Notes
11-8-01

"Try mailing notes to new webBoardsite.
If you have trouble, then email them to
me. Link to webBoard is on the main
page. Teach.lanecc.edu/borrowdalej/ "

The teacher discussed the pros and cons
of terrorism portrayed in last week's hand
out.
"Is terrorism a moral act?"

Discussion of the criticisms of
Utilitarianism gone over last week;
1. Too difficult to calculate consequences.
2. Motive irrelevant.
3. Too demanding.
4. How long to wait?
5. Too permissive, e.g. hanging an
innocent man to appease towns peoples
fear, killing one person to provide an
organ transplant for 5 others. Utilitarian
can respond to this by; a. biting the
bullet-so what if it conflicts w/our
intuitions about morality, (intuitions are
just a product of social conditioning).
B.appeal to the negative side effects of
long term consequences the publicity
requirement is a "chink" in this argument.
6. Utilitarianism is a "theory fit only for a
swine." Crass hedonism-doesn't include
important intellectual/cultural values.

Mill says "It's better to be a man
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied...and it's
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied."

We then went on to discuss Mills theory of
higher and lower pleasures.

Higher pleasures=Intelectual/Cultural
Lower Pleasures=bodily,
physical/emotional, i.e. eating, sex,
drinking.
Mill hopes everyone will choose higher
pleasures over the lower ones.

Criticisms of the above are as follows;
1.Mill smuggles in values such as
knowledge into utilitarianism.
2."Mills is an elitist, cultural, imperialist
assuming bourgeois values.

Mills proof of hedonism- "Just as we
know something is visible when people
actual see it, we know something is
desirable when people actually desire it."
Every one ultimately desires happiness
therefor happiness is the ultimate value.

An example of the Naturalistic Fallacy; you
can't drive an ought from an is. E.g...
Fact-Clear cutting trees damages the
environment. Value-clear cutting is
wrong, therefore damaging the
environment is wrong.

Criticisms of William's article.
1.George takes a job at a government
biological warfare research center. A
utilitarian would say he'd have to take it,
he'd be participating in evil,
compromising principles and integrity.
A.k.a dirty hands.
2.You have to shoot 1 Indian or Pedro will
shoot all 20. In this situation you are
forced to participate in evil.
Good-pleasure
Evil-pain
The right thing to do in this situation
would be to produce the most pleasure
without the pain.
"doing vs. allowing evil. Killing is worse
than letting die (Williams), you're
responsible for your actions not Pedro.
The utilitarian would say there is no
difference between killing and letting die,
if the consequences are the same.

Act Utilitarianism-the right act is the one
which maximizes happiness.
Rule Utilitarianism-the right act is the one
in accord with the rule, which if universally
followed maximizes happiness. What if
everyone acted this way? Would it lead to
the best consequences or the most
happiness? A criticism of this is that it
collapses into act utilitarianism.