Upon beginning to read this article, I was initially wary of extreme utilitarianism. My initial thought was that more often than not, extremes are not the best option. However, the more of the article I read, the more I found myself favoring extreme utilitarianism. I found myself relating to Smart’s explanation that “For an extreme utilitarian moral rules are rules of thumb. In practice the extreme utilitarian will mostly guide his conduct by appealing to the rules (“do not lie,” “do not break promises,” etc.) of common–sense morality (Smart, 90).
I think most people subscribe to this kind of thinking when it comes to their individual actions, especially those actions that impact others around them. Smart goes on to explain restricted utilitarianism is a school of thinking which “regards moral rule as more than rules of thumb for short-circuiting calculations of consequences. Generally, he argues consequences are not relevant at all when we are deciding what to do in a particular case. (Smart, 92).” I think the idea of consequences being irrelevant is somewhat counter-intuitive, seeing as more often than not, people consider the ramifications their actions will have to themselves and to others around them.
By following rules (as an extreme utilitarian would advocate), we recognize “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 (Smart, 94).” By deducing the probable course of action of others, we can better optimize the utility of our own actions.
Smart says “The extreme utilitarian does not appeal to artificial feelings, but only to our feelings of benevolence, and what better feelings can there be to appeal to?” (Smart, 95).
The example that resonated with me most strongly was the theoretical situation of saving a drowning man. A restricted utilitarian would say we should always save the drowning man, however an extreme utilitarian would argue that sometimes breaking the rules is right thing to do. If the man drowning in the river was Hitler, extreme utilitarianism would tell us to let him drown, because this action would produce higher total utility.
Following several of Smart’s examples, I found his discussion of actions being right versus actions being praiseworthy to be interesting and thought–provoking. According to extreme utilitarianism, letting Hitler drown would be wrong, but would be praiseworthy at the same time. Following this train of thought, I agree that between the two options, extreme utilitarianism seems to be the better option. However, I’m sure with further examination, criticisms of this theory will arise.
Works Cited:
Smart, J. J. C. “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism.” Moral and Political Philosophy (1956): 88-95. Blackboard. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.
6 responses to “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism”