Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Right-based Moral Theory-Mackie

For the most part, I understood her argument. The part I got confused on was when she was talking about the well-being of one person shouldn't be given up for the well-being of others (172). I understood it as if B, C, and D are happy based on separate experiences that takes away from the well-being of A, that the happiness of B, C, and D should continue regardless of A. Is this where she says that this idea is wrong and embarassing to utilitarianism and her argument about right-based moral theory? I understood it as it is wrong to violate the well-being of one person even though the 'majority' are happy. I am not sure if this is right or if I am understanding it correctly. Other than that, this article was difficult but understandable. She sets the article up by explaining how other philosophers have talked about rights; then goes into ideas that don't work; then follows up with the explanation that does, I think.

1 comment:

  1. Rachel, I think what he is saying, and I could be wrong, is that this position among goal-based utilitarian’s, where the welfare of one is sacrificed for the well fare of the majority is an embarrassment, because they literally sacrifice “individuals” for the common welfare. He then goes on to list three different reactions to this position. (1) Act utilitarian, simply accepts the consequences which their principle brings upon itself. (2) Indirect utilitarian’s – rule utilitarian’s, hold two levels of moral thinking; (A) practical day-to-day thinking, which protects the welfare of each individual against the claims of the greater happiness of others. (B) Philosophical thinking, “the well being of individuals is simply aggregated and the happiness of some can indeed compensate for the misery of others (even if that misery is not justified; justification being one of the elements philosophical thinkers take into consideration). (3) States that the embarrassment arises because utilitarianism is not a goal based theory but an aggregative one. That those who claim this and say they are goal-based are undermining themselves; their principle prescribes fairness in the distribution of happiness. He goes on to say on 173 -174 to explain why each of these positions are embarrassing and what the problems are within and essentially disregards goal-based moral theories on this, I think?

    Not sure if I was much help, but basically what I read it to be was that this was his way of eliminating the goal-based moral theory and in the previous pages eliminated the idea of duty-based moral theory, left with the right based moral theory.

    ReplyDelete