1. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20151 Chapter Three: Dr. DeGeorge Utilitarianism: Justice and Love

2. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20152 Teleological Thought F The right is to promote the general good. That our actions and our rules, if we must have rules, are to be decided upon by determining which of them produces or may be expected to produce the greatest general balance of good over evil. F If you gotta have rules, choose the ones that should produce greater balance of good over evil.

3. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20153 Utilitarianism Standard F The sole ultimate standard of right, wrong, and obligation is the principle of utility: which says that the moral end to be sought in all we do is the greatest possible balance of good over evil. Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832, University College, London F Principle of Utility: Greatest balance of good over evil.

4. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20154 Good or evil = nonmoral good F T: This implies that whatever the good and the bad are, they are capable of being measured and balanced against each other in some quantitative or at least mathematical way. F Problem: just how does one do this?

5. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20155 Basic Theories of Obligation in Utilitarianism F Act-Utilitarianism: In General or at least where it is practical, one is to tell what is right or obligatory by appealing directly to the principle of utility. Or, by trying to see which of the actions open will or is likely to produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe. F T: No rules. Every act must be decided against the utilitarian principle.

6. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20156 Act-utility versus Act-deontic F Act Deontic: Offers no standard whatsoever for determining what is right or wrong in particular. It tells us that particular judgments are basic and any general rules are to be derived from them, not the other way around. the method is one of becoming clear about the facts and then forming a judgment by intuition or decision. F T: No rules or guiding principle.

7. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20157 Frankena’s Argument Against: F It is indeed difficult to maintain that it cannot under any circumstances be right to lie on act utilitarian grounds, e.g.. to save life, but it seems to me pretty clear that logically carried out, would result in far more cheating, lying, and unfair action than any good person would tolerate. F T: Probably won’t work toward the goal of ethical conduct.

8. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20158 General Utilitarianism: Universalizability F Does not ask questions about what would I do in this care, or even what rule should I follow, but rather, what would happen if everyone were to do so and so in such case. F The poor man cannot steal or everyone could steal. The voter does not vote, therefore no one vote.

9. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/20159 Argument against: F Perhaps the poor man or the voter could say that what would be wrong with everyone who is in the same situation doing the same thing. A Plausible Argument. F T: Why not? Isn’t is possible that there are good reasons why what one person does would be good for everyone.

10. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201510 Rule-Utilitarianism F The centrality of rules in morality insists that we are generally if not always to tell what to do in particular situations by appeal to a rule like that or truth telling, rather than by asking what particular action will have the best consequences in the situation in question. F T: Develop a set of rules, based on the general good theorem, and live by them.

11. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201511 General Utilitarianism... continued F This is very much like deontology, however, general utilitarianism states that we are always to determine our rules by asking which rules will promote the greatest general good for everyone. Hence, not which action has the greatest utility, but which rule has. F T: Develop rules that are useful, and make decisions from the rule for the greatest balance of good.

12. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201512 Summary of Utilitarianism F The Greatest Good by Particular Actions - AU F The Greatest Good by General Practices - GU F The Greatest Good by General Rules and Sets of Rules - RU

13. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201513 Utilitarianism in Practice: F List all the alternatives F List the criteria by which the alternates will be assessed. F Rank the criteria in order of priority and assign coefficients of relative importance F Assess each of the alternatives in terms of its ability to satisfy the criteria listed in step 2. F Select the Optimal alternative.

14. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201514 Greatest Strength of Utilitarianism F Liberality: emphasizes broad-minded and tolerant thinking and appeals to no authority in resolving differences of ipion. F Ability to Describe human decision making.

15. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201515 Greatest Weakness F Possibility of Injustice F Preference for Quantifiable Criteria - numbers instead of thoughtful ness F Preference for Manipulation - passion, more of the same

16. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201516 What is Frankena’s Answer F We cannot be satisfied with the principle of utility as our basic standard of right and wrong in morality, whether it is applied in AU, GU, or RU. We should recognize a principle of justice to guide our distribution of good and evil that is independent of any principle of maximizing the balance of good over evil in world. F T: It won’t work. We need some sense of fairness - justice to guide our lives.

17. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201517 Frankena’s Theory in Practice. F Suppose we have two acts: A and B. –A produces 99 units of good and no evil. –B has 200 units of good and 100 units of bad with a net result of 100 units of good. –The Utilitarian would chose B. F Frankena disagrees on principle of Beneficence - doing no evil.

18. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201518 Frankena’s Basic Premises F Beneficence F Principle of Just Distribution F Frankena’s Duty –Implies some rule “to tell the truth” or some role or office like that of a father or secretary. F Frankena’s Ought to Do –Used for a wider sense --go second mile. F Frankena's Obligation –Implies the law or some agreement or promise. The Ought to

19. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201519 Frankena’s Beneficence: F Ought to.... –One ought to not inflict evil or harm. –One ought to prevent evil or harm. –One ought to remove evil –One ought to do or promote good. –1 takes precedence over 2, 2 over 3, 3 over 4, if all things are equal. –By adding “to for” anyone, makes them universal. –By adding “to for” others makes it altruistic.

20. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201520 Resolving Conflicts... F To resolve any conflicts that might arise from any problems of choice, return to the utilitarian balance of good over evil. Not all of our prima facie obligations can be derived from the principle of beneficence any more than from that of utility. For the Principle of beneficence does not tell us how we are to distribute goods and evils, it only tells us to produce one and prevent the other.

21. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201521 Translation... F It won’t always work. Just as utilitarianism doesn’t always work. What to do? Return to concept of balance of good? Or, better develop a second principle to work with the first: The Principle of Just Distribution.

22. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201522 Principle of Justice: Equality F Frankena’s Principle is Distributive Justice of Good and Evil. It is a matter of comparative treatment of individuals. The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two similar individual in similar circumstances and one of them is treated better or worse than the others. MLK

23. PEP 570, DeGeorge, Chp. 3 10/28/201523 The Cry of Injustice F Rightly goes against the responsible agent or group: Unless that Agent or Group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances.