mk = mn + facts (you already know these facts are "soft," we've explained this)
from what we've learned, it all boils down to the difference between mn and mk,
let's see how this works for the following ethical positions. we use AIR for (an action is right):
1- ethical egoism:
AIR if it maximizes one's (my) BEST interests.
there are 3 modalities: a- individual, b- personal and c- universal
in a- it's "my" interests, b- someone's interests, c- the rule applies to everybody (everyone should act in this manner).
defenders: Max Stirner,
Nietzsche,
Ayn Rand,
Sidgwick, etc.
ethical egoists believe in
mn, but these values are subject-centered.
with BEST interest, the ethical egoist has a check to unregulated self-destructive interests. she should seek interests that ensure her prospering in the world. guess what? she has learned by moral natural selection that the best way to succeed in the world is to be a bit altruistic (that's benevolence, doing good). she also understands that this world is rule by a tit-for-tat social dynamics. free riders don't succeed in the long run.
the altruistic counter to ethical egoism? an ethical egoist is not altruist for its own sake, but enough that she fosters some altruism. which altruist is such that she doesn't care to reap what she sows? some people have presented the counter that the ethical egoist treats people as a means to an end. and this is true. later when we study
kant's deontology this may become an opening.
our textbook presents an interesting counter on
page 344. the ethical egoist is walking through the woods and finds his rival bleeding and in need of help and she lets him die (she is maximizing her best interest). it seems a good counter since ethical egoism doesn't have a check against that. one could retort that even an altruist may do that, after all humans may know what's their duty and yet, fail to act on it.
it's called AKRASIA (the weakness of the will).
2- psychological hedonism:
we are all egoists by default.
ethical hedonist's lemma: it would be impossible to cite an action that isn't done to maximize internal good.
this argument is very popular, but the problem is that it's too general. enough to come up with actions that one has done for the sake of one's duty. yes, ethical egoists have duties (filial duties, some social duties)
3- utilitarianism:
AIR if it maximizes happiness everyone considered (the greatest majority of people) in construction....
Utilitarians are all
consequentialists: AIR because of the consequences of the actions.
(we think consequentialism begins in
China with Mozi, who promoted a philosophy of impartial caring. Only the Chinese could do that).
Utilitarianism is a 100% British moral theory. A social theory, see the thrust of the theory goes for the greatest majority of people (a side note: Karl Marx loved England's political climate because of utilitarianism). Utilitarianism's main advocate in the 19th century is J. Stuart Mill. In the 20th century we have
Richard M. Hare and a great advocate for animal rights:
professor Peter Singer.
It's clear that utilitarianism wins over egoism as a social theory. Here we have to go to the explicit terms of the theory. One favors the individual, the other favors the group. If you vote for politicians A & B and you know A is an egoist and B an utilitarian, you'd be smart enough to vote for B --unless A a member of your family.
Problems with the calculation of happiness
What is happiness? A kind of Greek
eudaimonia. Mill has a good point that happiness cannot only be defined in quantity but also in quality. Ex: what gives more happiness, to watch a bad series on TV or a good film? To spend two hours watching porno or to have a nice conversation with your girlfriend? (by the way I confess that my younger self was on the lesser side here, so I speak with propriety). How do you calculate happiness?
Then there are five counters from page 351 to 355 pointing to problems utilitarianism faces with rights, duties and justic (please, revise these).
4- rule utilitarian:
AIR if it falls under a rule, which if followed would mzaximizes happiness everyone considered (this is same as above, but checked by local rules first).
RU needs now to defeat all the counters against TU. Ca it do that? The RU takes it case by case and imposes a rule. If the rule works, then the rule applies. Rules like "Never cheat," "Never steal," "Never lie," work but only accompanied by the subsequent "if it maximized happiness for the majority." The RU claims that she can face these counters to TU better.
McCloskey's informant: "Do not bear false witness" declares the action of apprehending an innocent negro wrong. The RU could argue that apprehending an innocent person doesn't solve the problem, only makes it worse. In Brand't utilitarian heir the RU applies "Never kill innocent people." Killing your own father is parricide and makes the TU's calculation bogus. In Ross unhappy promise, the rule is "Keep your promises," and so on.
On the other hand, the RU cannot undercut its own utilitarian bent. The definition still sates: "Keep your promises, unless it maximizes happiness," so when should one break the rule? Well,
a rule that would allow you to kill somebody whenever doing so would produce more happiness than unhappiness is not permitted. But a rule that allowed you to kill somebody whenever it would produce a great deal more happiness than unhappiness probably would be morally correct.
