Hello,
As John Stuart Mill states, a utilitarian has to to be totally impartial in choosing his own happiness and that of others. In other words, he needs to act as a "disinterested and benevolent spectator.” Notably, some contemporary consequentialists suggest that morality requires impartiality. I suppose that this is one of the the strong merits of utilitarianism even though some philosophers think otherwise claiming that instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals , we should try to bring out the least amount of avoidable suffering for all. However, even such philosophers do not play down the importance of impartiality saying that even in an inevitable case of suffering like famine, hunger should be handled with a great degree of impartiality.
Best regards,
R. Biria
The impartiality of the utilitarian theory to me us a strength. After all, it makes us view and act on issues with the same lens
Don't get me started!! I'll try to keep this brief: it is impartial because it is inanimate/inhuman/non-emotive in "thought"; if indeed that is what one considers the process involved in developing such a theory. It is a theory of mathematical calculations requiring one to always choose the LCD over the HCF each time, irrespective of individual emotion-based beliefs.
To quote but one line: "each should give to the extent that eventually equates them to the poorest around them".
Most of us believe that in life, our decisions should be based on a balanced view of IQ + EI (emotional intelligence), and thus, Utilitarians have been required to continuously modify their theory, with a number of softening alterations in stance, in an attempt to make the theory "stick". This amounts to introducing justified or acceptable degrees of partiality to the theory. Unfortunately, I believe this does no more than put people on a guilt trip and thus apply peer-pressure on them to force them to give to charities. (E.g. "Do you REALLY need that cup of coffee? What about the "poor child dying of malnutrition in a third world country at this very moment while you and your nation are growing obese?" etc. etc. Rather than "As a living being, what are your personal intentions/goals in life?"
In no discussion on Utilitarianism have I seen a single, CONVINCING argument to assure me or anyone I know that true Utilitarians (those who actually practice what they preach) can ever have any deep or meaningful emotional relationships.
Sorry to keep quoting my own reference point of surgery, but I describe the term "partially impartial" i.e. we interact with each patient partially - but are impartial in the manner in which we treat them. (As a side-line: As a patient, I would look deeply into the reasons a surgeon "refuses" to operate on a patient before running to the next who chooses to do so; one might just find out too late that the latter is being pushed to balance the consequential equation by taking more-than-accepted risks with one's life!) Again, I apologise if my response is not theoretical enough, without references etc., however, I believe ethics and philosophy must always remain relevant in the land of the living - i.e. those who have a heart to match their robotic minds!! Cheers!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics