Utilitarianism Module 2
Utilitarianism Module 2
Utilitarianism Module 2
Module 2
MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Franklin Drilon
and Sen. Francis Escudero disputed yesterday the playing
in a Senate public hearing of the audio recording of an
alleged conversation between a government official and a Introduction
lawmaker about attempts to cover up the massacre of the
police Special Action Force (SAF) commandos during the
encounter with Muslim rebels in Mamasapano,
Maguindanao last year.
As Drilon attempted to block the playing of the audio
recordings during the resumption today of the joint Senate
committees investigating the Mamasapano inquiry,
Escudero maintained that a third party who will play the
recording may not be held liable under the Anti-
Wiretapping Law.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/
He contradicted Drilon’s stance that the playing of an 2016/01/26/1546749/senators-clash-over-
playing-mamasapano-tapes
unauthorized recording is punishable by law.
• When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs and
benefits of wiretapping.
• If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are considering an ethical
theory that gives premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality and as
such is utilitarianism.
• UTILITARIANISM is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences.
• This means that pleasure is good and that goodness of an action is determined by its
usefulness.
• Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that one’s actions and behavior are
good inasmuch as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over
pain for the greatest number of persons.
“utility”
• Refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behavior.
• When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in
better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way.
• It is utilitarian because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed
for the sake of the greater happiness of the many.
Two foremost
Utilitarian
Thinkers
In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure;
duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that
pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness or how soon there will be pleasure.
This indicators allow us to measure pleasure and pain in an action.
When we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these actions, we need to consider 2
more dimensions:
1. Fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
2. Extent are actions being evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and
values.
Principle of the Greatest Number
Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral
agent alone and independently from others.
This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high,
intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the
greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions.
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
Justice
As a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.
Rights
Are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Legal Rights
Neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions.
Moral Rights
It take precedence over legal rights. It is only justifiable by considerations of
greater overall happiness.