Utilitariansim

Why did the theory come up?

Why there is a need for utilitarian idea? Or is there a real need for it?

Ideas of anarchism, social contract theory, giving consent and volunterism have not responded fully to the question of whether the state is needed or not.

Or how one would justify the existance of the state.

The fundamental idea of utilitarianism is to commit morally correct action in any situation, which brings about the highest possible total sum of utility.

In this theory, utilitariansim is understood as happiness, pleasure, or the satisfaction of desires or preferences.

It requires individuals to prefer the actions that make them happier or at least less unhappier at the time of taking the action.

Time and conditions are important determiners of taken action.

But, what is happiness? How do you measure it?

How do you compare individual’s state of happiness?

Compering measure of happiness with other persons may not make sense.

Problem with “interpersonal comparisons of utility”

Have utilitarian theorists found any solution for measuring the level of happiness?

Unfortunatelly, the theorists have not given us a clear account of how to measure the level of happiness or if the full happiness is achieved.

The only way left is to do interpersonal comperassions. What political obligations do you have as citizens?

How does utilitarian theory see the political obligation?

It indicates that as long as obeying the laws benefits us more than not obeying the laws individuals’d rather obey the laws.

Benefit or the utility is the key. Individuals should prefer to obey the laws for their good and

as well as common good.

They should prefer the long run over the short period of happiness.

Individual – society connection in this theory... How is that made?

If stealing becomes a custom of a society, then there is no benefit or happiness.

But, if stealing a book from a book store does not hurt people greatly, and makes me happy, do you think utilitarian theory justifies this sort of law-breaking?

I obey the laws as long as they bring me happiness...

How is this relationship (benefit of individual versus benefit of common) in Islam?

Are society and individual mutually responsible?

Giving alms or killing masses for catching an individual?

Do you think, trying to increase individual happiness will diminish collective happiness?

The theory indicates that obeying the common law will increase total happiness.

Fundamentally, if you go by the rules that this theory puts

forward, then everything will go bad.

We need to adapt a non-utilitarian reasoning to make the utilitarian theory work.

So, the state, laws and regulations are needed as long as they bring about collective happiness – more utility than the lawless situation.

If, as an individual, you search for a direct utility – happiness for yourself in every action that you take, do you think that you will make good friends?

Do you think happiness is the reason of your actions or crop or consequence of your actions?

Self-defeating actions?

Utilitarian theory’s notion about laws;

Laws should be passed only if they contribute more to human happiness than any competing law or lawlessness.

Laws should be obeyed because they are laws and should only be disobeyed to avoid disaster.

Laws should be repealed and replaced if they fail to serve the proper utilitarian function.

So, the state is justified if, and only if, it contributes more to human happiness than any feasable alternative.

  Lawlessness cannot be justified.

Therefore, the state is better than the state of nature.

They believe that individuals have moral duty to bring about and support the state.

  Some philosophers think that the utilitarian approach will

lead morally unacceptable consequences.

For the sake of total happiness, there will be tremendous injustices in the society.

 

Think of punishing the terrorists or supposedly terrorist after 9 / 11.

Think of Guantanamo Prison and who were the victims of that witch-hunting.

What if the public or the majority does not know that those locked behind the bars are in fact innocent?

Based on the utilitarian theory, general happiness is achieved anyway.

  Everybody benefits from the state. Safety and security are

just two of these benefits.  Burdens are political obligations.

But, do you really think that we have duty to obey the customs and perceived expectations that we had no intention to benefit from and in exchange we are expected to pay back?

Robert Nozick does not think that way.

Unexpected and unplanned benefits that I did not ask for do not make me feel obligated to pay back.

If you accept to pay back, then in the future they will force you to have stuff and pay back to them.

That does not serve the justice he says.

How would you refuse the benefits of the state?

The idea that “if you benefit from it, you have political obligation” is quastionable on the basis of form of “consent”.

What can we conclude from this chapter about justifying the existance of the state?

The theory that if you consent voluntarily then you accept the existance of the state and subsequently you have political obligations comes short in explaining the stuation for those that do not want to consent.

Utilitarians can not bring a balance between justice and injustice. Happiness of majority may lead injustices.

Fairness can only succeed if everyone accepts the benefits of the state.

That seems unlikely.