame an innocent person for murder--no matter the consequences.  It is this
    intuition that seems to conflict with utilitarianism.  But how sure can we be that this intuition
    is correct?  Of course, framing an innocent person for murder is a horrible thing for that
    unfortunate person, but what if the alternative really were the death of dozens of innocent
    people in a riot?  Isn't the death of those dozens of people also horrible--in fact more horrible
    because there are dozens of them and not just one? 
   
    So one response for a utilitarian to make is to question the intuition we have that seems
    to conflict with the theory.  Perhaps it is wrong to frame an innocent person for murder,
    except in those (rare!) circumstances in which doing so will avert an even greater disaster.