UTILITARIANISM. The position when considering and solving socio-political problems, requiring proceeding primarily or exclusively from the principle of utility, from the possibility of obtaining direct benefits or achieve the goal. The ideas of utilitarianism are rooted in the XVIII-XIX century (I. Bentam, J. Mill, etc.). In modern life, utilitarianism leads to narrow practicism, to the unrestrained desire always and everywhere to extract the momentary material benefit, not considered anyone and with anything to the compliance and confusion.

Recycling (Lopukhov, 2013)

Recycling is the principle of evaluating all phenomena, events, facts from the point of view of rapidly realizable utility, the possibility of their use as a means to achieve any goal. In a narrower sense, the desire to extract the momentary benefit; Dealerity, vulgar practicing.

Dictionary of terms and concepts in social studies. Author-compiler A.M. Lopukhov. 7th ed. Pass. and add. M., 2013, p. 430-431.

Recycling (Kirilenko)

Recycling - the ethical system of views and actions, which is based on the desire for benefits. Useful in this case it turns out that it contributes to the achievement of the target man. Utilitarianism is focused on a socio-active individual, flexible, tolerant, active, who firmly knows that active activity is good; idleness, laziness - evil. But for what a person works, what seeks? The utilitarian installation itself does not allow answers to this question. Recycling as a philosophical-ethical theory (I. Bentam, J. Art. Mill, N. G.

Recycling (Cont Sponville)

Utilitarism (Utilitarisme). Any teaching, based on their estimated judgments on the concept of benefit. So utilitarianism is the same thing that egoism? No, does not mean. Most utilitarists (in particular, Bentam (235) and John Stewart Mill (236) ) Determine the benefit of something that contributes to the happiness of the majority. Therefore, in principle, nothing hurts the utilitarian to bring himself a sacrificing for others if he considers that as a result of this, the total number of happiness will increase (in other words, if he comes to the conclusion about the benefits of his victim).

Recycling (Support)

Recycling [LAT. Utilitas - the benefits, the benefit] - the philosophical and ideological principle, according to which any natural and cultural and historical phenomenon is considered not in its own concreteness, but only as a means for external target - useful effect. From the point of view of utilitarianism, every thing, any wealth is determined through the benefit that consumption or some social institution may be extracted from it, erected in itself.

Recycling (Frolov)

Utilitarism (Lat. Utilitas - use) - ethical theory, recognizing the usefulness of the act with a complete criterion of its morality. The founder of utilitarianism Bentam defined its basic principle as "ensuring the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" by meeting their private interests. At the same time, the morality of the act can be mathematically calculated as the balance of pleasures and suffering obtained in its result. Mill introduced the principle of high-quality evaluation of pleasures in utilitarianism, the requirement to prefer mental pleasures to physical.

In different spheres of human life, there are repeated words as a utilitarian (for example, a form of power), utilitarian (maybe a look or even approach to business), utilitarian. But few people are thinking about the true meaning and is looking for answers to the question of what utilitarianism is.

Under the term "utilitarianism" is meant assessment act According to the result of the final activity. That is, if the action had a positive result, it does not matter what characteristic features are available. Accordingly, another concept is introduced: "the usefulness of a deed".

Values \u200b\u200band principles of utilitarian flow

According to the utilization teaching, any act should bring pleasure or happiness to everyone participating in the act of persons. The act is regarded not by itself, but according to the quality of the result. If the unlawful or immoral act brought a positive result and as many people as possible, then utilitarist philosophers recognize this action useful and will not consider the actual act as an immoral act. Winners, as they say, do not judge.

But is there always a goal justify funds? Is it permissible to sacrifice the smaller for happiness? And is it possible to bring the unified formula of this very happiness? After all, everyone has their own concepts and values, respectively, various ideas about happiness.

By the way about values. The highest value in utilitarianism is considered to be satisfaction. That is, is considered only the moral side of the issue. Tooltitarian is something that can benefit. The doctrine makes blurred statements as to what the creatures should strive to achieve the effect of utility.

Egoism and altruism as components of utilitarian teachings

There are no separate egoists taking place only about their own well-being, and altruists seeking to benefit the surrounding. In each utilitarian, the quality of the egoist and altruista is mixed. As a result, a person appears seeking to do so that the pleasure of all creatures capable of experiencing him. The entire psychological system is aimed at mutual commission in the name of achieving the highest benefit with the maximum number of individuals. From the point of view of this direction, there are no "good" and "bad" people. There is only a person who can perform actions leading to "moral" or "immoral" results.

The history of the emergence of utilitarianism

The utilitarian expressions that morality is derived from the ultimate component, were still incorporated with antique philosophers. In the teachings of Aristotle and Epicur Speak ideas about "greater happiness of more ideas." But the final design system received later.

Transgumanist theory Plays and catastrophic scenarios. Supermost superhorn to obtain maximum happiness requires an increase in body weight. As a result, a utilitarian essence will consider it a morally justified by such an act as the destruction of all living on Earth in order to assign all resources to achieve their own good. Thus, along with superhorrganisms, absorbing everything around, are projected by postolyudi, seeking to establish the peaceful existence of organisms, albeit by reducing the number of individuals, but by increasing the level of universal happiness. Again, the question is brewing: is it always the goal justifies the funds?

Deontological ethics as opposed to utilitarianism

Deontological ethics opposes utilitarianism in assessment of the quality of a deed. The result is not important, it is only important. It should be done as it should, and let it be as it will be. Never have come to moral principles and neglect human values. While utilitarianism takes care of a good man or bad, deontology shares humanity into groups of "good" and "bad". But is it possible to regard the condemnation of the person and hanging the label of negativeness as amendment against virtue?

Immanuel Kant limited his hard framework, considering the main aspects of the deontological teaching. He argued that even if the killer went to deception for the save of his victim, then this act should be considered immoral, for the conditional law is disturbed to always tell the truth. No lies in salvation. No shades of gray. Only white and black.

Utilitarists do not accept such judgments. They do not have such concepts like:

  • "debt";
  • "duty";
  • "a responsibility".

Everyone, even the most vicious, deserves happiness. The one who brings sufferings to others will be punished only when the torments of others exceed the pleasure of themselves. It is impossible to judge only for the very fact of having evils. While the scale of the scales is transferred to the satisfied majority, the inactive minority will remain unnoticed..

In the modern system of moral rules, the concept of utilitarian views has undergone some modifications, the flow is explained from a more humane and noble point of view. There are situations that cannot be not at the utilitarian look (for example, the hard work of the worker at the factory for obtaining the necessary materials for the benefit of a whole country, or an offering for sacrificing his own life with one soldier for the sake of salvation of the entire military squad), but certain specific cases are regarded respectively other moral principles and standards. So, the doctor will never sacrifice the life of one patient, even if he can become a donor for several patients. It turns out, the goal still does not justify the means? ..

Under utilitarianism, it is customary to mean such an ethical theory, which considers as the basis of moral debt (or the criterion of delimitation of good and evil). However, a simple point to the central place of the "Use" category in certain ethical concepts does not allow the specificity of this phenomenon. In order for a specific concept to be recognized by utilitarian, it must combine at least three properties. The modern economist and social philosophers L. Sen suggested their very successful brief description.

First Property Utilitarian ethics is "consequencyline" (from the English. Consequence - the consequence). "He means that about any choice (actions, rules, institutes and other things) is judged by its consequences, that is, on the results generated. Attention to the consequences is opposed ... Trends observed in some regulatory theories, when certain principles rely correctly regardless of The result of their application. In fact, consequencyalism requires even more than just concern to the consequences, since it believes the most important consequences and nothing else. " It must be borne in mind that the consequences of the choice can be estimated as more or less acceptable from a moral point of view only if any of them suggest more, and some are fewer the benefit, the increment of which requires morality.

An indication of this benefit is contained. in the second property Utilitarism, which A. Sen marked with the help of the concept of "Welfareism" (from the English. Welfare - welfare). The purpose of the moral subject from the point of view of utilitarian ethics is to increase the well-being of those people who affected its actions. The term "welfare" is a clarifying synonym for the word "benefit" (or "utility"). Recycling, the words of A. Sena, "limits the judgment about the situation of the usefulness of a" position ", while not interested in directly such things as the implementation or violation of the rights, responsibilities and other things. The combination of exemplism with consequencyline generates a special requirement, namely: To judge any choice for the utility that he brings. For example, about any act judge by the consequences to which he led (from the standpoint of consequencyline), and the consequences are judged by the utility that they have brought (from the standpoint of Welfrism). "

Finally, third Property Utilitarian ethics is the "total assessment" according to which "the usefulness of individual individuals is simply consistent with the aim of determining their cumulative heritage, while it does not matter how this amount is distributed among individuals (that is, the maximum value of total utility, despite the degree of inequality in the distribution utility) ".

Formula Recycling, taking into account all three properties, can be represented as follows: "About any choice is judged by the magnitude of the summary welfare generated by this choice."

Separate elements of utilitarianism and even its final formula in its application to private, especially social and political, problems are easy to detect throughout the history of ethical thought. As a general principle that enlists all the regulatory content of morality, it was considered by some English theologians of the XVIII century. However, for them, the reasoning about the increase in utility was a way to substantiate the principles included in the Christian moral doctrine, and not to the search tool for the optimal criteria for distinction between good and evil. Therefore, the independent existence of ethics of utilitarianism should be counted from the socio-ethical concept of I. Bentama. In his "Introduction to the principles of morality and legislation" I. Bentam argues that "the principle of utility is understood as the principle that approves or does not approve of any action, depending on whether it has (as it seems to us) the desire to increase Or reduce the happiness of the party, about which is the interest of which is the case, or, speaking the same in other words, to promote or impede this happiness. " Since approval or condemnation of action based on the "utility principle" is closed on the question of increasing happiness, identical for I. Bentama pleasure, the moral assessment within the position of the position proposed it cannot be carried out without measurements of this phenomenon. I. Bentam proceeded from the fact that there is a fairly reliable toolkit at the disposal of a moral subject to measure the individual level of happiness at a certain point in time and at certain time intervals.

The first element of such a toolkit is the criteria for evaluating pleasure. Direct, primary criteria are their intensity, duration, non-doubt or doubt, as well as intimacy or remoteness. Taking into account the fact that the individual enjoyment is built into the vital narrative of the experiencing person, the quantitative index of each pleasure should, according to I. Bentam, reflect not only its own properties, but also the ability to generate other pleasures and suffering. On this basis, the criteria for fertility and purity are added to four primary criteria, artificially disrupting the individual pleasure of the unity of individual experience. The second element of the Bentamovsky instrument is exhaustive, in his opinion, the classification of types of simple pleasures (from the "pleasures of feelings" to the "pleasures of relief"). It is necessary to the utilitarian, since it is based on the measurement objects. The criteria for quantitative estimates are applied precisely to simple elements of complex pleasures resulting from the analytical decomposition of the latter. Finally, Bentamov Measurement of Happiness takes into account not only objective patterns in the field of pleasure, but also the individual sensitivity of each person. In order for such accounting to be systematic and reliable, I. Bentam offers typology of factors that vary similar sensitivity.

If the party, "the interest of which is going," is not an individual, but the team (society), the list of quantitative evaluation criteria is complemented by another - the spread of pleasure. Since the interest of the collective, according to I. Bentam, can not be anything other than the amount of the interests of Individuals in it, then to find out the "general trend" of any action it is necessary: \u200b\u200b1) the addition of numbers expressing excess of pleasures over suffering For those who won from his commit; 2) addition of numbers expressing the oversight of the pleasures for those who lose from its commit; 3) Summing out the final balance. Such a summation allows not only to establish a positive or negative trend of action, but also to choose among potential behavior strategies that leads to the "most happiness of the greatest number of people." The principal condition for the correctness of utilitarian summation is to preserve the significance of the happiness of each person during solving the issue of moral correctness or incorrectness of the planned action. Later with a light hand of J. S. Mill Package equal to significance ("Everyone should be considered for one and no one - more than one person") received the name "Bentam Aphorism".

The main internal contradiction of the utilitarian ethics I. Bentam is the need to combine strictly hedonistic psychology with the imperativeness of the principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people." If the pleasure and suffering, according to I. Bentama, "Supreme Rules" of mankind, then fulfillment of the requirement to increase summed happiness can not be imputed to their "loyal". After all, the fulfillment of the principle of "greatest happiness" does not necessarily brings the acting person that the pleasure that exceeds his suffering from the negative consequences of compliance with this norm or from losing the ability to perform other (morally unjustified) actions. One way to solve this problem is associated with Bentamov's delimitation of "private ethics", which serves the happiness of the individual himself, and "legislation", serving the happiness of society, including the creation of a system of institutions and traditions, in which the desire of everyone will improve the position of all. However, this course of thought only transfers the contradiction to the level of legislator's motives, the sources of which remains incomprehensible. Yes, and within the framework of "private ethics", as described by I. Bentam, the desire for happiness of the other is already connected with the desire for his own happiness. Another way to solve the problem is the weakening of the hedonistic parcels of the psychological theory behind the utilitarian ethics, recognizing that not any desire to have a desire for pleasure. But hence it follows that the desire of the good to another person does not have to take the form of a desire to provide him with the maximum number of pleasures. Thus, the versatility of the criterion "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people is undermined.

Ideological heir to I. Bentama J. S. Mill considered a consequalist understanding of morality as an inevitable for ethics ("the morality of actions depends on the consequences that they generate - such a conviction of reasonable people belonging to all schools") and considered the main subject of theoretical differences the question of Those criteria make it possible to determine the moral significance of the consequences. In this regard, Mille tried to develop a substantiation of the correctness of the utilitarian criterion - the "principle of use". This rationale is not strict evidence and is designed only to "place" intelligence to the adoption of this principle. Millevé substantiation involves a consistent transition from the general desire for happiness to his objective "desiracy", and on the statement that happiness is a good for a particular person to approve that the blessing for the totality of people is precisely common happiness. The last step is often considered as proof of an inseparable connection of the overall happiness and happiness of each individual, i.e. As a reasoning, directly forming altruistic beliefs. However, most likely it only shows the need for impartial summation of happiness by those who are already seeking to ensure the benefit of a certain population of people.

Unlike I. Bentam, J. S. Mill has no single understanding of the role that the "principle of benefits" plays in the course of decision-making by a moral subject. Quite often, this principle is characterized by him as a way to determine the debt in specific situations. In the Treatise "Utilitarism" we find the following wording: "The teaching recognizing the foundation of morality is the usefulness or principle of the greatest happiness, assesses the actions in relation to our happiness: those actions that lead to happiness are good, and those who lead to unfortunately, - bad. " It is possible that this statement applies not so much to single actions as to their classes, and therefore, to the general rate, to which the decision should be taken during decision-making. But in this case, the text of "utilitarianism" leaves no doubt that the identification of classes of correct and incorrect actions is only part of the purpose of the "principle of benefit". The latter allows not only to formulate the so-called "secondary rules", but also to situationally check their results. The possibility of such a check demonstrates the key Millevary analogy. He likes the "secondary rules" morality by the results of ready-made astronomical calculations from the "sea almanac", which sailors could get directly during the swimming. However, such a check, by J. S. Mill, not only possible, but also necessary. At least in all uncharacteristic and dubious cases. So everyone knows that the theft is "harmful to people's happiness." However, "In order to save the life of a person, not only adorptionally, but even be sure to steal or take the power of the thing or medicine necessary for this." Outside the text of the "utilitarianism" at J. S. Mill is found formulations that exclude the direct action of the "principle of use". Thus, in the "logic system", Mill claims that "there are many virtuous actions ... which in particular cases lead to losses in relation to happiness, produce more suffering than pleasure. However, such behavior ... has an excuse only when there is The ability to demonstrate that in general there will be more happiness in the world if those feelings that make people in some circumstances are inattentive in relation to happiness "will be encouraged.

Another difference from the ethical theory of I. Bentam is that J. S. Mill detects high-quality delimitation in the field of pleasure. So, I. Bentam argued that the pleasure of a primitive game in the buttons is not only equal to pleasure from poetry and music, but even surpasses him because of its "publicly availableness" and "innocence." J. S. Mill saw in this statement not only the gross distortion of the basics of moral experience, but also one of the main reasons for attacks on the teaching. Opponents of utilitarianism argue that the doctrine, in which there is no more beautiful and noble goal, the pleasure, "deserve only only pigs." However, according to J. S. Mill, these attacks rely on the wrong assumption that a person is not able to have other pleasures other than the "pig", or is not able to distinguish the "Skotan" and "more sublime" (mental, moral, aesthetic) pleasure . Criterion for the delimitation of "higher" and "lower" pleasures, but J. S. Mill, is the following: "If people who have experienced two of any pleasure give one of them so much preference, although they know that the achievement of it is conjugate with much big trouble than achieving the other, but still prefer it even when the other seems to them in a large number, in which it is possible, we have a complete basis to conclude that preferred pleasure has so much significant high-quality superiority that the ratio between them loses almost any meaningful. J. S. Mill does not give an unequivocal answer to the question whether it is possible to navigate in matters of delimitation of the pleasures of quality on the "general feeling and common opinion" or only to the opinion of those people who "are delivered to favorable conditions for experience, capable of self-observation and to Summary. " However, in any case, he considers it necessary to adjust the definition of the "principle of benefit" in accordance with the qualitative approach to pleasures: in relation to himself and in relation to the other than the highest goal of a person is "existence, the very help is free from suffering and the very possible enjoyment of both quantitatively and qualitatively ".

Separate problems of utilitarian ethics and their reflection in modern ethical discussions. Each of the items of the utilitarian scheme for determining the proper act causes significant difficulties in a moral entity trying to use it. Attempts to relieve such difficulties and find optimal forms of use of the "principle of use" asset the main directions of development of modern utilitarian ethics.

1. The choice of the object of the utilitarian justification. The first question facing the ethics of utilitarianism: what exactly should be checked using the utilitarian test on a comparative increase in utility? As possible candidates, the consequences of isolated actions, the consequences of the use of moral norms and the consequences of the active implementation of the motives of behavior and character traits. It is believed that until the city of Syrvik, the third major representative of the classical utilitarianism, the difference in approaches arising from different answers to this question, was not clearly realized. As we have shown above, I. Bentam discussed only one of them, and J. S. Mill, without experiencing special inconvenience, used different approaches in various theoretical contexts. However, at the moment the border between them is quite certain, and their difference is actively discussed.

The first approach was called "direct utilitarianism", as a synonym, the concept of "utilitarian actions" is used (bright representatives - J. Smart, P. Singer). The criterion of the moral correctness of a specific act in this case is its ability to lead to such consequences that increase the utmostity to the greatest extent. Another approach is assumed to be "indirect utilitarianism", representatives of which for a number of reasons refuse to conduct through the test to increase the usefulness of the consequences of specific actions. As grounds for refusal may be: a) the complexity of the analysis of the consequences of individual actions in specific situations; b) the inability of individuals to maintain emotional equilibrium and impartiality during such an analysis; c) the hazardous consequences of "utilitarian action" to coordinate activities between people, preserving public order and solidarity. For example, a separate theft with the "impartially benevolent" distribution of the stolen can give very good results for aggregate satisfaction or well-being affected by the parties. However, the recognition of the conventionalness of the prohibition of theft, resulting from the approval of a separate theft, leads to disastrous consequences in the same respect.

The argument against the "utilitarianism of action" generates two options for "indirect utilitarianism" with different prevalence: "utilitarianism of the motives and properties of character" and "utilitarism of the rules" (if the norms are taken together with providing them with the sanctions - "utilitarism of institutions"). In the last, more influential, option of utilitarian moral philosophy, the main object of search is the most successful in terms of maximizing the Ethics Code. According to R. Brandta, he must include a set of rules of behavior, which would be enough enough to be easy to explore, and a set of procedures for solving conflicts between regulatory provisions that would be fairly effective that the moral subject does not fall into deadlock situations .

Some philosophers try to show the falsity of dichotomy of two types of utilitarianism. So, from the point of view of R. Heara, their confrontation is removed by distinction between the "critical" and "intuitive" levels of moral thinking. The second level relies on ready-made generation-tested and enshrined in the level of habits and automatics moral norms. The daily practice of making moral solutions should be carried out at this level. And only in some cases, when the finished standards conflict with each other or when the performance of the norm in a new and unusual situation apparently leads to negative in relation to the total welfare effects, the critical level comes into effect. It includes an assessment of utility associated with alternative behavior lines in a specific situation. It should be noted that a similar version of the compound of two types of utilitarianism is just a more realistic version of the utilization of actions.

2. Content and measurement of well-being of individual individuals. The classic utilitarian tradition unequivocally identified individual utility with pleasure and happiness. In modern utilitarianism, this thesis turned into a sharp discussion. The main alternative position is such a welfare criterion as satisfaction of desires. In contrast to happiness or pleasure, it is not extremely subjective, since it includes the concept of well-being not only experiences, but also some objective results of human activity (achievements, material acquisitions, high external assessment) or even simply favorable situations for him. This welfare criterion has the advantage that it makes it possible to cut off some pleasures that are not accompanied, but replace an objective practice. The transition to utilitarianism to meet desires is one of the ways of response to a counter-argument against utilitarianism, which consists in the fact that the utilitarian-minded moral subject would have to approve a contradictory solution to the decision on its own (or universal) connection to the "apparatus stimulating pleasure centers", or To "Machine for the production of personal experience." Some of the supporters of this position believe that utilitarianism should even be operated on not even the concept of "desire", but the concept of "preference", which reflects the fact that the desires of a person are in a hierarchized state, have different significance for him. Without having information about the preferences of a person with respect to different desires, we will not be able to build its individual "utility function".

Defenders of the traditional understanding of welfare (one of them was R. Brandt in the late period of his work) suggest that utilitarianism of happiness is quite capable of cope with the difficulties that cause the subjectivity of this criterion, but the utilization of meeting the desires (preferences) is initially insolvent in practical terms. The world of human desires is in the process of constant change, and we cannot choose such a line of behavior that increases their satisfaction as much as possible, because we do not know how desire for what time it is necessary to accept the point of reference: past, current or future. We have no reason to exclude past desires at the rate, since they can still be executed. Past happiness does not create such problems, since it cannot be influenced. We do not have enough grounds for disregarding future desires. If their emergence is inevitable, then it is on their background a solution will be evaluated after some time. According to R. Brandt, this means that the procedure for identifying the growth of well-being from alternative lines of behavior becomes infinitely complex and artificial.

Another part of the problems associated with the measurement of individual welfare is generated by the question of which of pleasures or desires must be considered, determining the usefulness indexes of the planned actions: all or only some. The statement that any pleasure (satisfied desire) increases human well-being, is substantially divided into intuitively obvious ideas. The pleasure of impulsive self-destructive actions is a good example. In order to reduce such a discrepancy, modern utilitarists are ready to take into account only those desires (pleasures), which are "global", i.e. caused by a not a separate event, and the correspondence of the best life happening to me with me (J. Griffin), as well as "informed" (J. Harsanka) or "rational" (R. Brandt), i.e. They came to the reflective procedure for checking their authenticity. From the point of view of R. Brandt, the authenticity of desires is checked by means of "cognitive psychotherapy" - the process, during which a person has repeatedly, in an extremely clear form and in a situation that contributes to a calm thinking, all the information relating to the conditions and consequences of meeting certain desire information is presented. Cognitive therapy is not a means of moral (value) criticism of desires, it only eliminates those desires that arise as a result of erroneous ideas about the world and about themselves. When it comes to assessing the welfare of another person, cognitive therapy turns into a hypothetical procedure.

Finally, in modern utilitarian thought, the qualitative heterogeneity of desires and pleasures is discussed, which makes significant amendments to the methodology for determining quantitative indicators of individual welfare. Part of the philosophers of the morality follows J. S. Millem, recognizing the qualitative difference of higher pleasures from the lower, and therefore the lack of opportunity to compensate for the lack of higher pleasures by adding any amount of the lower. However, their opponents point out the fact that from a qualitative nature of differences should be a doubtful conclusion that increasing the critical low level of lower pleasures or even the elimination of a positive suffering relating to the bodies of the physician sphere cannot be adjusted due to the most minimal losses in the field of higher pleasures. The well-being of a person who has the ability to listen to 100 concerts of classical music and suffers from continuous painful pains, should be assessed as a higher than the well-being of a person who does not suffer from pain, but listened to one concert less. To avoid such conclusions, many modern utilitarists recognize the overall legitimacy of Millevsky distinction, but they are trying to avoid the thesis on the radical incommensurability of different pleasures. They are used to substantiate the relative advantages of higher pleasures such quantitative parameters as the expansion of the overall sensitivity and susceptibility of a person, as well as a smaller number of negative consequences. According to J. J. Smart, this approach is rational also because in the field of real moral practice, the quantitative and qualitative approaches to the delimitation of pleasures do not lead to significant disagreements.

3. Determination of the total utility of collectives. In the field of determining the usefulness relating to a variety of people affected by the consequences of a certain decision, two groups of problems can be distinguished. The first group is associated with the difficulty of comparing the level of satisfaction of one person with the level of satisfaction of another. Happiness or positive experiences arising from the execution of desires are purely subjective phenomena: they are not directly fixing and obvious scaling. In this question, we are deprived of reference points, units of measurement and measuring instruments. Inside our own mental experience, each person conducts a distinction between pleasant or unpleasant sensations by their intensity, although his judgments on this occasion and cannot be tested from the outside. But when it comes to the same comparison with respect to different people exposed to the same effect, and even more so - to different people who have blocked different influences disappear at least some reliable bases for the final judgment. As the modern utilitarian R. Hudin remarked the fact that I am, and you consider pain from the injection pin as much smaller than the pain from the broken hand, it cannot become a "archer point that allows you to say definitely that my broken hand is worse for me, What is your pinch for you. " The sensitivity to the pain of one person can be so greater than the sensitivity of another that the injection will weigh on impartial utilitarian scales no less, but more than a broken hand. It is not excluded, but also unreasonable. In utilitarian ethics and close to it, the economic theory of welfare, this problem was called "the problem of interpersonal comparison".

The second group of problems is related to the fact that the summation of positive and negative experiences of different people leads to some consequences that are not acceptable for common moral representations. First of all, it will create preferences in favor of people who are from nature or as a result of specific life experience have increased sensitivity towards pleasure or suffering. Particularly contradictory from a moral point of view are preferences that generate increased sensitivity to pleasure. This can be demonstrated using the Monster Monster's Monster's mental experiment. In the light of utilitarian ethics, a person possessing many times superior to the average level of pleasure (to extracting utility from a certain portion of resources) would have a complete moral right to such a share of resources that many times more than the share of any average person. An even more absurd is another consequence: if some of the "monsters of utility" enjoyed the suffering of other people, then the causing of such suffering would be morally justified. The second paradox of the summation of individual indexes of happiness (satisfaction of desires) is associated with the choice of ways to increase utility. The increase in total utility can be based on both measures to increase the levels of individual welfare, and for measures to increase the number of subjects capable of experiencing happiness (satisfaction of desires). There is no value difference between these methods. In a similar future, the poor and large community may be better than materially prosperous, but small, and therefore the transition from well-being conjugate with the control over the population, to poverty with an uncontrolled demographic growth or in stimulation will be permissible or even morally mandatory (the so-called "disgusting output"). Finally, the summation of utility involving the possibility of ensuring the welfare of the majority due to the loss or maintaining a low level of minority welfare, can authorize the chores of social inequalities, operation and suppression. This circumstance creates the third paradox of summation.

What are the possible ways to overcome these difficulties proposed by the utilitarian ethics itself. One of the most effective ways to bypass the problem of interpersonal comparison is to transition to the Ordinalist interpretation of utility (the ordinal version of utilitarianism was developed by K. Errow). The researcher may refuse to discuss the relative intensity of the desires of a separate person and different people, limiting the consideration of the procedure for preference articulated by them. At a certain point in time, the situation. And it is preferable for me the situation in, and that in turn is preferable S. S. No quantitative indexes can be attributed to these situations. Ordinalist usefulness interpretation is in part and other summation problems. So, the increased sensitivity to the pleasures of the "Monsters of the utility" loses on its background all moral significance. However, the fact is that on the basis of the procedure for individual preferences it turns out to be extremely difficult to establish the order of preferences for a particular community as a whole. The famous "voting paradox" testifies to this extremely brightly. In the event that the preferences of persons and in relation to three alternatives will be A\u003e C\u003e C, Persons B - C\u003e C\u003e A, Persons C - C\u003e A\u003e B, then the method of determining the collective priority can only be a two-stage vote. First, about one pair alternatives, and then - about the winning one at the first stage and not yet put on the vote. The outcome of this procedure will depend solely on which of the pairs will be the first to be put on the vote (that is from the random factor). To the same extent, random (or predensive) will be the conclusion about the maximum utility for the ABC group.

Overcoming the problem of interpersonal comparisons can be carried out on another direction - proof of its low importance for summation. So, J. Harsanka believes that for the implementation of interpersonal comparisons, we sufficiently explore the verbally articulating preferences of other people, a set of external expressions of these preferences in their behavior, and then implement imaginary penetration into their consciousness. Cases when such a technique fails, in real practice is not so much. Only exotic forms of cultural experience are doubtful in the perspective of interpersonal comparisons. This, according to J. Harsanka, allows you to preserve the rights behind temperate cardinal (interpretation of utility as a value, the intensity of which can be measured) 1.

To prevent conclusions contrary to moral intuition, the principle of increasing the aggregate utility is replaced by the principle of increasing cumulative utility and is modified. One of the replacing principles is the principle of "average utility", which requires calculating the satisfaction of the per capita preferences (J. J. Smart, J. Harsania). With its use, the moral sanction is deprived of extensive strategies for the growth of preference satisfaction. Another substitute is the principle of V. Pareto, often, but not always combined with the Ordipalist interpretation of utility. In accordance with it, the action is justified if at least one person increases the satisfaction of its preferences, and the rest does not reduce it. Principle V. Pareto automatically guarantees attention to the well-being of each person whose interest will affect a certain action. It does not make it possible to sacrifice units for the whole good. However, its significant disadvantage is the fact that he himself seriously contradicts moral intuition. After all, it prohibits worsening the position of individual individuals in comparison with a certain Status Quo and, it means that it contributes to the preservation of those situations, traditions or institutions that suggest inequality, operation and suppression. Principle V. Pareto categorically prohibits activities that lead to an increase in the welfare of a large number of people if these events require even minimal minority losses. It retains its conservative charge even when this minority carries out a dictatorship or assigned a lion's share of material resources. The way out of this provision is considered to be the rule of compensation for people who have losing themselves from that of B. Pareto changes (the so-called Caldor Hicks rule).

But his justification is also worthwhile: does not mean the full compensation of the loser that the situation has not changed at all? One of the most well-known modifications or specification of the principle of aggregate utility is the requirement of compulsory accounting for the well-known to the classical utilitarists of the "desire of limiting utility". This trend is that satisfaction from each new portion of some good ("utmost utility") tends to reduce proportionally existing recipient's provision. It follows that the receipt of a certain number of benefits is due to the general greater increase in utility, than the loss of the same number of goods excessively secured (R. Hear, R. Brandt, etc.).

4. The dependence of the moral assessment of the action on its consequences. Significant difficulties of utilitarian ethics are associated with its consequencyline character. First of all, the question of the presence of cognitive means, which make it possible to accurately determine the foggy field of the future consequences of individual actions or functioning of regulatory systems. None of the most powerful intelligence is capable of analyzing all the information necessary for the adoption of a consequencyalist solution. However, the most shocking from an ethical point of view the consequence of consequencyline is the dependence arising between the purely intellectual properties of a person involved in the prediction process, and the final moral assessment of its behavior. From the point of view of utilitarianism, the moral subject may be recognized as an immoral action that violated his duty simply because he is not skilled in the case of determining the remote consequences of his actions.

A separate problem is the question of the final state of affairs, which is subject to evaluation in the light of the usefulness produced. The need to choose such a state puts the utilitarian moral entity in an extremely ambiguous position. Limiting the analysis of the consequences of its actions to a certain moment in time, he removes responsibility for everything that will happen later, even if after a second after this moment it will happen to its actions of the catastrophe. By refusing such a restriction, it faces complete uncertainty regarding the circle of affected by the action of persons and the possible influence of the planned act on them. In other words, it deprives all the grounds for preference to one or another alternative. If the solution discussed by him implies self-limitation for those who will live in the future, as it happens when using the common property of a nation or humanity, the lack of a distinct and limited time horizon of calculations dictates absolute sacrifice from now living people. After all, they limit themselves for the welfare of the potentially infinite number of subjects.

The answer to some difficulties associated with the foresee of the future will give the so-called probabilistic utilitarianism. It is he who corresponds to two deeply rooted moral beliefs. Firstly, the conviction is that the act, the consequences of which have the maximum effect on the total welfare, but may occur with a very small degree of probability, is not the best in morally, if it is less beneficial alternatives have much more chances to come true in reality. Secondly, the conviction is that the offensive of unlikely negative consequences does not make it immoral. Probabilistic utilitarianism also discovers the opportunity to reduce excessive demanding to the cognitive abilities of the utilitarian moral subject. It imposes him such a level of determining the likelihood of the consequences of his actions, which is available to any adult person, whose mental abilities are within the normal range.

The answer to the difficulties associated with the final state of affairs arises on the basis of the thesis on a proportional descending order of today's value of the future welfare (the so-called "discount of the future"). Both in individual experience and in relation to groups of people, the future happiness (satisfaction of preferences), as well as the future suffering, should be considered with a certain downward coefficient. The more distant in time are the consequences of a deed, the less significant they must have in comparison with the consequences of the near future. This means that the consequences of a certain action will gradually "fade" and "dissolve" as the next time for the time and, starting from some point on the time axis, they can be neglected. Among the main arguments, the benefits of discounting the future are the tendency to him of each person who makes decisions relating to his own life, as well as the inappropriate uncertainty about whether there will be persons affected by the consequences of the action in the future. Regarding the private question about the material self-restraints of the living people for the welfare of people of the future in favor of discounting, such a circumstance is also employed, as an opportunity to increase the general heritage due to the effective use of resources in the next time perspective.

R.G.Apresyan, O.V. Artemieva, P.A. Gagadzhikurbanova, A.V.Prokofiev

Grant 2008-2009

The project was aimed at preparing a new publication of Treatise J.ST. Mill "Utilitarism" with a full scientific apparatus. Therefore, the study of Mill's ethical utilitarianism was carried out mainly in the directions given by the general philosophical, historical and philosophical contexts and the structure of this treatise. These directions in the most general form can be designated as follows: a) utilitarianism in the history of philosophy; b) utilitarian moral philosophy, which includes the concept of morality, the principle of use and its rationale; c) regulatory and d) applied aspects of Mill utilitarism.

As for the preparation of a new edition, the work began in the first year of the project, the work on the editing of the Russian translation of the "utilitarianism" of the 1900 edition was gradually transformed into the implementation of a new translation, the need for which became apparent not only because of the excessive amounts of the translator of the old edition, which invariably led to the darkening and distortion of the meaning of Millevsky reasoning, but also to the translator set by a multitude of passes. Work on the translation was carried out in a significant part (60%), but remained unfinished.

Recycling in the history of philosophy. One of the tasks of the study consisted in finding out the place of classical utilitarianism in the history of moral philosophy. To solve it, the basic concepts of the classical utilitarian moral doctrine, presented by I. Bank and J.S. Mill, were analyzed; The points of contact and the line difference between Mill's utilitarianism and ancient eudemonimism are indicated.

Classic utilitarianism is a type of hedonistic eudemmonism and continues the tradition of moral philosophy coming from Aristotle and Epicura, in which morality is derived from the highest goal of human activity, identified with happiness and pleasure. With all the difference in these teachings between them, it is possible to detect not only the presence of typological similarity, but also traces of direct influence.

The relationship of epicureancy with utilitarianism was noted by Millem himself - he directly calls the epicurian "utilitarian writer" and puts it in one row with Bentam. Developing one of the fundamental problems of utilitarian ethics - the problem of distinguishing the quantitative and qualitative parameters of the principle of pleasure and the grounds for the preferences of higher pleasures of the lower, Mill insists that intellectual and moral pleasures mostly contribute to our happiness than themselves physical pleasure. Referring to the experience of this kind of difference in the epicurean moral doctrine, Mill adds that the superiority of intelligent delights over bodily consists not only in a simple set of such "indirect signs", as their duration, reliability, etc., what the epicuretes and Bentam said. From the point of view of Mill, higher pleasures have a certain "internal advantage" - high-quality characteristics that make it possible to prefer their lower pleasures. It should be noted that the problems of distinguishing high-quality and quantitative gradations of pleasures is not the invention of utilitarianism - a peculiar form of epicurean interpretation of this issue is presented in the Treatise of Cicero "On the limits of good and evil" I 11.38; II 3.10. It is about distinguishing various kinds of pleasures not by the intensity of their manifestation, but by their variability.

In the pedigree utilitarianism on some reasons may also include the moral concept of Aristotle. In the ethical teaching of Aristotle, the purpose of moral activity, its vertex and the highest manifestation is the achievement of happiness (Eudaimonia). Many characteristics of moral being, Aristotle's data, anticipate Millevsky: the moral benefit of a person and his happiness coincide - the human benefit is the activities of the soul according to virtue, happiness also consists in activities according to virtue; This kind of activity is a goal-in-yourself (it is elected for the sake of itself). At the same time, unlike utilitarian ethics, in the Aristotelian doctrine, moral welcome acts not only as a form of human activity (activity), but also as a characteristic of a certain state of the soul of a moral entity. Another difference lies in the fact that the moral philosophy of Aristotle does not mean the achievement of pleasure (pleasure) and eliminate suffering as the purpose of human moral activity, that is, as a happiness. In the peripatetic tradition, happiness is the type of activity of the soul, corresponding to its natural purpose (its virtues in the ancient sense of the word - ARETE). It can only be accompanied by relevant pleasures, although the latter and give it completeness and perfection.

The most important motive of utilitarian ethics, distinguishing it from the eudemonious concepts of Aristotle and Epicur, is the social significance of the moral imperatives offered by it. Repulsted from the psychological and anthropological properties of human nature, from the inherent desire for pleasure and happiness, classical utilitarianism formulates an idea of \u200b\u200bthe social and political purpose of moral philosophy, in which the highest goal of moral activity is not the personal benefit of a moral life (selfish interest), but The desire for general happiness.

One of the stable stereotypes regarding the utilitarian moral doctrine is the thesis that Bentama was interested only in the quantitative aspect of the principle of pleasure, while Mill, unlike him, made an attempt to highlight the qualitative parameters of the concept of pleasure. And although such an idea of \u200b\u200butilitarianism is divided by a number of modern researchers, it still seems too categorical. Comparative analysis of solving the problem of the ratio of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of pleasures in the concepts of Mill and Bentama showed that Mill's gap to the high-quality side of pleasures and more fundamental than that of Bentam, the development of this moral problem in his doctrine allowed him to synthesize the autonomy of the objective values \u200b\u200bof the human life of an independent ("Spiritual perfection", self-esteem, beauty, order and truth) with conviction that only pleasure can serve as the highest goal of human activity.

The concept of morality. First, determining Moral Mill, after Bentam, expanded its space before the community of feeling creatures. In other words, morality is not limited to the community of reasonable creatures, i.e. mankind. Although this thesis does not receive development in Millem essentially, the very fact of its nomination is important, especially in the future discussions of the last third of the twentieth century around the dilemma of anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism in environmental ethics. Secondly, Mill is one of the first, in the history of philosophy, developing the Yumov moral and philosophical lexical tradition, uses the term "morality" to designate the entire set of moral phenomena. Thirdly, in the definition of Mill Mill (a), it comes from a meaningful understanding of its meaning as a goal setting about the greatest possible happiness, which (b) is implemented due to the rules and prescriptions. Mill for the first time proposed the definition of morality as a system of rules and regulations, and this understanding of morality for a long time was consolidated in the newest philosophy.

It should be added to this that the Millevian concept of morality was not exhausted by the normative regulation. The rule system and prescriptions bind to Millem with the final (highest) human goal. This goal is reflected in the highest moral principle, which also acts as a kind of regulatory, "guide rule of human behavior." But the very rule of such a rule was possible, because all people seek to satisfy their desires, and happiness, or benefits are the pleasure - pure, long and continuous pleasure. At the same time, utilitarianism is a theory aimed against egoism, i.e. Against such a point of view, according to which the good is a person's pleasure of personal interest. Acceptability or inadmissibility in each particular case of the received pleasure or benefits is determined whether they contribute to the achievement of the highest goal, i.e. Common happiness. On the same, the definitions (estimates) of phenomena and events as good or bad are based.

Mill attaches great importance to the general principle in morality, because in it, as in any practical affairs, and unlike the exact sciences, the deductive method and private positions are derived from General: "Good" estimates - "bad" arrange from knowledge of good and evil, and not vice versa. The task of moral philosophy includes clarification and improvement of moral rules and beliefs.

Milla reasonably believed that people in specific situations were rarely guided by the main moral principle in their actions. Also, in substantiation of their actions or, when evaluating others, it is impossible to jump from private situations to the Supreme Principle. The main moral principle is specified in less general principles of the second level, or minor principles. And if you take the moral duties of a person, then each of them is correlated with secondary principles. Such, for example, the principle of justice, the rules "not in", "pass-water misfortune", "observe the interests of the neighbor"; Here, in Vi-Dima, Mill refer to the commandments of Decaloga. These principles are no less significant for morality than the basic principle, and the degree of their commitment is not at least the main principle. Mille specially emphasizes that it is almost never the situation in such a way that people are treated directly to the main principle. Rather, the main principle supports other principles, and they already, in turn, send a person's actions.

This twisted model of the regulation of behavior goes back to the teachings of F. Baekon on a different level of the principles of thinking, to which Mill himself pointed out in the essay on the "History of Moral Science" R. Blike. In a later essay on the Utilitarism of Bentam, as in the "utilitarianism", Millus clarified that in practice, people are in secondary principles and often not even have no idea about the existence of the main principle. However, in the event of a conflict between different secondary principles, there is a need for a more general criteria for making a decision, and then the role of the overall basis for its permission is played by the main principle. In such cases, it is important to awareness of the main principle and its correct understanding. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe compatibility of morality is more than characteristic of Mill. As R. Krisp notes, along with other themes, such as the basis of ethics and ethical knowledge, the rationale for utilitarianism, the sources of human happiness, moral motivation and moral sanctions, the theme of the main and secondary principles is discussed by Millem in many works, starting with the earliest. In the ethical topics of Mill, only the topic of justice is developed in the "utilitarianism"; In the previous works, it was actually not affected.

Thus, the structure of morality, according to Mille, is given by the hierarchy of the main principle (principle of use) and derivatives, or secondary principles, which, a person is guided in concrete actions.

The principle of benefit and its rationale.From the point of view of Mill, without awareness and formulating a fundamental moral principle, or the "Supreme Morality Supreme Principle", the ethics is absolutely meaningless, because, unlike other sciences, private truths in which can be detected without contacting the first principle, determining what should be done in A concrete case without reference to the fundamental moral principle, it is impossible. Therefore, ethics should begin with the formulation of this principle. And the task of a moral philosopher is to explicit and substantiate this principle.

Following his immediate ideological predecessor and Teacher Jeremy Bentam Mill as a fundamental principle of morality considers the principle of benefit, or the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The principle of benefit in utilitarianism does not simply expresses the meaning of this ethical concept, but also acts as a regulatory principle, on the basis of which actions are evaluated.

Despite the rather complicated relationship with Bentham himself and with his concept in different periods of life, Mill never doubted that the key thought of Bentama that the principle of benefits is a "fundamental axiom" in moral theory. Just like Bentam, Mill determines the benefit, or happiness (for both, these concepts are practically identical) through pleasure and lack of suffering and identifies benefit, pleasure and happiness. The significant difference between Bentama and Mill's positions was that for Mill, it was extremely significant that was not so quantitative as a qualitative difference between pleasure. The criterion for choosing between pleasures is asked by a competent judge - a person who has a noble character, a sense of self-esteem and having the ability to experience both low-lying and elevated pleasures and is not able to choose low pleasures to the detriment of the sublime.

The concept of happiness underlying the principle of utility, was not randomly evaluated by the researchers of Mill utilitarism as internally contradictory. On the one hand, Mill is completely in the spirit of Bentam insists on the identity of happiness and pleasure. And on the other hand, introduces many concretization and clarifications that are devastating for the original thesis. In particular, the consideration of the feeling of dignity as the necessary condition and one of the essential components of happiness is so significant that it may require a person to refuse the lower pleasures, and sometimes aware of the suffering on themselves, and all this will not make it less happy, - It can be concluded that only part of happiness is the pleasure, and therefore the identification of happiness and pleasure incorrectly.

The fourth chapter of "utilitarianism" is devoted to the analysis of the method, through which it is possible to substantiate the principle of benefits, and its characteristics.

The complexity of the rationale for utilitarianism in the concept of Mill was determined by several circumstances. On the one hand, recognizing the need for the evidence of the first principle, on the other - the empirical and indceidial installation against any kind of evidence, and with the third - Mill's conviction that questions about the limbs are not subject to evidence, if under the evidence to understand the consistent conclusion from the parcels to Conclusion. To justify the final moral principle, Mill considers it possible to use proof in a broader sense of the word. It can be described as a conviction of a reasonable person through some rational arguments, taking which he could take utilitarianism as a reliable ethical theory, and as grounds for making their own moral solutions in life practice. Explaining Mill's approach to the originality of the justification of the principle of benefit, Roger Krisp compares it with the way that you can convince the person who is in the room that it rains, namely, simply bring to the window and give him the opportunity to make sure that he himself make sure that Rain really goes. From the point of view of empiric, this method of conviction is not identical to the proof, then it is equivalent to him.

For the conviction of a reasonable person in acceptability for him, Mill's benefit principle appeals to the ability of his desire. If the first principles of knowledge are facts, can be installed in the direct participation of feelings and inner consciousness, then in the case of the first moral principle, such a ability is desire. And then the substantiation of the principle of benefits should be a demonstration that people actually wish the happiness of both their own and in common and nothing else is the subject of desire. Neon understanding of the nature of the nature of the rationale in morality was the basis for criticizing Mill's position from J.E.Mura who took the Millevé substantiation of the principle of benefits precisely as evidence in the strict sense of the word and accused Mill in the innate making mistake.

Regulatory aspects of Mill utilitarism. Concept of justice. In the fifth chapter of the Treatise "Utilitarism", Mill appeals to one of the key problems for utilitarian ethics - the problem of explaining the incontestable fact that in live moral experience the central place is occupied by the concept of "justice", which not only agrees from the general (public) benefit, but also Restricts the possibility of summing up the interests of different people. Discussing this problem, utilitarian can occupy the following positions. First, he can deny the moral significance of the concept of "justice". Secondly, it can use the concept of "justice" as a synonym for the maximum summable benefit. Thirdly, it can declare a visible confrontation of justice and use the result of a voltage arising between different types of utility. The first two positions are sharply opposed to the predominant moral feeling. The second - aims to establish a compromise with him, although insists on its partial correction.

Mill rises on the last of these positions. For her justification, he adopts two-party arguments. On the one hand, he tries to show that the ordinary understanding of justice is not quite defined in order to become the basis of ethical theory, which is capable of competing with utilitarianism. On the other hand, he is trying to show that the idea of \u200b\u200bbenefit and the principles of justice act as a value basis and regulatory and practical conclusions from it. These argumentary strategies are largely contrary to each other, which leads to the incrugulating of some treatise fragments.

Initially, Mill is trying to show that there is no such property that would be present in all actions (or the provisions of cases), causing a negative reaction from the owners of a sense of justice. It concludes that these cases do not bind together a single "mental thread". And then introduces the approval that justice is characterized by the properties are quite accessible to articulation, among which the main is the presence of moral rights belonging to a specific carrier and requiring unconditional respect for all others. If in relation to some moral norm it is impossible to identify specific persons whose rights are violated by its non-fulfillment, then we have the norm, which relates to the sphere of morality, but not to the area of \u200b\u200bjustice. These are generosity prescriptions, generosity, charity. Deciding with the "mental thread", Mill offers its understanding of the foundations of the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice, which are utilitarist: it is based on such a common and not comparable type of benefit as providing individual security.

The desire to create utilitarian theory of justice put Mill in the face of several problems that are not only not solved, but not even reflexed in "utilitarianism". First, he found himself in the face of the need to give an answer to the question of how the benefits succeeds to both the founding of justice, and external criterion towards it. On the second function of benefit, Mill clearly indicates, discussing the limitations of the legislative design of the morality standards and cases of a legitimate violation of the duties of justice. Secondly, he introduced such an understanding of the role of rules in morality, which directly contradicts the theory dominating in the first chapters of the treatise. There rules only replace the bulky utilitarian calculation for each of the typical cases. Their use is a matter of convenience and choice. However, in the fifth chapter, the moral rules, especially the norms of justice, are the main criterion for clarifying the justification of the action. Within the framework of this approach, utilitarian reasoning is permissible only at the level of substantiation of norms, but not at the level of substantiating specific actions.

However, the fifth chapter of "utilitarianism" is interesting not only by the fact that it gives an idea of \u200b\u200bMillev solutions to the problem of "justice and benefit". According to its content, it is possible to establish how Mill's ideas about justice are associated with the process of changing the initial definition of this concept, which turned at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. The essence of this process consisted in changing the status of distribution fairness in relation to its other types: exchange and punitive. For early new European philosophers, starting with Grozia and ending with A. Smita, justice was associated with the rules that guarantee personal security, property and compliance with contracts, but did not include the rules for the distribution of income and wealth. To change this paradigm, such an understanding of justice has come, within the framework of which the implementation of distribution goals plays a no less role than ensuring the physical integrity of the individual, and noticeably greasy than maintaining a sustainable ownership system and free exchange capabilities. The implementation of the rules of equitable distribution was considered as a key duty of any society as a collective whole. In the fifth chapter of "utilitarianism", Mill has repeatedly demonstrates its readiness to discuss the distribution of material resources in the categories of justice and injustice. But, more importantly, he draws up the regulatory framework for all areas and manifestations of justice in the form of a distribution principle. The direct expression of the utilitarian ideal in social practice Mill believes "Higher ... Criteria for Social and Distributional Justice", which is equally equal to society to everyone who has equal merit before him.

Applied aspects of Mill utilitarism.Applied problems were investigated on the material of the discussion of the Millem problem of the death penalty. The decision of the Millem of this problem is due to its understanding of the public function of punishment as, firstly, fair reward costs of smaller suffering and, secondly, as a means of coherent crime and promoting public security.

The results of the project are displayed in publications:

* Artemieva O.V. Preface to Publication: Mill J.st. Speech in defense of the death penalty // Ethical thought. Vol. 9 / Ed. A.A.Guseynova. M.: IF RAS, 2009. P. 177-182.

* Mill J. Art. Speech in defense of the death penalty // Ethical thought. Vol. 9 / Ed. A.A.Guseynova. M.: IF RAS, 2009. P. 183-192 (translation O.V. Artemyeva).

* Gadzhikurbanova P.A. Summum bonum in classic utilitarianism // Ethical thought. Vol. 10 / Ed. A.A.Guseynova M.: IF RAS. P. 114-130.

* Prokofiev A.V. The idea of \u200b\u200bjustice in Utilitarism J.S. Mill // Philosophy and Culture. 2008, No. 10. P. 118-133, No. 11, P. 137-144.

* Prokofiev A.V. Treatise "Utilitarism" J.S. Millya and the emergence of the idea of \u200b\u200bsocial justice // Problems of ethics: philosophical and ethical almanac: Vol. 2. M.: Modern Tetradi, 2009. P. 5-21.


Convincing evidence of the efforts of I. Bentama to differentiate and even systematize various, including high-quality measurements of pleasures, to build their original typology with reference to the main work of Bentama are given in the book: Frederick. Rosen.. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. London, 2003. P. 56-57, 176. The opposite position is presented, for example, in operation: Martha. C.. Nussbaum.. Mill Between Aristotle & Bentham // Daedalus, March 22, 2004.

from Lat.: Utilitas - benefit, benefit), principle (fil. Direction) Evaluation of all phenomena only in terms of their usefulness, opportunity to serve as a means to achieve any goals; Based by I. Bentam, the positivistic direction in ethics, which considers the benefits of the basis of morality and the criterion of human actions.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

UTILITARIANISM

from lat. Utilitas - use) - direction in moral philosophy, founded by J. Bentamomv Treatise "Introduction to the principles of morality and legislation" (1780) and developed in its classic form and it is called "y". J.S. Milase ("utilitarianism", 1863). Mill formulated the main arguments of W. against numerous objections of critics; The main pathos of Millev's controversy was directed against a priori and intuivism, and personally against I. Kant and his English followers. According to W., the basis of morality is the common benefit (like the happiness of most people), which Bentam called the total benefit, unconditionally distinguishing her from the carriage, or personal gain. Under the principle of benefit, he understood the principle of choosing actions and evaluating actions, which focuses on the maximum benefit. If the action concerns the interests of the community, then we are talking about the benefits (happiness) of the community, if the interests of the individual, then we are talking about the benefits of the individual. The formula of the general good is "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" - it was also emerging before, in F. Khatcheson, Ch. Becaaria, K. Gelvection, and others, however, it was Bentam to give it fundamental importance to construct morality theory.

According to W., all people seek to satisfy their desires. Happiness or benefit is the pleasure, but in the absence of suffering, i.e. Happiness lies in a clean, long and continuous pleasure. And pleasure and benefits are accepted in W. In a broad sense: all kinds of pleasure are understood under pleasure, incl. Sensual, under the benefit is meant all the benefits, incl. benefit. W. is a theory aimed against egoism. Acceptability in each particular case of the received pleasure or benefits is determined whether they contribute to the achievement of the highest goal. On the same it is based on definitions (estimates) of phenomena and events as good or bad. At the same time, the person, according to y, should, be in mind the highest moral principle, strive to ensure at least its private benefit; In the spirit of "Rotestant ethics, thereby assumed that a person must fulfill his professional and social destination, but to fulfill him with clean hands, according to conscience - virtuously.

In U. - to the continuation of the line in moral philosophy, which comes from Aristotle and Epicura and in opposition to the Cantianism, - morality is derived from what is the final (highest) goal. The morality is determined by Millem as "such rules for leadership to a person in his actions, through the observance of which the existence is delivered to all mankind, the most free of suffering and is pleasant to enjoy pleasures." Three factors, by Mille, impede the implementation of the principle of benefit or human happiness: selflessness of people, lack of mental development and bad state laws. Thus, the inadmissibility of mixing goals and values \u200b\u200bwas approved.

The main moral principle is specified in less general principles of the second level. And if you take the moral duties of a person, then each of them is correlated with secondary principles. These principles are no less significant than the main principle, and the degree of their commitment is the same as the main principle. So, the structure of the morality in U. Mill is given by the hierarchy of the main principle (principle of benefits) and derivatives, or minor, principles, which, in fact, is guided by a person in concrete actions. Such, for example, the principle of justice, the rules "not in", "oppose misfortune", "observe the interests of neighboring"; This may include the commandments of the decaloga. In practice, people are in secondary principles and often not even have no idea about the existence of the main principle. However, in the event of a conflict between various secondary principles, the role of the overall basis for its permission is played by the main principle.

In this regard, an important theoretical dilemma is found, the essence of which concerns the grounds for evaluating actions. According to the classical y, the assessment of the act should be based on the results of the action taken autonomously, as a separately implemented act. However, in the interpretation of Mill, the basis of the assessment is not reduced to this: he considered the observance of the rights of other people as one of the results of the action. At the same time, human rights act as a certain standard, the execution of which is imputed to everyone in the duty. While each action should eventually relate to the principle of use, and this principle is also a certain standard for evaluating actions - it is possible, so on, to allocate in W. Already two types of rates of assessment: the result to which the act led, and Standard, or the rule to which the act must match.

This difference was not conceptually comprehended by Millem, but it determined the development of W. at the 20th century, reflected in two currents from: W. Actions (Actutilitarian-ISM) and W. Rules (Rule-Utilitarianism). According to W. Actions, which continues the tradition of classic y, every person in the conditions of choice should be guided by the desire to obtain the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people involved in the situation actions (P. Singer). As indicated critics of W. Actions, such a foundation may contradict previously commitments or adopted long-term life plans. According to W. Rules, when choosing a deed, it should be determined which set of specific rules, being adopted in society, will provide maximization of benefits, and then guided by these rules (R. Brandt). The second direction is the dominant form of modern U.

UTILITARIANISM

from lat. Utilitas - benefits, benefit) - Filos. and ideological. Principle, according to Kyom, any natural and cultural historical. The phenomenon is considered not in its own concreteness, but only as a means for external goal - useful effect. Art. sp. W., Any item, all wealth is determined through the best, k-room can extract consumption (individual or productive) or a certain social institution, erected in itself. For W. All only service and the world is only a tank of "things", more or less suitable for disposal. Bourges. Consciousness considers the subject world of culture "... at an angle of view of some external utility relationship ..." (Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., from the early production, 1956, p. 594). This consciousness is determined by the separation and the corresponding system of utility relationships. The ratio of utility is such a real, associated with the alienation attitude, with a row subject embodiments of human abilities operate. Without their distribution (see Cleaning and distribution), like ready-made useful funds, whatever creating their work. activities, to its character, genesis, meaning, etc. For example, in science, the result of thinking acquires independent. The form of "ready-made knowledge" corresponding to its possible disposal. The most developed expression of the utility ratio is obtained in class exploitation. Hegel saw in the "theory of utility" The result of the ideology of the enlightenment: "... In usefulness, clean sensibilities completes its implementation ... Just as everything is useful for a person, he himself is useful, and ... His definition - to deal with generally and generally acceptable A member of the human squad ... where he is, there is his proper place; he benefits from others, and others benefit from it ... For a person, this is a relationship, this is found in this His essence and its position ... "(cit., Vol. 4, M., 1959, p. 312, 302). Marx examined for the perversion work. The nature of human culture "Valid Masquerad" theory "Valid Masquerade": The real perversion, when "for an individual his relationship does not matter by themselves, not as amateurness, but as a mask of a real third goal and relationship", which is substituted In place of the specific content of these relationships (MEGA, ABT. 1, BD 5, V., 1932, S. 388). In the class society, the domination of the actual material of the culture imposes her measure of utility over the culture, makes the usefulness of the individual in society. Communication as a means, rending it to the level of economy. Character. In the system of separation of activities, the authentication of the science and claim is transformed in the image and likeness of the actual production of the material. Bourges. Creates "... a system of universal exploitation of natural and human properties, a system of universal utility; Even science, just like all the physical and spiritual properties of a person, acts only as a carrier of this system of universal utility, and there is nothing that That outside of this circle of social production and the exchange would perform as something with a m about himself a higher, as legitimate in itself "(Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., Op., 2 ed., vol. 46, part 1, p. 386-87). With the ratio of utility, the performers utilize the objective forms of culture and thereby each other. Disposal creates the illusion of communication where the gap between the culture developed in the alienated form continues to deepen and is insignificant compared to it the individual abilities of the "partial workers", the form of the behavior of the reasons becomes more and more algorithmized and hostile creativity. Criticizing the petty-bourgeois egalitarian concept of "coarse", "barrage communism", Marx revealed the reactionality of the desire to eliminate the entire culture, K-paradise cannot become a utilitarian and accessible to each inhabitant, therefore, eliminate the intelligentsia, replacing it with officials. Discarding private property, this concept only follows the denial of personality by private property, seeking to universalize the ratio of utility, make everyone equally mutually utilizing each other, i.e. Establish the kingdom of collectivized U. The category of exploited proletarium "... is not canceled, but applies to all people" (Marx K. and Engels F., from the early production, p. 586). The contradiction between the increasing need for creativity, in capable of personalities and the relationship between the disposal, is allowed only on the path of communist. Peace transformations, in a rum man step by step discounts all the roles of agent inside the actual material production. Thereby overcoming the domination of "external feasibility", communist. A person eliminates the soil itself. And approves the development of its essential forces as an end in itself. Regarding the perversion of Marxism in the spirit of U., see Economic Materialism. Batishchev. Moscow. Recycling in ethics is the theory of morality, which was widespread in England 19 V. and reflecting the mindset of some Layers of the English. Liberal bourgeoisie. Bentam is the founder of W. - did the basis of morality, he identified with pleasure with pleasure. Based on naturalist. and outstore. Understanding the nature of man, Bentam saw the final appointment of morality to promote native. The desire of people to experience pleasure and avoid suffering. In the assistance of the "greatest happiness" (pleasure) for the "greatest number of people" and consists, according to Bentam, the meaning of Ethich. Norms and principles. Considering the general prosperity as the sum of the benefits of individuals, Bentam implies the benefit of one person to the equivalent good of all of the other. According to Marx, Bentam, "with the most naive stupidity ... identifies the modern fistinerator - and moreover, in particular, the English Filter - with a normal person at all. All that is useful for this variety of a normal person and his world, is accepted for useful in itself" (Marx K. and Engels F., Op., 2 ed., Vol. 23, p. 623, approx.). The way of thinking bourgeois was reflected in the ethics of Bentam and in the fact that it reduces the problem of moral choice to a simple benefits of benefits and losses, pleasures and suffering, which can entail various alternatives to action. Internal Contradictions ethics. W. Theory revealed from J. S. Mill, who tried to smooth out egoism. The moments of Ethics W. and came in the end to eclectic. Combination of various principles. Thus, the principle of personal happiness (pleasure) Mill completed the demanding of the coordination of various interests, introduced a qualitative difference between the "lower" (sensual) and "higher" (intellectual) pleasures, which should be given preference, recognized the value of virtues in it itself, and not in benefits brought by her, etc. Naturalist. Justification of the morality in W. was criticized in the Sov. Bourges. Ethics and, above all, J. Moore, which, however, used the utilitarian criterion for evaluating actions in their consequences (so-called. Ideal U.). Other Bourges. Theorists, rethinking Bentama and Mill, believe that the principle of utility can be the basis of only general moral norms, but not everyone is off. actions; The act should be selected in accordance with the existing common norm ("Limited by U." J. O. Ermson, J. D. Mabbot, and others. In contrast to "Extreme U." Adherents Classic. U. - J. Smart, G. J. Mac chick). The discussion between those and others, which took place in the 1950s, had mainly formal methodologies. Interested in nature, and it did not even even raise the question of the social reasons why the feasibility ("utility") of the general moral norm could conflict with the feasibility of deployment. act. LIT: Mill D. S., Utilatarianism, per. from English, 3 ed., SPb, 1900; Moore G.?, Principia Ethica, Camb., 1903, p. 16-19; URMSON J. O., The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mills, "The Philosophical Quarterly", 1953, v. 3, no 10; Mabbott J. D., Interpretations of Mill's Utilitarianism, ibid, 1956, v. 6, NO 23; Smart J. J. C., Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism, ibid. NO 25; Mc СLOsKey H. J., An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism, "Philosophical Review", 1957, v. 66, NO 4. O. Drobnitsky. Moscow.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓