Conclusion: The Utilitarian Method is crucial in helping
determine the moral action in experiences in which common sense cannot be used. Common-sense morality does not apply to all
situations so it fails because not everyone can use it. Exceptions must be made. Only the Utilitarian Method can be applied in
all situations.
1.
Doing what is best for the highest number of
people is following the moral code. (pg.462)
a.
Morality can be measured. (i)
b.
Utilitarianism emphasizes doing what is best for
the whole rather than the individual.
i.
Individual needs are not as important as
improving the well being of the whole. (i)
ii.
One must not base his or her actions for his or
her personal benefit. (i)
2.
Common-Sense morality is for ordinary people in
ordinary circumstances. (pg.461)
a.
Ordinary people must think that common sense is
universal in order for them to follow it.
i.
Ordinary people are not capable of making moral
decisions without trusting common sense (i)
b.
There are situations in which common-sense
morality cannot be used because they are not ordinary. (i)
i.
Common-sense morality is inadequate because it
cannot be used across the board so there is a gray area in which it is not
clear how to judge the morality of certain actions. (pg.461)
3.
Special persons in special circumstances require
guidance that goes further than common sense. (pg.461)
a.
Very smart and passionate people are exempt from
the common-sense morality that ordinary people must follow . (pg.461)
b.
There is no way for common-sense morality to be
used in certain situations. (i)
4.
People have different moral instincts based on
age, class, and other external sources. (pg.461)
a.
Since moral instincts are not the same all
around yet we still see morality all around, there must be another way we
classify morality than just on common sense. (i)
5.
The Utilitarian Method is the only way to judge
morality in all situations. (pg.462)
a.
In using the Utilitarian Method, the answer is
always to do what is the best for the greatest number of people. (i)
b.
Anyone who makes a choice in any situation that
is best for the most people is a moral person. (i)
c.
The Utilitarian Method extends to all situations
because there are not exceptions or questions as to what the best decision is.
Your argument is very thorough in addressing utilitarian common sense. However, I have a questions relating to premise two as a whole. Based on this premise I am lead to believe that ordinary people are unable to make moral decisions because common sense is unreliable (2). Ordinary people run the risk of making an immoral decision when the inevitably use common sense (2). Additionally, I would assume that immoral decisions are not desired. If all of this is correct, can it be inferred that ordinary people should not be allowed to make decisions?
ReplyDeleteI actually remembered this exists. Why didn't anyone tell me?
ReplyDeleteAll seriousness aside, Point 1bi seems to be the weakest. The issue is that who or what the "whole" consists of is not clear because it seems like there are exclusions: future generations, and minorities or other groups whom decision-makers do not hear. There is a similar phenomenon in poll-taking: only those with the most passion (extremes and radicals) in their views will make their voices heard, drowning out moderate voices. Practically speaking, it is difficult to make every individual voice heard (and thus determine the best course of action) as the number of voices increases.
Nicole - You make a very good point. Yet I do not think common sense is unreliable in the fact that it fails to lead ordinary people to make moral decisions but that it is unreliable because it cannot be used in extraordinary situations. Ordinary people are faced with ordinary situations in which their common sense can be used to make a moral decision. So in this sense, common sense is reliable. Exceptions must only be made for people in extraordinary situations because solutions and morality become too complicated for just common sense to solve. Common sense is perfect for ordinary people in ordinary situations. Is that more clear?
ReplyDeleteJake - I am a little confused as to your argument. Are you saying that since the whole cannot be determined, it is impossible to know what the correct course of action should be? If so, I disagree that it is impossible to know who the whole consists of. Those who are excluded are, in a sense, not part of the whole. If they were listened to by politicians, it would be likely that the changes they would advocate for would not benefit the whole.
ReplyDelete