Additional considerations Utilitarianism

in methods of ethics, henry sidgwick asked, total or average happiness seek make maximum? noted aspects of question had been overlooked , answered question himself saying had maximized average multiplied number of people living. argued that, if average happiness enjoyed remains undiminished, utilitarianism directs make number enjoying great possible. view taken earlier paley. notes that, although speaks of happiness of communities, happiness of people made of happiness of single persons; , quantity of happiness can augmented increasing number of percipients, or pleasure of perceptions , if extreme cases, such people held slaves, excluded amount of happiness in proportion number of people. consequently, decay of population greatest evil state can suffer; , improvement of object ought, in countries, aimed @ in preference every other political purpose whatsoever. similar view expressed smart, argued other things being equal universe 2 million happy people better universe 1 million happy people.

since sidgwick raised question has been studied in detail , philosophers have argued using either total or average happiness can lead objectionable results.

according derek parfit, using total happiness falls victim repugnant conclusion, whereby large numbers of people low non-negative utility values can seen better goal population of less extreme size living in comfort. in other words, according theory, moral breed more people on world long total happiness rises.

on other hand, measuring utility of population based on average utility of population avoids parfit s repugnant conclusion causes other problems. example, bringing moderately happy person happy world seen immoral act; aside this, theory implies moral eliminate people happiness below average, raise average happiness.

william shaw suggests problem can avoided if distinction made between potential people, need not concern us, , actual future people, should concern us. says, utilitarianism values happiness of people, not production of units of happiness. accordingly, 1 has no positive obligation have children. however, if have decided have child, have obligation give birth happiest child can.

motives, intentions, , actions

utilitarianism typically taken assess rightness or wrongness of action considering consequences of action. bentham distinguishes motive intention , says motives not in or bad can referred such on account of tendency produce pleasure or pain. adds that, every kind of motive, may proceed actions good, others bad, , others indifferent. mill makes similar point , explicitly says motive has nothing morality of action, though worth of agent. saves fellow creature drowning morally right, whether motive duty, or hope of being paid trouble.

however, intention situation more complex. in footnote printed in second edition of utilitarianism, mill says: morality of action depends entirely upon intention—that is, upon agent wills do. elsewhere, says, intention, , motive, 2 different things. intention, is, foresight of consequences, constitutes moral rightness or wrongness of act.

the correct interpretation of mill s footnote matter of debate. difficulty in interpretation centres around trying explain why, since consequences matter, intentions should play role in assessment of morality of action motives should not. 1 possibility involves supposing morality of act 1 thing, praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of agent, , rightness or wrongness another. jonathan dancy rejects interpretation on grounds mill explicitly making intention relevant assessment of act not assessment of agent.

an interpretation given roger crisp draws on definition given mill in system of logic, says intention produce effect, 1 thing; effect produced in consequence of intention, thing; 2 constitute action. accordingly, whilst 2 actions may outwardly appear same different actions if there different intention. dancy notes not explain why intentions count motives not.

a third interpretation action might considered complex action consisting of several stages , intention determines of these stages considered part of action. although interpretation favoured dancy, recognizes might not have been mill s own view, mill not allow p & q expresses complex proposition. wrote in system of logic iv. 3, of caesar dead , brutus alive , might call street complex house, these 2 propositions complex proposition .

finally, whilst motives may not play role in determining morality of action, not preclude utilitarians fostering particular motives if doing increase overall happiness.