Exam 5: Consequentialism

Talk about: -Optimific

Talk about: -Optimific social rule

According to Mill, what is the function of secondary moral principles?

Talk about: -Decision procedure

Write an essay comparing and contrasting act utilitarianism with rule consequentialism. Define each theory and then explain why rule consequentialism is often thought to provide a solution to the problem of injustice that faces act utilitarianism. What objection do act utilitarians often level against rule consequentialism? Which theory do you think is preferable, and why?

Describe a case in which utilitarianism seems to require that someone behave unjustly. Do you think utilitarianism nonetheless gives the correct moral verdict in this case? Why or why not? How might a utilitarian reply to the objection that the theory wrongly licenses injustice?

Mill claims that secondary moral principles

Explain what you take to be the strongest version of consequentialism. What does it count as intrinsically good and bad and how does it understand the balance of good over bad? Explain some advantages of your theory over other versions of consequentialism.

Mill insists that we should be impartial between our own happiness and the happiness of others. Come up with a case in which partiality seems justified. How do you think Mill would respond to your case? Do you agree with his response? Why or why not?

According to Mill, when should the first principles of morality be appealed to in decision-making?

Talk about: -Vicarious punishment

Case Study Imagine a small town in which there has recently been a rash of murders that all bear the marks of the same culprit. The police investigation has gone nowhere and the town's sense of order is starting to break down. Residents are demanding that the sheriff find a culprit and threatening to exact vigilante justice on perceived criminals until a culprit is found. Given that the real murderer is unknown, the sheriff sees that she can only prevent chaos and bloodshed by framing someone who likely is not the murderer. The sheriff has someone in mind who could be easily framed-a local man, Jim, who has been in and out of jail for other violent crimes like assault and robbery. He has no family and no one in town would protest if he were to be locked up. Moreover, he is a believable culprit and so would be easy to frame. The sheriff is fairly sure that he is not actually the murderer, so she would likely be framing someone who, while not innocent overall, is innocent of these particular crimes. But she is not sure what else she can do to keep the peace. -Should the sheriff frame Jim? Why or why not? What does this tell us about utilitarianism, and consequentialism more generally?

Talk about: -Moral community

Talk about: -Absolute rule

Talk about: -Supererogation

Talk about: -Intrinsically good

What implications does utilitarianism have for our treatment of nonhuman animals? Do you find utilitarians' conclusions about animals plausible? If so, why? If not, how would you respond to their arguments?

Mill argues that, according to the utilitarian doctrine, lying is

Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle. Then, come up with what you take to be the most compelling counterexample to it. Ultimately, does your example show that the Greatest Happiness Principle is false? Explain and defend your response.

Explain the objection to utilitarianism that it is too much to demand that people always be motivated by the greatest good. How does Mill respond to this objection? Do you find his response satisfying? Why or why not?