Rebuilding the tarnished image of utilitarianism
by Michael Cook | 14 Jan 2018 | 2 comments
How utilitarian are you? Leading bioethicists at Oxford University, including Julian Savulescu, have published a nine-question survey which allows you to identify whether “You’re not very utilitarian at all.” or whether “You might be Peter Singer”. )Click here to take the survey at the Practical Ethics blog.)
The team at Oxford’s Uehiro Centre developed the survey, which is called “the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale”, in part, to help restore the badly dinted image of utilitarian thinking amongst ordinary people (although the proportion of those who have opinions on utilitarianism tout court is likely to be very small).
The philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill has come in for a battering in recent years. It is associated with university assignment about “trolley problems” which involve killing people tied to railway tracks, with psychopaths and Macchiavellian thinking. The Oxford team admits in an article published in the journal Psychological Review that:
Utilitarianism tells us to impartially maximize the aggregate well-being of everyone—and that we must severely harm or even kill innocent people if doing so is needed to achieve this overarching moral ideal.
This seems rather harsh, not to say inhuman, to the protesters at some of Peter Singer’s public lectures. As Savulescu reports, John Paul II’s devastating put-summary was ““Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of ‘things’ and not of ‘persons,’ a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used.”
However, in recent years, Singer has been promoting another face to utilitarianism: “impartial beneficence”, which leads to “effective altruism”.
In a blog post on Practical Ethics, Savulescu draws upon the traditional language of Christian morality to describe the positive altruistic core at the heart of his philosophy:
There are two other features of utilitarianism that are often neglected. First, it compels us to do as much good as we can in the world—a much more positively oriented aim—while treating each of us in exactly the same way. So when I ask, “What is the right thing for me to do?”, my own wellbeing counts no more (or less) than anyone else’s. So, if I could give a kidney and save someone else’s life without putting my own life at equal or greater risk, I should give a kidney. This is very demanding. And if I do it, admirable—maybe saintly.
Hi there! We're back after a long and refreshing break -- in the mood to take suggestions for improving our coverage and improving our quality. If you have any great ideas, please send them along to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Jan 14, 2018But people are still questioning his mental fitness
by Michael Cook | Jan 14, 2018Oxford’s Uehiro Centre wants to show its saintly side
by Michael Cook | Jan 14, 2018Even for themselves and their loved ones
by Michael Cook | Jan 14, 2018Faith-based facilities are also stymieing the intent of the legislation.
by Michael Cook | Jan 13, 2018Infertility is a disease
by Michael Cook | Jan 13, 2018Village women cash in
IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Richard Gunderman | Jan 13, 2018The ten myths about a flu which killed missions in and after World War I
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario