Consequences and the Common Good

.docx

School

University of Mary *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

308

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by MegaKoalaPerson1061

Report
PHI 308 Ethics INTRODUCTION: Previously, we learned that we have a moral obligation to correct our friends unless we have good reason to believe that attempting to correct them would likely make them worse. This claim might lead one to think that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the consequences that result from it. After all, isn’t ‘good’ fraternal correction ‘good’ insofar as it brings about the improvement of our friend and ‘bad’ fraternal correction ‘bad’ insofar as it leads to further harm? In other words, it might seem as though the primary goal of living in accord with charity is to bring about the best possible states of affairs for other human beings. Such a view is known as consequentialism . This assignment introduces you to the most influential brand of consequentialism, commonly known as utilitarianism . After reaching an understanding of what consequentialism entails, the readings from Shafer- Landau and Stephen Jensen explore whether consequentialism is indeed a true expression of charity. In short (as Shafer-Landau’s essay explains), the problem with consequentialism is that it cannot maintain that certain types of actions, such as rape or murdering innocents, are intrinsically wrong. Any ethical theory that cannot identify such blatantly horrendous acts as immoral, it seems, must be false. The selection from Stephen Jensen explains exactly why the killing of innocents is a violation of charity and the common good, and thus morally wrong, even if such acts were to promote the greatest utility for the greatest number of people. The notion of the common good is crucial to understanding how to properly order the good of an individual to the good of a community. ASSIGNED READING: J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism (selections) [ Canvas ] Russ Shafer-Landau, “No Intrinsic Wrongness (or Rightness)” from The Fundamentals of Ethics (selections) [ Canvas ] Steven Jensen, “The Order of the Whole” from Good & Evil Actions: A Journey through Saint Thomas Aquinas ” (selections) [ Canvas ] READING QUESTIONS: 1) What is the “greatest happiness principle”? The greatest happiness can be likened to utility. That is, in viewing actions as means to achieve happiness can help us determine utility. If an action is intended to promote happiness, it can be viewed as “right”. Conversely, if an action is intended to promote un-happiness, it can be viewed as a “wrong” action. J.S. Mills “ Utilitarianism” holds that the greatest happiness principle is that we should pursue actions that produce the greatest amount of overall happiness in the world, not just maximize our own happiness. 2) According to Mill, why is it utilitarianism not a selfish doctrine? Similar to previous readings in this class about promoting goodness, Mill contends that utilitarianism is not selfish because pursuing happiness creates a trickle-down effect in
which those around you will be happy/engage in actions that promote happiness. This is to say that utilitarianism promotes seeking happiness not just for one’s own sake, but for the sake of all people—this makes it inherently unselfish. 3) According to Shafter-Landau, why is it impossible for a utilitarian to claim that certain types of actions (such as rape or murdering innocents) are intrinsically wrong? Utilitarianism, according to Shafter-Landau, holds that the morality of an action is dependent on the outcome of the action. This theory, however, creates moral flexibility in which some terrible actions can be viewed as “right” so long as the outcome prevents some greater evil or suffering. 4) According to Jensen, how does proportionalism [a kind of consequentialism] view the common good? Jensen states that proportionalism views the common good as a “mere quantitative accumulation of individual goods, after the manner of a consequentialist summation of the goods”. 5) According to Aquinas (as explained by Jensen), why is it wrong to think that a human community consists merely of an aggregate of individuals? Aquinas rejects the idea that a community consists solely of an aggregate of individuals because you cannot consider a group of individuals a community simply because there are a number of people in one place. Instead, he insists that a community is created when a group of people come together through some unifying factor such as relating to each other, constituting a unified “whole”. 6) According to Aquinas (as explained by Jensen), how does a proper understanding of friendship show that the common good consists sharing of sharing what is good with one another? In previous readings, we have come to understand friendship as the willing of good things to happen to someone you have a relationship with. Aquinas (as explained by Jensen) expands on this by contending that friendship occurs through sharing a common good. That is, friendship comes from sharing what is good with someone else so that it is no longer just yours, it is ours. Through this definition, we come to understand that friendship is sharing good together. 7) According to Aquinas (as explained by Jensen), why is it wrong to think that we can act for the common good by killing an innocent person to save many others? In applying what we have learned through these readings about community and friendship, the act of killing removes an individual from the network of unity that necessitates the basis for a unified community. Aquinas expounds that killing one person for the greater aggregate still excludes that person from the shared good, thereby destroying a community.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help