Hi everyone,


Robert Vint wrote many interesting things, including:

> RV: Yes, there are; there is Utilitarianism -the duty to do that which
> results in the greatest good for the greatest number; 



This is one way of looking at utilitarianism, but probably not the
best way. Robert's definition involves two criteria - the greatest
good *and* the greatest number.

"The greatest good" and "the greatest number" can be conflicting and
confusing. (I'll say "utility" instead of good below, as there are utilitarian
theories that try to maximize different things, e.g. some externally
defined good, or individual's pleasure, or degree of fulfilment
of their hopes and aspirations, and so on.) For example, which is best
of these: 
a small improvement to the utility of the most people possible, OR the biggest
improvement possible to the utility of a smaller number of people?

To get around such a problem, it is common practice for utilitarians
to add up the total utility of all relevant individuals and try
to maximize that number. This is not the same as maximizing number
and individual utility separately.

A useful question in environmental ethics is "which individuals should
have their utility taken into account in a utilitarian calculation of
what is right?" Many people would answer "just humans". I would answer
"any sentient being", others might answer "any complex entity".

A criticism that has been levelled at utilitarianism is that it can
allow the existence - at least in theory - of a "utility monster".
This is a being who derives so much pleasure from doing something
that we would normally consider evil (e.g. an extreme sadist might
derive enormous pleasure from torturing victims) that the total
utility function of the world would be increased by allowing this
monster to commit such acts. Therefore that those acts are better
undertaken than avoided.

Was Hitler a utility monster? No, of
course not - the atrocities he caused to be committed were immeasurably
more damaging than any personal benefit he may have derived.

Are sports hunters utility monsters?  Some might answer yes, that
the harm they cause animals is outweighed by the pleasure the hunters
derive. I would strongly disagree, however.

Extensions of these concepts to environmental ethics are apparent.


-David.


P.S. the strong utilitarian may not accept the monstrousness of the
acts of the "utility monster" of course!     

          


-- 
David Pearson,              Phone: +44 (0)118  9318741
ESSC,                       Fax:   +44 (0)118  9316413 
University of Reading,
Reading RG6 6AL,            Email: [log in to unmask]
UK.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%