Tutorial # 7. Consequentialism. Discussion Questions

In light of the readings you have done (especially Mill on Utilitarianism) think about these qustions.

• What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
• Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? Think about future generations, and Sebastian's thought experiment.
• How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
• Are there any absolute, non-relative, rights for a consequentialist?
• What is, for Mill, the "Greatest-happiness Principle"?
• Mill claims that Kant’s theory is a version of utilitarianism. Why? Do you agree?
• Why, according to Mill, some kinds of pleasure are more desirable than others?
• Is it really ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ (Mill, p. 644)? Why?
• If happiness amounts to the satisfaction of our desires, and some kind of happiness is more desirable than others, how can we try to educate our desires to reach that kind of happiness?
• Do we have “innate” desires?
• How would you calculate the expected utility of an action?
• In your utilitarian calculus, should you take into account also the consequences that would affect animals? For instance, how would you weigh up your pleasure for a burger at McDonalds’ and the pain suffered by that animal?
• How is utility inter-personal comparison possible? Put it in English, how can you compare, for example, the pleasure of a sadist with the suffering of a victim? How can you compare the mental pleasure of watching a football match with the physical pleasure of having sex, or having a nice pizza?
• Is physical pleasure inferior to intellectual pleasure? Recall Mill's view on different knds of happiness.
• I slap a kid because he cursed. To evaluate my action, should you take into account also the consequences that my slap may have on the way he will educate his children?
• If it turned out that hanging an innocent publicly once a month will dramatically reduce crimes, should we hang innocent people?
• Should we impose pleasure to others? For example, If it turned out that putting LSD in water will make people more happy, would you be justified to pour LSD in the aqueducts of Edinburgh?
• What if instead of pursuing actions that promotes happiness, we pursued actions that promotes less pain and suffering? What would be the difference?
• How would a consequentialist argue to explain why it is wrong (or right) to bake a stranger who agrees to be baked? Would it make sense such kind of consequentialist explanation?