J.J.C. Smart discusses the ideas of extreme and restricted utilitarianism, also known as rule and act utilitarianism. In a broader sense, utilitarianism refers to the idea of assessing morality (or in this case rationality) by the consequences that result from an action or actions. Smart eludes that rule and act utilitarianism come into the picture based on our interpretations of these "actions." If we understand these actions to be "particular individual actions" then we judge them by their individualistic consequences. This logic is the basis for those who have grown to adopt act utilitarianism. This belief treats moral rules as mere rules of thumb that, in extenuating circumstances, can be broken if the total well being of the society would be improved. Contrarily, those who believe in restricted utilitarianism determine whether or not actions fall under specific moral rules. They are analyzed as a class of actions and if the moral rule is acceptable, so is the action.
Near the end of the critique, Smart identifies an instance where people adhere to a rule, which seems to be a reason for acting a certain way (99). The scenario described is how we drive up the right side of the road. It is a rule, and we follow it. However, Smart constructs an argument that declares "the rule in itself is not a reason for our action" (99). He goes onto explain how if we would be perfectly justified if we had knowledge that the rule was to go up the left hand side of the road as long as our peers and fellow citizens were super-anarchists who did the opposite of what they were told. That would result in everyone driving up the right side wouldn't it? Using this example, Smart concludes that "the rule does not give us a reason for acting so much as an indication of the probable actions of others, which helps us to find out what would be our own most rational course of action" (100).
I have a tough time accepting the idea that we use rules simply to predict the actions of others, and harmonize ours accordingly. The concepts are advanced, and can even be murky at times. Remember that people in support of act utilitarianism view moral rules as rules of thumb that help guide us, and the actual evaluation of actions are lumped into either being rational and praiseworthy, or irrational and not praiseworthy (or a mix of both). My analysis of Smart's argument can be summed up by the restricted utilitarian who believes the morality of an issue is incompatible with a traffic rule that has only been developed to prevent accidents and organize traffic. We are apathetic to the specifics of the rule, but follow it only to keep safe. In my opinion, morality is not an issue in which we are apathetic of the specifics. I believe that Smart has constructed an argument that is difficult to find holes and inconsistencies in the premises and logic, but I still cannot allow myself to reduce moral rules from "right" and "wrong" to "rational" and "irrational." Also, I'm not sure how predicting the actions of others in a super-anarchist society do much when applied to morality. Why should we take a "game theory" approach to morality? I understand that the rational/irrational vs. right/wrong is a fundamental idea in act utilitarianism, but, regardless, my objection lies within the utilitarian's belief that the only thing of intrinsic value is the society's overall well being.
My belief is that right and wrong exists, and although sometimes situational, there is a distinctive intrinsic morality within certain acts.
While I think Andrew gives a very thorough, thoughtful analysis of Smart's argument, I disagree with his interpretation of utilitarian's view of moral rules as rules of thumb. I do not think that a utilitarianist disregards the specifics; rather, I think a utilitarianist is more aware of the specifics. Morals are regarded as rules of thumb because of the realization that different circumstances and different situations necessitate different action. Referencing that stealing is generally wrong will keep us on the right and moral track most of the time, but there are times when stealing would bear better results than not stealing. For example, if we knew a dangerous man had a gun would it not be in the best interest to take that gun from his possession? If rules change according to situations, which Andrew does admit is possible, then that eliminates the intrinsic nature of a rule. For a rule to be intrinsically right, then it will always bear truth and always guide us to the right path of action. In my opinion, viewing morals in an intrinsically right versus wrong sense is more of an overlook of the specifics than is a utilitarian perspective. Based off of the numerous discussions we have had in class, it seems nearly impossible for a single moral rule to apply to any and every situation. Thus, pasting that rule as an ever-true guideline seems to be ignoring situational specificity.
ReplyDelete