iwtilitariaeth/utilitarianism - should you walk away? · pdf file04/04/2015 ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Iwtilitariaeth/UtilitarianismShould You Walk Away?
Dr. Clea F. Rees
Canolfan Addysg Gydol Oes Centre for Lifelong LearningPrifysgol Caerdydd Cardiff University
Yr Haf/Summer 2015
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Outline
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
Outline
Connections
Le Guin’s ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’
Is Omelas an Objection?
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Connections
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
ConnectionsThe Trolley Problem I
B
A
Destination??
5 innocent,trapped persons
1 innocent,trapped person
The Switch
You
Run Away Trolley?
?
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Connections
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
ConnectionsThe Trolley Problem II
Patient — Friendless & Unloved
?
Friends
Family
Images: Human organs (www.allvectors.com); Paul Wotton, illustration for Which?, 2013 (www.graphicnet.co.uk)
The Ones Who Walk Away from OmelasUrsula K. Le Guin
• Is it permissible to:• walk away?• stay?
• Would you walk away?• Should you walk away?
Image:Michelle Santoso, 2013 (santososs.blogspot.co.uk)
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Le Guin’s ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
The Ones Who Walk Away from OmelasUrsula K. Le Guin
Questions 1 & 2:
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Is Omelas an Objection?
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
Is Omelas an Objection?
On its own, Le Guin’s story is not an objection to utilitarianism.• An objection to a theory is an argument against that theory
and the story is not an argument.But, when combined with other premises, the story might providereasons to reject (act) utilitarianism.
• An argument against (act) utilitarianism might appeal toOmelas for support.
That is, Omelas might form part of an objection to (act)utilitarianism.
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Is Omelas an Objection?
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
Is Omelas an Objection?
We should reject (act) utilitarianism if one of the following is true:• Omelas is morally unacceptable as a society.
• Maximising happiness depends on the child’s sufferingbut the people are still collectively wrong to allow it.
• Walking away is morally required even if nobody will behappier.
• Staying in Omelas maximises happinessbut it is morally wrong.
• Walking away is morally permitted even if doing sodecreases happiness.
• Maximising happiness requires staying in Omelasbut walking away is not morally wrong.
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Is Omelas an Objection?
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
Example (An objection?)
1. According to act utilitarianism, an action is right iff itmaximises happiness.——
2. According to act utilitarianism, an action is wrong iff itproduces less happiness than another option. (1)
3. In Omelas, one has exactly two options: stay or walk away.4. Walking away will produce less happiness than staying.
——5. According to act utilitarianism, walking away is wrong. (2–4)6. It is not morally wrong to walk away.
——7. Act utilitarianism is mistaken. (5–6)
needs explanationneeds explanation
needs brief explanation or argumentneeds brief explanation or argument
needs lots ofargument
Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism
Is Omelas an Objection?
Virtue
Vice
Moral
Imm
oral
Ethical
Unethica
lPe
rmissi
bleImpermissible
Is Omelas an Objection?
Omelas will not give us reason to reject (act) utilitarianism if:• Omelas is morally acceptable for utilitarian reasons.
• Both it would be wrong to end the child’s sufferingand it would be wrong because allowing that sufferingmaximises happiness.
• Individual actions are moral iff they maximise utility.• Staying is morally required iff it maximises happiness.• Walking away is morally permissible iff it maximises happiness.• Staying is morally permissible iff it maximises happiness.• Walking away is morally required iff it maximises happiness.
That is, if act utilitarianism is correct, then (obviously) we will notfind (good) reasons to reject it.