Utilitarian Doctrine Research Articles

Slovenski periodični tisk in izbrane strokovne knjige do 1820

In the context of the first Slovenian periodicals and the publication of Slovenian professional books (meaning secular prints) published by 1820, their important role in educating Slovenians would be highlighted from Trubar’s calendar onwards, which was first published in 1557. In the eighteenth century, periodical editions of various useful and instructive almanacs for management followed – Nova krajnska pratika (from at least 1726 onwards), Breznik’s Večna pratika od gospodarstva (first from 1789) – and from that time Vodnik’s Velika and Mala pratika appeared at the turn of the century with upgraded content. The publication of other Slovenian professional books of a popular nature flourished, especially during the Enlightenment, in accordance with its utilitarian doctrine and the tendency to inform. Among such publications was the first Slovenian newspaper, Lublanske novice.

Criticising a Despotic Colonial Government: How Much Is Too Much?

In the last half of the 19th century in the Bombay Deccan, Indian professionals and merchants began to openly challenge some practices of the colonial government. A major vehicle for this forthright criticism was the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha. Through its quarterly journal, the Sabha’s interactions with government gave rise to a competition of ideas and identities, between government and its Indian critics. This competition embraced many topics, but the denouement concerned government policies during two outbursts, some twenty years apart, of famine in the Deccan. Each side was convinced that its approach was right, with the government comfortable doing what it had always done, and the critics increasingly finding fault because of the failures of the government’s famine policy. The question was, which was more important, clinging to Utilitarian doctrine, or implementing a “newer” doctrine that emphasized saving human life? The Sabha not only accepted a “newer” doctrine, but also chose to hold the government accountable for not implementing it. More important, when the government failed to implement needed action, the Sabha took action to right the wrong. Eventually, government reacted to this criticism by acting to crush the Sabha. The eventual outcome is visible even today.

L.N. Tolstoy's Principle of “Non-Resistance to Evil by Violence” in the Context of Russian Religious Philosophy of the Late XIX - Early XX Century

The article discusses how the meaning of the principle of “non-resistance to evil by violence” was changing in L.N. Tolstoy's religious and philosophical teachings and how this principle was evaluated in Russian religious philosophy of the late XIX - early XX century. In the first version of Tolstoy’s teachings, set forth in the book “What is my faith?”, the principle of non-resistance was understood in a moral sense, as the norm for all people; its execution should lead to the perfection of earthly life. This idea of L. Tolstoy was sharply criticised by his contemporaries, who noted that there was no truly religious content in Tolstoy’s teachings, it was turning into a utilitarian doctrine of the earthly progress of mankind. Given this criticism, Tolstoy in his later works changed his understanding of the principle of non-resistance. Drawing a distinction between two levels of human life - “animal” and divine, Tolstoy recognised the principle of non-resistance to the law as the divine life of a man. As a result, the principle of non-resistance has acquired a religious rather than moral meaning, since the transition of a man to a divine life means a mystical transformation of his being. He is aware of his super-spatial and super-temporary unity with all people and with all being, and therefore can evaluate the consequences of his actions not only in the limited sphere of his life, but also in all infinite being. In this regard, a person realizes the absolute superiority of good deeds over evil, even if the latter are committed to confront evil. It is shown that some critics of Tolstoy came to a similar understanding of the religious meaning of the principle of non-resistance at the end of their lives (N.A. Berdyaev, L.P. Karsavin).

Toward ideational collective action: The notions of common good and of the state in late 19th century social liberalism

The aim of this paper is to analyze notions of common good and of the state in late 19th century British social liberalism and their relation to collective action of the citizens. The author shows that British social liberals argued for a type of state that uses top down strategy to encourage collective action in order to transform individuals into a socially responsible groups, i.e. good citizens. The paper focuses on philosophical works of F. H. Bradley, ethics of T. H. Green and political philosophy of B. Bosanquet, analyzing their efforts to reconceptualize ideas of classical liberalism and utilitarian doctrine of the individual, society and the state in light of emerging influence of leftist social movements. The author argues that the works of British social liberals are a foundation of the state and society which will dominate liberalism in the second half of 20th century, i.e. the idea of the welfare state.

ジョン・オースティンの功利主義論とJ・S・ミル

ジョン・オースティンの功利主義論とJ・S・ミル

Utopia: 권력의 공리주의적 음모

This essay examines a British conspiracy thriller Utopia (2013-2014, broadcasted by Channel 4) written by Dennis Kelly whose writing encompasses all the dramatic genres: TV drama, play, musical script, radio drama and scenario. Utopia juxtaposes realistic and unrealistic elements in scenography and characterization, which creates an eerie atmosphere that the viewer cannot expect reality. The series portrays ordinary people who are fans of a graphic novel Utopia. They have suddenly been hunted down by killers of Network, a secret organization of which utopian project is to cut the human population which soon reaches eight billion back down to 0.7 billion. In order to accomplish their objective, Network will have 90 per cent of the human population sterilized by distributing flu vaccine. Their rationale is that the Earth and human being must perish for climate change and resource depletion that, as they claimed, overpopulation have caused. The series poses an ethical dilemma that the greater pleasure can only be achieved by the lesser people against the classical utilitarian doctrine; the present population must be declined for the greater welfare of the future generation.

Influencia de la psicología milliana en la teoría económica: problemática asociada al caso particular del comportamiento altruista

Altruism is an universal experience and kind of behavior that has been studied by economists. However, the assump-tions frequently accepted about psychological foundations of human nature in utilitarian doctrines, as it’s the case of Economics, have caused several problems that make difficult to formulate a general theory of altruism. That is main-ly because utilitarian altruism is not really altruism. We explain the psychological theory that link James & John S. Mill utilitarian doctrines, and show how it’s principal contents, and theoretical problems dealed with altruism, appear again replicated in modern neoclassical models, as Gary S. Becker’s, that explain altruism by means of more devel-oped formal analysis. We propose the need for updating utilitarian tradition on altruism, taking into account the cur-rent findings in cognitive neuroscience. Curiously, these findings connect brain running with the theoretical assump-tions considered by Adam Smith, and the psychology of sympathy tradition.

Visual Presentation of Social Matters

“Visual Presentation of Social Matters” is a 1936 Polanyi lecture, delivered to the Association for Education in Citizenship, which lies in the background of Polanyi’s 1940 film Unemployment and Money. Polanyi argues that the complex modern market system is misunderstood by ordinary citizens who subscribe to economic fallacies; this misunderstanding has contributed to violence and turmoil in the twentieth century. Polanyi proposes a program to discover a dynamic visual symbolism (“moving picture writing”) that he believes can clearly represent modern economic life, releasing ordinary people from economic fallacies and exasperation and creating “economic consciousness.” This economic enlightenment is part of Polanyi’s effort to rehabilitate liberalism. He envisions an economic order in which there is freedom and “complete co-ordination” which he suggests already exists in the domain of scientific research. Heroism and Happiness The dictators of Germany and Italy have repudiated the utilitarian idea and following the lead of some philosophers of the past century have proclaimed that heroism stands above utility. They despise base comfort and aspire to noble tragedy. There might be truth in this philosophy, yet it is as inappropriate in a statesman as it would be in a doctor. Both have to do their best to improve the condition of those entrusted to their care and not to cause their destruction for the sake of making them fulfill a nobler fate. But the statesman might well reject the utilitarian doctrine on other grounds; not because it wants to make people happy but because it gravely misjudges the conditions of human contentment. This doctrine assumes that people are content if they are given the means to satisfy their needs. Unfortunately, this is not so. Even more than they need goods, people want for their contentment a full understanding of their condition. None can find comfort in a position which he fails to comprehend, and protracted perplexity leads to mental derangement.

The Politics of Sour Grapes: Sartre, Elster, and Tocqueville on Frustration, Failure, and Self-Deception

AbstractJean-Paul Sartre and Jon Elster have taken great interest in the famous “children's” fable, “The Fox and the Grapes.” Elster believes the fable pinpoints problems in utilitarian doctrine while Sartre contends it demonstrates how consciousness copes with frustrated desire. As impressive as these insights are, neither philosopher can fully explain the cognitive and cultural processes involved in sour grapes. To improve upon their theories, I will argue thatamour-propreis an important psychological motive inspiring sour grapes as well as show that sour grapes is built into the value commitments and institutional structures of democratic life through Tocqueville's analysis of American democracy.

LA DOCTRINA UTILITARISTA INGLESA EN LA UNIVERSIDAD COLOMBIANA DEL SIGLO XIX

En la Nueva Granada hoy república de Colombia se habló por primera vez del autor inglés, Jeremías Bentham en 1811 cuando Antonio Nariño publicó en el periódico La Bagatela un artículo en donde se resaltaba su obra. Muchos personajes como Antonio Nariño, Simón Bolívar y Francisco de Paula Santander, utilizando su sistema epistolario,comentarios de otros autores y el análisis de textos, lograron conocer los planteamientos sobre la doctrina utilitarista, realizados por Jeremías Bentham y les pareció interesante y útil para los proyectos de la época, por lo cual lo incluyeron en la enseñanza de Legislación Civil y Penal de las Universidades y Colegios. Así, Bentham facilitó el proyecto educativo de Santander y en buena parte de los gobiernos radicales de Colombia de la segunda mitad del Siglo XIX, especialmente en lo relacionado con la instauración de la escuela laica.

Rawls on the practicability of utilitarianism

John Rawls's claim to have demonstrated the superiority of his own two principles of justice to the principle of utility has generated fairly extensive critical discussion. However, this discussion has almost completely disregarded those of Rawls's arguments that are concerned with practicability, despite the significance accorded to them by Rawls himself. This article addresses the three most important of Rawls's objections against the practicability of utilitarianism: (1) that utilitarianism would generate too much disagreement to be politically workable, (2) that a utilitarian society would be vulnerable to social instability, and (3) that publicly adopting the principle of utility as the ultimate criterion of right and wrong would undermine the self-respect of some citizens. It is argued that Rawls's objections are either exaggerated or mistaken, and that this may have an impact on the assessment of `justice as fairness' as well as the utilitarian doctrine.

Amartya Sen : un bilan critique

Résumé Cet article se propose de faire un bilan critique de certaines des contributions les plus connues d’Amartya Sen à l’analyse et à la philosophie économiques. Une première partie revient sur les concepts de "capabilité" et de "fonctionnements", au centre du dispositif théorique de Sen. Puis, ce sont ses positions éthiques qui sont examinées à partir des critiques qu’il adresse aux doctrines utilitariste et rawlsienne. Il se dégage de cette étude que les positions de Sen ne sont pas aussi originales qu’on ne le pense généralement, tant sur le plan théorique que sur celui de leur portée pratique.

Utilitarian Liberalism: Between Gray and Mill

John Gray’s hostile reading of J.S. Mill’s utilitarian doctrine of individual liberty and social authority is rejected in favour of a more sympathetic reading. According to the latter, Mill’s doctrine says that every civilized society ought to distribute equal rights to complete liberty of self‐regarding conduct. Although clarification of the relevant terms is required, utilitarian calculations are not needed to understand or apply this principle of self‐regarding liberty because it is already a utilitarian principle. Mill’s doctrine also says that every civilized society has legitimate authority to consider establishing rules of social (or other‐regarding) conduct, although society may rightfully decide to adopt broad laissez‐faire policies for some types of social conduct, including trade and expression. In particular, to promote the general welfare, any civil society should enact and enforce a legal code of equal justice which distributes equal rights and correlative obligations designed to protect the right‐holder from suffering serious harms without his consent. Although its content may vary across different social contexts, an optimal code must always distribute certain basic human rights, including the right to complete self‐regarding liberty. Gray’s objection that such a moral and political project is defeated by value‐pluralism is not persuasive. Under plausible conditions, any people seeking to promote the interests of all must consent by (at least) majority vote to some form of representative government with authority to enact and enforce such a code of justice. Value‐pluralism itself, unless it endorses this project at least to the extent of protecting some minimum set of basic human rights, fails as moral and political theory.

From universal prescriptive to Kantian utilitarianism

The author re-examines Hare's multiple ways of connecting his metaethical with his normative doctrine, which is in formal sense determined as "Kantian utilitarianism", and in substantive sense as "preference-utilitarianism". Critical references to both dimensions of utilitarian doctrine aim at indication on scopes and limits of Hare's ambitious redefinition of the doctrine. Further on he discusses about so-called "necessary ingredient" of moral reasoning under the name of "sympathetic imagination", which Hare grasps in his developed theory not only as a normative demand but also as a logical thesis. Finally, he considers kinds of preferences that can or cannot be recognized (with help of established set of criteria) as morally relevant.

Legislator Of The World? A Rereading of Bentham on Colonies

It has become almost commonplace to claim that utilitarianism was, from its inception, an imperialist theory. Many writers, from Bentham’s own followers to recent scholars, have suggested that from Bentham onward, utilitarians reveled in the opportunity that they believed despotic power provided for the establishment of perfectly rational laws and institutions. A closer look at Bentham’s own views on empire, however, reveals a sharp break between his position on European colonies and that of followers such as James and John Stuart Mill. For Bentham, the utilitarian doctrine led to criticisms of the empires of his day. Bentham is better understood as a participant in the late-eighteenth-century skepticism about imperial conquests and aspirations than he is as a proto-colonialist or a “Solon” of India. Once he is understood in this light, our picture of his successors, especially J. S. Mill, is revised as well.

Mill's “Proof” of the Principle of Utility: A More than Half-Hearted Defense

How many serious mistakes can a brilliant philosopher make in a single paragraph? Many think that Mill answers this question by example—in the third paragraph of Chapter IV of Utilitarianism. Here is the notorious paragraph:The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality.

Architektūrinio racionalizmo pamokos

The 19th century marked the beginning of a close and fruitful co-operation between architectural schools of France and Lithuania. The most celebrated personality representing this co-operation is professor Karolis Podčašinskis (1790-1860), who was a devout follower of the approach propagated by professor Jean Nicolas Louis Durand (1760- 1834) from l'Ecole Polytechnique in Paris. While teaching at Vilnius University, Department of Architecture, Podčašinskis applied the principles of Durand's rationalistic doctrine. Two of his students, Fulgentas Rimgaila (1805-1870) and Liucijonas Vyganauskas (1809-1886) who went to Paris, adopted the aesthetic and practical principles of the French architecture of the day. The theory of Durand known under the name of utilitarian doctrine became the basic reference point for the 19th century architecture. The followers of a 'historical architecture', who tried to imitate the style and architectural forms of the past, started modifying and simplifying them in accordance with the principles of geometrical regularity and repetition proposed by Durand. Even though F. Rimgaila accepted the doctrine of French architecture, he could not accept a life abroad, came back to Lithuania in 1856 and built some manor houses and churches. L.Vyganauskas, on the other hand, did not return to his homeland. He put the experience he gained in France in practice together with the French restorers Lassus and Viollet le Due.

Bentham's Equality-Sensitive Utilitarianism

Rosen argues that Bentham's utilitarian doctrine was sensitive to distributive concerns and would not countenance sacrifice of fundamental individual interests for aggregate gains in happiness in society. This essay seeks to extend and deepen Rosen's argument. It is argued that Bentham's equality-sensitive principle of utility is an expression of an individualist conception of human happiness which contrasts sharply with the orthodox utilitarian abstract conception. Evidence for this interpretation of the basic motivation of Bentham's doctrine is drawn from his view of the relationship between happiness and expectations, from various expressions of his ‘each to count for one’ formula, and from his reformulations of the principle of utility itself late in his career.

The Reasons we can Share: An Attack on the Distinction between Agent-Relative and Agent-Neutral Values

To later generations, much of the moral philosophy of the twentieth century will look like a struggle toescapefrom utilitarianism. We seem to succeed in disproving one utilitarian doctrine, only to find ourselves caught in the grip of another. I believe that this is because a basic feature of the consequentialist outlook still pervades and distorts our thinking: the view that the business of morality is tobring something about. Too often, the rest of us have pitched our protests as if we were merely objecting to the utilitarian account ofwhatthe moral agent ought to bring about orhowhe ought to do it. Deontological considerations have been characterized as “side constraints,” as if they were essentially restrictions on ways to realize ends. More importantly, moral philosophers have persistently assumed that the primal scene of morality is a scene in which someone does somethingtoorforsomeone else. This is the same mistake that children make about another primal scene. The primal scene of morality, I will argue, is not one in which I do something to you or you do something to me, but one in which we do something together. The subject matter of morality is not what we should bring about, but how we should relate to one another. If only Rawls has succeeded in escaping utilitarianism, it is because only Rawls has fully grasped this point. His primal scene, the original position, is one in which a group of people must make a decision together. Their task is to find the reasons they can share.

La Théorie de la justice de John Rawls. Contrat social versus utilitarisme

John Rawls' a theory of justice. Social contract vs utilitarianism Rawls' A Theory of Justice constructs a modem version of the theory of social contract by emphasizing distributive justice, which attempts to offer an alternative to the utilitarian doctrine. Unlike utilitarianism, Rawls' theory is neither altruistic nor teleogical, but deontological : one must try to find the right rules without taking a stand on the purposes of individuals. These rules, the two principles of justice — the broadest basic liberties and democratic equality together with advantage granted to the underprivileged (fraternity) —, are in lexicographic order. They form a social optimum (what is right) compatible with, but taking precedence over, the economic optimum (relative only to what is good). The choice of these principles belongs to game theory. The players will choose them rather than those pertaining to any other doctrine because of the maximin criterion. Rawls is open to « public choice » critics who reject distributive justice (fraternity) on the basis of utilitarian arguments. Rawls' constructivism does not agree easily with the individualism and liberalism which he claims.