The readings analyzed is by Julia Driver on a paper exploring the history of utilitarianism. The quote chosen from the author is “They held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.” (Driver, 2009). The claim made is that utilitarianism involves bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number. It simply states that the best course of action is one that maximizes the greatest good for a large number of individuals. On the other hand, a wrong decision will involve one that maximizes bad, minimizes good, and the bad consequence affects a large number of people. The claim takes the view that one should be able to sacrifice their happiness for the greater pleasure of other people.
The claim further takes into account the number of people involved as a result of the consequences of the action. In case one is faced by two decisions where the first action results in a greater good while the second action results in a lesser good, then one should choose the first action that promotes a greater good. Additionally, if one is faced with the same decision but the first action promotes good for a greater number of people while the second action promotes good for very people, then one should opt for the first decision that maximizes on numbers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Supporting materials from the reading
The claim of the greatest good for the greatest number is supported in the readings through the analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s work. Jeremy Bentham held that human beings were ruled by two dominant masters, pleasure and pain. People seek what is good by going for what is pleasurable and avoid bad by going against the unpleasable. He noted that pain and pleasure can help explain one’s actions but also help in defining what is good and moral. The view takes pleasure as a basis for desirable things and one should try to promote good by promoting the greatest pleasure.
The promotion of good is also found in Scarre where he notes that holding the utilitarian view of the greatest good for the greatest number can act as a moral compass. Scarre makes use of telling a lie to achieve a notable good. While lying can be harmful in general, if it is done to achieve some notable good, then one can favor the lying. It is a consequentialist reason that leads to the favoring of lying if the end result would be a greater good. The motive of the action is thus the object of approval or disapproval.
Counterclaim
One counterclaim to the view of the greater good of the greater number comes about when the action being undertaken is not right. Following the claim, one would not judge the wrongness or rightness of the action but rather on the consequences that have resulted from the actions. The view that it is okay to carry out an action that is wrong as long as it has positive consequences for the majority of the people cannot be applied in many cases.
One example to support the counterclaim is in a society that has rampant stealing with no offenders being convicted. The general public may remain threatened, afraid, and unhappy with the current situation. They could resort to holding demonstrations in order so as to pressure the police officers to make successful convictions. A police detective that is under the pressure to find the offenders would find it right to convict an innocent man. The action would bring a greater good for a greater number by making the majority feel safer, happier, and reducing time spent on demonstrations. The claim is at fault in this case because it cannot provide an adequate basis for a moral decision. It is morally wrong to convict someone that is completely innocent.
Counterargument
While the above example presents an example of the flaw in the greater good for the greater number, it is a complete misrepresentation of the claim. Anyone that follows the claim would not be willing to ignore justice and punish an innocent man in the name of achieving a greater good. However, I find that the example presents a flaw with the point of view. The claim may not hold when one maximizes pleasure and reduces pain for the greater number without putting other factors into consideration. One must put other factors in consideration like justice and protecting the rights of an individual. The flaw in the claim is thus that it cannot be used in itself but should be accompanied with proper reasoning and a moral sense. The moral importance or dignity of a person can be used to compensate for larger numbers.
In conclusion, the claim of a greater good for a greater number presents a moral compass for making various decisions. Such a view makes use of the consequences of an action and opts for the one that does the minimal damage and maximizes goodness. However, the view may not be applied in all cases. One would have to put other factors into consideration when applying the claim in instances where one should commit a wrong action that can promote a greater good.
References
Driver, J. (2009). The History of Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen
