PHI 208 Ashford University Week 2 Chapter 3 Utilitarianism Discussion Paper This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the utili

PHI 208 Ashford University Week 2 Chapter 3 Utilitarianism Discussion Paper This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the utilitarian ethical theory as discussed in Chapter 3 of the textbook(attach below). Your instructor will be choosing the discussion question and posting it as the first post in the main discussion forum(written below ). The requirements for the discussion this week include the following:

The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted together, should be at least 600 words, not including references.
You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in the text, etc.).
We will look at one way of determining what is good or right in terms of the ethical theory of UTILITARIANISM.While there are many ethical theories that are considered to be types of Utilitarianism, we can understand them all to be pointing toward something we do everyday: “Weighing pros and cons.” While this is a very simple way of putting what is at stake in this theory, “looking at the pros and cons” or “trying to have a win-win situation” are ways of describing the heart of what utilitarians are seeking to do with each decision: trying to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.This theory originates with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who was convinced that all human activity was driven by only two motivating forces: the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of pleasure. Therefore, he argued that all social, ethical, and political action should be undertaken with the aim of achieving the greatest happiness (or benefit) for the greatest number of people.Bentham argued that the moral worth of decisions is an outcome of their UTILITY, or “efficiency,” in generating happiness—and it is important to note that he equates “happiness” with “pleasure.” In an ethical theory based on this utilitarian approach, Bentham claims that all conflicts can be settled by the principle of “creating the broadest spread of contentment.” In other words, if everyone can be made happy by a decision, that’s great! But, if a hard choice is necessary, it is always preferable to favor the happiness of the many over the few.The main advantage of this system is its simplicity. However, this simplicity raises many issues regarding the needs of the individual being eclipsed by the needs of the group. Nevertheless, by adopting a utilitarian stance toward ethics, one can avoid the confusions and misinterpretations of more complex approaches to determining the moral choice in a given situation.Moving forward we will see how Bentham’s student, J.S. Mill (1806-1873), wanted to revise utilitarian ethics in order to distinguish between different “types” of happiness. Mill set himself the life-goal of revising utilitarian ethics by addressing some of its most problematic aspects. For example, he noted that the “greatest good for the greatest number” is an important guide to moral behavior—but it should by no means be the only guide. This is evidenced in one of his most famous quotes: “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” For Mill, it is the healthy diversity of purposes and destinies that makes for a truly free society.Utilitarianism makes clear to us that ethical theories generally fall into one of two categories:
The morality of an action is determined by its CONSEQUENCES.
The morality of an action is determined by the INTENTIONS of the one who acts.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which prioritizes the rightness of a behavior being determined by its consequences.This can be seen when we again state the principle at work in Utilitarianism: “The most ethical action in any situation is that which results in the greatest good for the greatest number.” In this formulation of ethics, we are clearly concerned with the consequences of my actions—consequences which seek to maximize group happiness.For example, I am using utilitarian reasoning when I wear my homemade surgical mask in public, when I donate to charity instead of spend my earnings solely on myself, and similarly I am using utilitarian reasoning when I recycle my coffee cup rather than throwing it in the trash. These simple examples illustrate the basic idea of this version of morality: what is right is an outcome of emphasizing group benefit over individual benefit. Our challenge is to think through to what degree this is always possible, and to look critically at what is gained and lost through this philosophical approach.

Week 2 Discussion 1: Utilitarianism

Please read the general discussion requirements above.

In the course of the week’s discussion, you will need to do ALL of the following (not necessarily in this order):

Engage with the text:

Using at least one quote from one of the required readings, briefly explain (in your OWN words) the ethical theory of utilitarianism, and at least one objection to it.

Ethical theories have core ideas, principles, and assumptions. For any ethical theory, there are objections that can be raised against those core ideas, principles, and assumptions. Several objections to utilitarianism are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5 of the textbook, and John Stuart Mill (2017/1863) discusses 8 objections in Utilitarianism (in Chapter 3 of the textbook, the text can be found under “Primary Sources” and the objections under the section, “Objections and Replies”).

Reflect on the theory:

Present a simple scenario (real or imagined, ex. “lying to a friend for their benefit”) in which a committed utilitarian would probably make one choice, but someone who finds this objection compelling would probably make a different choice. (In other words, put yourself in the mind of both someone who makes choices based on utilitarianism AND someone who does not by imagining a scenario in which that person would likely make a certain ethical judgment but a utilitarian would make a different ethical judgment.)

Reflect on yourself:

In your view, does considering this situation strengthen and support the objection (thus showing a weakness to utilitarianism), or does it help strengthen utilitarianism by showing how a utilitarian could respond to that objection? (In other words, are you more or less persuaded by utilitarian thinking now that you have reflected on it?)