Evaluation

• Bernard Williams' Supererogation Argument 


  • demands too much from us
  • e/g donating all your money to charity
  • should not need to give up all your possessions in order to be an ethical person
• Puts too much emphasis on the consequences of our actions so it requires us to second guess the future which is easy to get wrong

  e/g saving the life of a child who grows up to be a mass murderer


  Response: this is untrue - does try to assess specific situations but in reality most situations are typical of 'general classes of acts' (e/g murder) - these acts will lead to unhappiness so we should not do them
• John Rawls

  • too impersonal
  • in the pursuit of the greatest good utilitarianism disregards the rights of the individuals
• It ignores motives, rules and duties 


  Response: rules and duties are only useful if they serve the 'primary principle of utility' if they generate more happiness and pleasure than unhappiness and pain - if they do not then the rule is immoral
• It ignores the rights of minorities - e/g an extreme example of seven guards raping one woman, the hedonic calculus seems to justify this because their pleasure exceeds their pain 


  Response: if the rights of the minority are considered above the rights of the majority then it is unjust to the majority, which is a greater injustice - this understanding misunderstands the calculus
• Alasdair McIntyre's social engineering argument 


  concept of pleasure dangerous as it can be manipulated into being satisfied by anything - lives with pleasure don't mean ethical lives
• Fails because it cannot bridge the 'is-ought' gap - cannot go from happiness is what all humans desire' to ' you ought to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number' 


  Response: if you ask people what they want, they universally reply that they want happiness - no other explanation is possible or needed