PDF file - Ipce

Part_5_2
not all consequentialists can be called utilitarians. Broadly speaking, my own belief is that
aiming for the greatest happiness of people in general is about the best we can do in terms of
ultimate ethical goals. Apparently different goals, such as service to others, and the
encouragement of virtues such as courage, honesty, artistic appreciation and so on are really
only sub-sets, or aspects, of a happy society. So, I am a utilitarian, which also means I am a type
of consequentialist. And I am a paedophile. Lots of big words!
Opponents of consequentialism support several different theories. One of these is natural law
theory, the idea behind this being that we have, within our own nature, a guide to what is good
for us. If we follow our own nature we will flourish. This thinking derives from figures such as
Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas but is also very modern - many people today think we should
study our evolutionary genetic and behavioural development in order to discover the kinds of
behaviour most "natural" to us. As developed by theologians, natural law theory, however,
became very unempirical and indeed highly artificial and unnatural.
Of much more importance to us is an alternative natural law tradition that started with John
Locke in the 17th century. This body of theory was based on rights that supposedly exist in a
state of nature and are retained even in modern society. This view of rights had a major
influence on the development of the American constitution and thereby on the whole idea of
human rights. But why is the idea of rights so important? Why can't we just say we must each
act in ways consistent with maximizing the sum total of happiness?
This question brings us up against a major problem, a major clash of moral sentiments.
Classic example
The classic illustration of this is to imagine seven sailors in a lifeboat. They have enough water
on board but they are starving. They have six strong oarsmen who calculate they can reach
land before they die but only if they can keep their strength up by eating. The seventh sailor is
a little cabin boy who isn't strong enough to row but would be very good to eat. The six rowers
can eat him, and survive, or all seven will certainly die unless there is a very unlikely rescue.
Now these happen to be very brutal, nasty sailors who would not be troubled by a bad
conscience over eating the boy. If they reach land they will be very happy about it. Should they
eat the boy? To do so would bring the maximum amount of happiness to the group, thus
satisfying the declared social aim of utilitarianism. But many people would find this idea
revolting and quickly conclude it would be better for all seven to die than to have six happy
survivors. Such people would be human rights advocates who would wish to set out rules, or
principles, defining minimum rights, such as the right to life, which it is simply wrong to set
aside even in extreme circumstances. Those same people, however, might agree that war is
sometimes justifiable even though entirely innocent parties are likely to lose their lives. These
matters are not simple.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/newsletters/nl_e_12/part_5_2.htm (3 of 13) [10/16/2002 5:35:14 PM]