Mutatis Mutandis I - En nödvändig revidering av utilitarismen
(2020) FPRK01 20202Practical Philosophy
- Abstract
- Making choices can be hard, even more so if they are of a moral nature. Since the initial phrasing, utilitarianism has claimed that the morally correct choice is that which maximises utility. This phrasing might seem unproblematic for some. However, I have found there to be a certain problem with such a phrasing. This problem is mainly with “hard cases”, i.e., cases
where the utilitarian cannot, with intuition, due to epistemic limitations, decide which choice upon acting, that will create the most utility. If the utilitarian stands before a choice of A and B, and the marginal utility between these acts is so small that it would be imperceptible, is it reasonable that the utilitarian must choose the act that maximises utility? I do not... (More) - Making choices can be hard, even more so if they are of a moral nature. Since the initial phrasing, utilitarianism has claimed that the morally correct choice is that which maximises utility. This phrasing might seem unproblematic for some. However, I have found there to be a certain problem with such a phrasing. This problem is mainly with “hard cases”, i.e., cases
where the utilitarian cannot, with intuition, due to epistemic limitations, decide which choice upon acting, that will create the most utility. If the utilitarian stands before a choice of A and B, and the marginal utility between these acts is so small that it would be imperceptible, is it reasonable that the utilitarian must choose the act that maximises utility? I do not believe so. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to give an account of why the classical definition of utilitarianism needs to be revised, as well as revising it. Revising utilitarianism so that the theory becomes more plausible and does not urge its followers to needlessly choose one act over another, just because this act merely creates an imperceptible utility. After all, why would the utilitarian, a consequentialist, care to create imperceptible utility? Mutatis mutandis, do I formulate, a new definition of utilitarianism which is the following: “the morally correct act is, in every given situation, if there is a substantial marginal utility between the options of acting, the one which produce the most utility”. (Less) - Popular Abstract
- Making choices can be hard, even more so if they are of a moral nature. Since the initial phrasing, utilitarianism has claimed that the morally correct choice is that which maximises utility. This phrasing might seem unproblematic for some. However, I have found there to be a certain problem with such a phrasing. This problem is mainly with “hard cases”, i.e., cases
where the utilitarian cannot, with intuition, due to epistemic limitations, decide which choice upon acting, that will create the most utility. If the utilitarian stands before a choice of A and B, and the marginal utility between these acts is so small that it would be imperceptible, is it reasonable that the utilitarian must choose the act that maximises utility? I do not... (More) - Making choices can be hard, even more so if they are of a moral nature. Since the initial phrasing, utilitarianism has claimed that the morally correct choice is that which maximises utility. This phrasing might seem unproblematic for some. However, I have found there to be a certain problem with such a phrasing. This problem is mainly with “hard cases”, i.e., cases
where the utilitarian cannot, with intuition, due to epistemic limitations, decide which choice upon acting, that will create the most utility. If the utilitarian stands before a choice of A and B, and the marginal utility between these acts is so small that it would be imperceptible, is it reasonable that the utilitarian must choose the act that maximises utility? I do not believe so. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to give an account of why the classical definition of utilitarianism needs to be revised, as well as revising it. Revising utilitarianism so that the theory becomes more plausible and does not urge its followers to needlessly choose one act over another, just because this act merely creates an imperceptible utility. After all, why would the utilitarian, a consequentialist, care to create imperceptible utility? Mutatis mutandis, do I formulate, a new definition of utilitarianism which is the following: “the morally correct act is, in every given situation, if there is a substantial marginal utility between the options of acting, the one which produce the most utility”. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9065133
- author
- de Leeuw, Salomon LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Mutatis Mutandis I - A a necessary revision of utilitarianism
- course
- FPRK01 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Utilitarism, omärkbara nyttor, utilitaristers intuition, Parfit, axiologi, jämförelse av värden
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9065133
- date added to LUP
- 2021-10-04 09:20:44
- date last changed
- 2021-10-04 09:20:44
@misc{9065133,
abstract = {{Making choices can be hard, even more so if they are of a moral nature. Since the initial phrasing, utilitarianism has claimed that the morally correct choice is that which maximises utility. This phrasing might seem unproblematic for some. However, I have found there to be a certain problem with such a phrasing. This problem is mainly with “hard cases”, i.e., cases
where the utilitarian cannot, with intuition, due to epistemic limitations, decide which choice upon acting, that will create the most utility. If the utilitarian stands before a choice of A and B, and the marginal utility between these acts is so small that it would be imperceptible, is it reasonable that the utilitarian must choose the act that maximises utility? I do not believe so. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to give an account of why the classical definition of utilitarianism needs to be revised, as well as revising it. Revising utilitarianism so that the theory becomes more plausible and does not urge its followers to needlessly choose one act over another, just because this act merely creates an imperceptible utility. After all, why would the utilitarian, a consequentialist, care to create imperceptible utility? Mutatis mutandis, do I formulate, a new definition of utilitarianism which is the following: “the morally correct act is, in every given situation, if there is a substantial marginal utility between the options of acting, the one which produce the most utility”.}},
author = {{de Leeuw, Salomon}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Mutatis Mutandis I - En nödvändig revidering av utilitarismen}},
year = {{2020}},
}