Home
Today I decided to switch things up and write about philosophy. Just a Spoonful of Utilitarianism Makes the Genocide Go Down
Before delving into whether or not a utilitarian would consider genocide as a morally permissible act, Williams first defines his view of utilitarianism. He begins by saying that utilitarianism is consequentialist, meaning that an action’s moral correctness is judged based upon its consequences (Williams, 79). Next, he states that it is eudaimonistic, meaning that its only concern is maximizing happiness, and that happiness is the only final good (meaning that happiness is sought for its own sake while all other goods are sought for the sake of happiness) (Williams 79-80; Blackwell). In order to clarify this point, he defines happiness (which is used interchangeably with utility) as people getting their desires/preferences (80). Finally, he states that utilitarianism is direct, meaning that in order to measure the morality of an action, only consequences that can be traced back to that particular action should be taken into account (81).
After defining his terms, Williams goes on to examine a hypothetical situation in which a large majority is severely prejudiced against a small minority, to the point where the displeasure caused by the minority simply existing is so great that it would provide greater net utility if the minority group was killed (105). For a utilitarian, the seemingly obvious conclusion to this hypothetical is to wipe out the minority; however this conclusion is problematic in a number of ways. First, the conclusion does not put utilitarianism in a positive light, as any moral code that advocates genocide is not looked upon kindly (105). Second, the conclusion is primarily based on an irrational feeling, assuming the mental discomfort of the prejudiced majority does not proceed from any real threat of physical harm (105). Well, that's it for tonight. It was fun doing this.
Before delving into whether or not a utilitarian would consider genocide as a morally permissible act, Williams first defines his view of utilitarianism. He begins by saying that utilitarianism is consequentialist, meaning that an action’s moral correctness is judged based upon its consequences (Williams, 79). Next, he states that it is eudaimonistic, meaning that its only concern is maximizing happiness, and that happiness is the only final good (meaning that happiness is sought for its own sake while all other goods are sought for the sake of happiness) (Williams 79-80; Blackwell). In order to clarify this point, he defines happiness (which is used interchangeably with utility) as people getting their desires/preferences (80). Finally, he states that utilitarianism is direct, meaning that in order to measure the morality of an action, only consequences that can be traced back to that particular action should be taken into account (81).
After defining his terms, Williams goes on to examine a hypothetical situation in which a large majority is severely prejudiced against a small minority, to the point where the displeasure caused by the minority simply existing is so great that it would provide greater net utility if the minority group was killed (105). For a utilitarian, the seemingly obvious conclusion to this hypothetical is to wipe out the minority; however this conclusion is problematic in a number of ways. First, the conclusion does not put utilitarianism in a positive light, as any moral code that advocates genocide is not looked upon kindly (105). Second, the conclusion is primarily based on an irrational feeling, assuming the mental discomfort of the prejudiced majority does not proceed from any real threat of physical harm (105). Well, that's it for tonight. It was fun doing this.
