![]() However, given that pleasures and pains are not easily quantifiable, Bentham suggested a method (known as the felicific calculus) to measure them based on 7 dimensions. Utilitarianism is therefore a unique consequentialist theory in two ways: (i) the aim is to maximise utility for the greatest number of people, and (ii) when employing utilitarianism in its purist form, the decision-maker should be impartial.īentham’s formation of utilitarianism was focused on pleasures and pains in terms of their quantity. This differs once again from egoistic and altruistic consequentialism, since egoistic decisions are intended to directly benefit the decision-maker, and altruistic decisions can in some cases cause the decision-maker harm. Since Bentham’s utilitarianism was originally a proposal for legislative purposes, he proposed that those people with the authority to make a decision should behave as impartial spectators (i.e., observant bystanders). ![]() Conversely, the goal of utilitarian consequentialism is to maximise utility for the greatest number of people, or according to Bentham’s slogan: “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” (p. Alternatively, altruistic consequentialism aims to maximise utility for others, in the absence of self-interest. For example, egoistic consequentialism is characterised by the maximisation of utility for self-interest, in the absence of the interest of others. However, there is an important distinction between utilitarianism and other moral consequentialist theories. In other words, as long as the end goal maximises utility, then any potentially egregious act required in order to deliver the goal can be justified. Much like other consequentialist theories, utilitarianism encompasses the logic of utility maximisation: the ends (if, the best outcome) justify the means. Bentham coined this moral doctrine The Greatest Happiness Principle (hereafter, Utilitarianism). Therefore, Bentham intended pleasure to be maximised and pain to be minimised where possible, and accordingly suggested that pleasure can be measured in terms of utility, and pain measured in terms of disutility. Specifically, Bentham proposed that a morally permissible action is one that produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number in that, reducing pain and increasing the pleasure of those affected. Much like other enlightenment thinkers, Bentham argued that rather than relying on beliefs or intuition to determine the moral appropriateness of an action, one should instead employ reason. Although he was not the first philosopher to establish the importance of these two sensations in prescribing moral conduct (such ideas date back to Epicurus see and Francis Hutcheson ), Bentham is frequently credited for it. In the opening sentences of the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham describes two sensations, pleasure and pain, and points to their central role in guiding human moral behaviour. PT Accessibility (a new type of veil of ignorance with even odds that do not trigger self-interest, risk related preferences or decision biases) is necessary in order to measure humans’ prosocial utilitarian behaviour and promote its societal benefits. We conclude that the proposed by Martin et al. Moreover, in contrast to any previous theoretical and methodological accounts, moral scenarios/tasks with full PT accessibility provide the participants with unbiased even odds (neither risk averse nor risk seeking) and impartiality. PT accessibility research revealed that providing participants with access to all situational perspectives in moral scenarios, eliminates (previously reported in the literature) inconsistency between their moral judgements and choices. Accordingly, in this critical review article, we invite the reader on a moral journey from Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism to the veil of ignorance reasoning, via a recent theoretical proposal emphasising utilitarian moral behaviour-perspective-taking accessibility (PT accessibility). ![]() Crucially, very little research has explored the theoretical and methodological development (supported by empirical evidence) of utilitarian theories of moral decision-making. Philosophers, economists, psychologists and behavioural scientists researching such decision-making typically explore the principles, processes and predictors that constitute human moral decision-making. Making morally sensitive decisions and evaluations pervade many human everyday activities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |