The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels

Author:James Rachels
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Published: 2018-03-20T04:00:00+00:00

102  THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

and economist. James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), would become the next leading advocate of utilitarian ethics. The younger Mill’s advocacy was even more elegant and persuasive than Bentham’s. Mill’s short book Utilitarianism (1861) is still required reading for serious students of moral philosophy.

At first glance, the Principle of Utility might not seem so radical; in fact, it might seem trite or clichéd. After all, who doesn’t believe that we should oppose suffering and promote happiness? Yet Bentham and Mill, in their own way, were as revolutionary as the two most celebrated intellectual innovators of the 19th century: the biologist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and the social theorist Karl Marx (1818–1883).

To understand why the Principle of Utility was so radical, consider what it leaves out of morality: It says nothing about God, nor does it speak of abstract rules “written in the heavens.” Morality is not viewed as obedience to a list of ancient proclamations. Or as the utilitarian Peter Singer (1946–) puts it, morality is not “a system of nasty puritanical prohibitions . . . designed to stop people [from]

having fun.” Rather, ethics is about the happiness of beings in this world, and nothing more; and we are permitted—even required—to do what is necessary to bring about the most happiness. This was no quaint truism; this was a revolutionary idea.

The utilitarians wanted their doctrine to matter in practice. So let’s see what Utilitarianism has to say about three real-world issues: euthanasia, marijuana, and the treatment of nonhuman animals.

This will give us a better sense of the theory.

7.2. First Example: Euthanasia

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the legendary Austrian psychologist, was stricken with oral cancer after decades of cigar smoking. During his final years, Freud’s health went up and down, but in early 1939, a large swelling formed in the back of his mouth, and he would have no more good days. Freud’s cancer was active, and he was also suffering from heart failure. As his bones decayed, they cast off a foul smell, driving away his favorite dog. Mosquito netting was draped over his bed in order to keep flies away.

On September 21, at the age of 83, Freud took his friend and personal physician, Max Schur, by the hand and said, “My dear rac14259_ch07_101-117.indd 102

02/15/18 3:37 PM

T HE UTILITARIAN APPROACH  103

Schur, you certainly remember our first talk. You promised me then not to forsake me when my time comes. Now it’s nothing but torture and makes no sense any more.” Forty years earlier Freud had written, “What has the individual come to . . . if one no longer dares to disclose that it is this or that man’s turn to die?” Dr. Schur said he understood. He injected Freud with a drug in order to end his life. “He soon felt relief,” Dr. Schur wrote, “and fell into a peaceful sleep.”

Did Max Schur do anything wrong? On the one hand, he had noble motives—he loved his friend and wanted to relieve his patient’s misery. Moreover, Freud had asked to die.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.