The nature of modern law is a benefit to such agreement, not to damage each other or each other to suffer damages. Epicurus When we speak of utilitarianism, he is usually portrayed as a monolithic block that is only guided by utilitarian or pleasure principle. This is too narrow a view, propagated mainly by the opponents of moral philosophy. The reality is more complex. First of all, there is not "the" utilitarianism, as each representative developed his own version of it. In addition to the primary Recurrent John Stuart Mill as an example of utilitarianism is misleading, because he himself does not primarily as a theorist of utilitarianism saw, but as a representative of the idea of freedom, as well as an economist and logician. Seine - at its discretion - a script to be insignificant utilitarianism should be more of a respectful addition to Jeremy Bentham. Nevertheless, his writing was probably the most influential in the Utilitarismusdebatte. The first
utilitarians - which is also understood as such, because the roots of utilitarianism are much older - is surely among the most modern and progressive moral philosophers of the time. They fought against the existing, unquestioned moral standards of their time. They asked Bentham impunity for homosexuality and rights for animals and Mill the legal equality and liberation of women and slaves. Revolutionary demands that we no longer seem absurd and scandalous, but then they were there. Not for nothing they called themselves "radicals". Even Bentham's older contemporary of Kant did not go so far - on the contrary, its ethics to justify the inequality, women and slaves were not to head to the moral capacity.
The real innovation was that ethics was debatable then, and not God-given or was founded on first principles. All recent morals were challenged. And that's my opinion, the main achievement of utilitarianism, ethics and morality is discussed, analyzed, justified and criticized. In the critical discourse man and woman has the best chance for a suitable and practical solutions to come, not by ethical norms accepted authoritative set or given. All submitted images must end and must be criticized.
the utilitarian principle, it was not the desire optimization, but claims they were in search of empirical criteria for the assessment of moral and ethical. Therefore, they introduced the consistency principle: only the consequences of an action can be used to assess their ethical value, the "social utility" (utilitas) of the act or norm for decisive. What are the criteria to evaluate these benefits, it eliminated, however, the ghosts. For some it was a general lust for the other more happiness and joy, for others the reduction or elimination of pain and suffering (see John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism Routledge, 2006, 39). The safeguarding of the general security can be regarded as a key benefit of standards within a society (see John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reclam, 2006, 161.).
Bentham wrote about benefits: lower value is understood that property in an object, profit, advantage brings, pleasure, good or happiness for each subject looked at ... (Quoted in Mary Warnock: utilitarianism, London 1962, 34.). Mill added that the happiness that represents the utilitarian standard of morally right action, not the happiness of the agent itself, but the happiness of all concerned (John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reclam, 2006, 53.). It is therefore an altruistic ethics model.
What the expected benefits but may in no case is a little inopportune. The Mill closes out explicitly (see John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reclam, 2006, 67.). Opportunity may not be the basis of a morality. Therefore, it can not be, that the interests of the majority be found on the interests of a minority. Also
if ever again the sentence of the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number of people as the main subject of utilitarianism is given - which is certainly the case is quite right - It will not be overlooked that the utilitarians in particular about personal freedom and autonomy of the sentient individual went. Mill himself said that it is a matter that promote the general happiness to (be), he does not speak of happiness maximization. Many utilitarians, therefore the happiness of the individual will not be weighed against the happiness of many. The protection of the suffering individual's performance is always a key argument in all considerations, even if the common good primary Goal remains. This point is ignored by the critics happy. Miller, however, clearly states: a society of equals can only exist on condition that the interests of all are equally respected (John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reclam, 2006, 97.). And the justice that dictates the rights protect all alike, will represent himself from those who own the most outrageous inequality of rights thing (John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reclam, 2006, 137.).
Dworkin gives three principles which constitute the philosophical basis of utilitarianism (Ronald Dworkin. A Matter of Principle Harvard University Press, 1985): 1) the consistency principle (Ethical Act or ethical standards have in terms of their consequences and be judged). - 2) the Utilitätsprinzip (The consequences are assessed in accordance with their ability to bring a general benefit,) -. 3) the principle of equity (the value for each individual to evaluate the same -. it must not lead to unequal treatment or unequal assessment of individuals) This shows that not the utilitarianism primarily aims to outweigh the interests of the individual against the interests of the public. Everyone counts the same amount, because every one just one time
The early utilitarians, it was above all the criticism of the common morality. Many moral systems took over and cemented just common prejudices and moral conventions. And on the other hand fought to the utilitarian. The intuition they were a source of morality do not apply, and finally follows the intuition in general, only the traditional habits. And this, a careful analysis than is often very unethical. Even the natural law is inappropriate because it prohibited the closing of the being on an "ought" takes place, and therefore is illogical and irrational. Ultimately may be justified almost everything because almost everything is somewhere. It all depends on the choice of examples. Thus, the racial laws of the Nazis were based on a natural understanding of the law. The
Utilitarians sought a new method to check the value of a given standard can empirically. They developed the consistency principle and the Utilitätsprinzip in all its variants, without however forgetting the newly emerged principle of equality. Their concern was always about the protection of individuals capable of suffering.
Fitzpatrick makes abundantly clear: When Bentham advocated moral consideration for animals, and the decriminalization of consensual sex acts, it is not the consequentialist nature of his argument that was shocking, but that animals or despised minorities should be argued for at all When Mill argued in behalf of working class women or black slaves, what offended his contemporaries is that white male aristocrats should be morally compelled to modify their behavior in response to claims originating outside their class. And when Peter Singer argues today for massive Increases in aid to the third world, vegetarianism, and the ending of factory farms, it is not the Consequentialism that enrages his opponents (John Fitzpatrick: Starting with Mill Continuum, 2010, 139). Is this a question of the consequences of our actions today for the environment, for the other life forms on Earth and for future generations of people have is:
A good example of the applied consistency principle, the modern environmental debate. The analysis of the impact assessment leads to conclusions that our should act accordingly and affect change.
is important is the recognition that approached pull it either not empirical, and no rational justification can exist for ethics, so the utilitarian aims, the specific consequences of a rule or act as an empirical benchmark for moral assessment (see John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism . Reclam, 2006, 105). Attempts to use utilitarianism as a standard-setting process can broadly be regarded as a failure.
At this point, must now to the positive concept of law: According to a positive understanding of law rules of law that arose after formally valid rules, also valid. The legitimacy of the rule of law resulting from their development process. This is a formal legitimacy. must be distinguished from a substantive legitimacy that can only result from the consideration of the consequences. The problem is that positive law by the formal legitimacy while legal certainty generated, but not necessarily justice. This utilitarian control mechanisms would be desirable. The
Rechtsutilitarismus precisely aims. Legal norms and standard setting procedures are verified with the utilitarian means and methods for their suitability. For the actions of the individual, the applicable rules of law - provided that they legitimately have come are - binding. However, this remains an open question whether an individual should be allowed to rebel against the law if it recognizes it as wrong or unjust. The Mill freedom theorists would say yes in order to ensure freedom of conscience.
0 comments:
Post a Comment