Conatus: REVISED EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

One of the best-known theories along these lines is utilitarianism. We could see utilitarianism as a form of distribution and a natural progression from what I’ve said above. Utilitarianism holds that actions are right, in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. (The definition comes originally from Francis Hutcheson, but was taken up by the better-known utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.) The supreme good is considered to be the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. There’s a belief then, by utilitarians, that happiness is the supreme good, which does not seem too unreasonable. But, although various attempts have been made, it is difficult to calculate exactly which things make us the most happy. Utilitarianism rests on two assumptions — that all people’s wants and needs are equally valid, and, that no other ethical considerations should be made outside the first assumption!

Matters are further complicated by the difference between ‘act utilitarianism’ and ‘rule utilitarianism’. (Rule utilitarianism is sometimes known as indirect utilitarianism.) Do we make a judgement on the amount of happiness gained on what is actually occurring? (‘Act’.) Or do we base our judgements by defining rules, laws and a system of justice to try to get the greatest happiness? (‘Rule’.) In the first case — act utilitarianism — this is a very tough and complex process (especially with regard to personal relationships). In the second case, rule utilitarianism, it may be very difficult to predict which laws would in fact lead to more happiness and it is easy to see the prospect of severe

226