Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights? What if the sum total of the pain caused by sacrificing the civil rights of a minority is less than the sum total of the pleasure derived as a result by the majority?
John Stuart Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that, far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was actually the justification for protecting rights. In other words, Mill believed that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Was Mill right? Is this the best reason for not violating people’s basic rights? Give your rationale.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Feb. 16th Discussion Question 2
For utilitarians like Bentham, happiness is simply the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. People are happy insofar as they feel pleasure, unhappy insofar they feel pain; there is nothing else that goes into happiness. Abilities, achievements, friendship, love—all these are, at best, only means to being happy, and only insofar as they give rise to pleasure. How do you feel about this idea? Be sure to give your rationale.
Feb 16th Discussion Question 1
Suppose that we have to choose between building a new sports stadium and building a new hospital. How would you make this decision? Give your rationale in as much detail as you feel comfortable
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)