HUM103: Ethics and Culture

Final Take-Home Essays

Section: 21

Course Instructor: Shaiya B. Mahbub

Student Name: Adonia Sama

Student ID: 22304043

Section A: Answer to Question 2:

Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that sets up a basic system for people to live their

lives by. In this concept, people and society as a whole are meant to do things that bring the

greatest number of benefits to the greatest number of people. (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017).

There are many different branches of this concept and over the years, many philosophers

have added to it and opposed it; building a collectively wide and diverse understanding of the

subject matter with an array of different opinions. One of the most prominent figures in this

philosophical concept is Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham has regarded pain and pleasure as the two defining factors that determine every

action taken by a human being. To him, pleasure is of utmost importance when it comes to

determining the worth of an action. If not utmost and the highest amount of pleasure possible,

Bentham concludes that we should focus on actions that produce the least possible amount of

pain. His utility principle refers to a system in which we make decisions to take actions that

produce the highest amount of benefits possible. If we were to dissect this, it would also

entail that we make decisions that produce the greatest amounts of happiness or pleasure with

the least amount of pain or negative emotions or disadvantages; for the highest possible

number of people. This is the foundation of what we think of as Utilitarianism in this day and

age. (Bentham, 2007).

The consequentialist principle of Bentham is a principle in which he bases the moral

correctness of an action based on the outcomes it has. So, if the action has more positive

outcomes than negative ones and the positive outcomes outweigh the negative, according to

this principle, the action would be morally correct. (Herzog, 1985). This principle is basically

an extension of the meanings behind his principle of utility. An example of this principle:

Suppose one wants to purchase a new book. They might have two options, one of them being

purchasing a pirated copy of it through Nilkhet or ordering it through Amazon. Now,

according to the principles of Bentham, the morally correct action here is actually buying it

from Nilkhet. Because buying it from Nilkhet would save the most amount of time and

money and thus bring the most positive outcomes. So, here, according to Bentham, the

positive aspects in forms of saving time, money and investing in a local business would

outweigh the negative aspects in the form of an infringement of the copyright law.

According to Bentham, there is a way to determine what actions we take and he has

constructed a series of factors for it. These factors are related to pleasure. They are: intensity,

duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent. So, before we take an action, we

have to consider if it is of proper utility. To judge that, we have to carefully consider all of

these factors. If the factors all align perfectly or as best as possible and assure us that we can

get the most amount of pleasure and least amount of pain from an action, then we can go

ahead and take the decision to fulfill that action. All of these factors are named ‘Hedonic

Calculus’ since they are a way to calculate the workings behind the pleasure that an action

may bring. (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017).

There is a philosopher who has agreed with and added to many of the viewpoints expressed

by Bentham regarding Utilitarianism. That person is John Stuart Mill. Mill has extended and

criticized the ideas of Bentham.

Firstly, even though Bentham taught us how to determine which actions bring the most

amount of pleasure for the highest number of people, he did not exactly specify the different

types of pleasure that a human being might experience. According to Mill, this was the

biggest shortcoming of Bentham. Mill concluded that the different levels and types of

pleasure are crucial in the determination of an action. So, to elaborate, if two actions both

bring us pleasure, we would have to determine which pleasure is greater. Because even if we

apply the hedonic calculus, two actions might have a very similar alignment and yet produce

very different types of pleasure. So, to classify levels of pleasure, Mill put all kinds of
pleasure into two distinct categories; labeling them as higher and lower pleasures. According

to Mill, Higher pleasures are those that are connected to the enrichment and enlightenment of

our mind and spirit whereas Lower pleasures are more short in terms of benefits, causing only

momentary pleasure related to bodily needs and functions. (Mill, 1863).

This system of Miller may be comparatively better in personal detection of different actions

as it gives us more of an elaboration of which actions we should actually choose. So, for

example, choosing to feed stray animals and choosing to eat an ice-cream may both bring us

pleasure. But the outcomes of the first action not only benefits a higher number of entities but

it also enriches us a whole lot more than the latter action. This kind of differentiation further

solidifies and betters the ideas already constructed by Bentham. (Herzog, 1985)

The thoughts revolving around Utilitarianism from Bentham are classified as Act

Utilitarianism. On the other hand, the thoughts revolving around Utilitarianism from Mill are

classified as Rule Utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, we are supposed to focus more on our

individual actions. In brief, if the consequences of our individual actions cause the most

number of collective goods, we can regard it as a proper and morally correct action to take.

(Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). For example, if a doctor were to have five dying patients with

only fifteen minutes on each of them to save them and a time construct of only being able to

save three patients; by act utilitarianism, he would then have to disregard two patients and

save the other three patients. Because this choice of actions would cause the least amount of

harm and produce the most amount of positives. The dark reality of this example is exactly

why Mill created Rule utilitarianism. In rule utilitarianism, we have to not only make sure to

produce the highest number of positive outcomes but we also have to make sure to follow a

code of conduct. That code of conduct entails that we do no harm to other people in regards

to our actions. (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017).

So, to summarize, in act utilitarianism, we only focus on the outcomes or consequences of

our individual actions while in rule utilitarianism, we are made to look at the bigger picture,

consider the minority as well as the majority and take actions which follow a type of moral

conduct. (Herzog, 1985).

The following problem of the metro rail would have very different solutions if we dissected it

from the views of the two different kinds of utilitarianism talked about in this essay.

Firstly, if we consider the act utilitarian approach, the metro rail authorities would have to

build it in a way that causes the most benefit. Because of this, all of the problems that the

metro rail actually can cause would not really be taken into consideration unless they impact

the amount of benefits negatively. So, under this approach, the authorities may have to think

about making the pace of the build faster to cause less problems. But other than that, it seems

as though from a calculative standpoint, this approach will determine that the other possible

problems do not really need to be addressed as the most number of advantages is the main

priority.

On the other hand, a rule utilitarian approach follows a moral rule of conduct that entails for

us to not cause harm to other people through our actions even if it means getting a high

number of benefits. Under this approach, all of the possible problems caused by the metro rail

would have to be solved. This would require there to be improvements in the design or

stopping the project altogether as the poor design choices seem to be the focal reason behind

problems. But since stopping the project is not possible, we would have to fix the other

problems through noise control and additional design changes, making sure the authority

involved is uncorrupted, building a better traffic system and enforcing stricter laws about it

and planting more trees in surrounding areas as time goes on.

So, to conclude, a rule utilitarian approach as opposed to an act utilitarian one would force us

to look into the depth of each problem and attempt to solve each problem as best as possible

and disregard or stop the progress if all of the problems can not be solved.
References:

Bentham, J. (2007). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Dover

Publications.

Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Utilitarianism. In Ethics for A-Level (1st ed., pp. 11–29).

Open Book Publishers. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wc7r6j.5

HERZOG, D. (1985). AGAINST UTILITARIANISM. In Without Foundations: Justification

in Political Theory (pp. 110–160). Cornell University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt207g6t3.7

Mill, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism . London, Parker, son, and Bourn

Viner, J. (1949). Bentham and J. S. Mill: The Utilitarian Background. The American

Economic Review, 39(2), 360–382. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1812738

Section B: Answer to Question 3:

A Vindication of the Rights of Women, written in 1972 by Mary Wollstonecraft, highlights

and places emphasis on many issues that impact the rights of women and talks about the

societal structure and shortcomings of the society of that time as a whole. This piece of

writing was conducted in the age of enlightenment and so Wollstonecraft had statements

regarding this subject in this book. In particular, there are two standpoints made by her in this

book that align with the thoughts of enlightenment.

Firstly, Wollstonecraft believed in liberty. She strongly argued that if one were to be a

virtuous, properly developed, morally correct character, they would need the proper space for

development. For this development, Wollstonecraft believed that we need liberty. She argued

that liberty would give us the proper autonomy to develop into our own kinds of moral

beings. She said that if we did not have liberty, we would not be able to execute proper

actions or make correct decisions. Basically, she believed that if we wanted to execute our

sense of moral judgment properly and make our way into having a virtuous character, we

would need full freedom or liberty to do so and that an absence of liberty would mean a lack

of properly built moral judgment.

Enlightenment put an emphasis on the personal recognition of moral principles and a proper

use of reason. Wollstonecraft connected to this by assessing that morality should be based on

irreversible, strong, objective principles. Basically, she meant that the principles determining

one's morality should be universal and that it should not be vulnerable to any kind of harmful

type of change or manipulation. This would mean that the conventional religious and

authoritative dogma should be avoided by the individual. It would imply that instead of

conventions set by society or religion, individuals should assess their own choices, lifestyle

and decision-making to build a system of making rational decisions over dogmatic ones.

(Gonzalez, 1997).
In 1792, during the time of French renaissance and the age of enlightenment, there was a lot

of progress regarding philosophical thinking. But most of this excluded women. Even though

women could be capable, they were not given the same rights as men and they were not

allowed in the academic, political, philosophical or economic spheres. There was a proper

gap in the treatment of men and women. Mary Wollstonecraft believed that education could

mend this gap and give women the proper tools, rights and opportunities to free themselves

from the chains of patriarchal oppression.

Firstly, Mary Wollstonecraft connected her standpoints about enlightenment to women

having rational minds just as reasonable and capable as men. She argued that if women were

not given education, they would not have the proper abilities to fully develop their rational

abilities. She believed that through education, women would gain the thinking process of not

being entrapped by overly emotional choices and be able to make more rational decisions.

Being able to make rational decisions would make them a better fit as citizens of a society.

Something that Wollstonecraft placed great importance on was that of economic

independence. She talked about how women are conditioned from birth to think about love

and marriage. Wollstonecraft argued that love in that societal system was not even real

because women were mainly getting involved in marriage for economic benefits. She argued

that in order to be financially independent, women would firstly need to be educated. She

believed that a proper distribution of the same types of education offered to men being given

to women would result in women being able to be in the academic and economic space. She

argued that not only would this hugely improve the condition of different departments of

academics and make women financially independent, it would also be better economically for

the whole of society.

She also believed that a lack of education was causing women to be violent in their own

homes towards their children and kin. She argued that an absence of education in a woman’s
mind would make her bored or occupied with emotional violence and in return, push her

more towards the cages of oppression. Wollstonecraft also believed that education would

make women better mothers and caregivers, making the future generation academically more

gifted and also growing the prospects for future women being more independent.

(Wollstonecraft, 2004).

Wollstonecraft also believed that the virtues of men and women were widely different in

society. She argued that while women were told to focus on things such as grace, beauty,

love, marriage and family; men were told to not focus on things such as marriage and instead

focus on much broader endeavors such as academia and finances. She believed that this huge

gap created two different kinds of morality for men and women to follow which

overcomplicated the societal system and caged women in oppression. (Wollstonecraft, 2004).

In the play, Antigone, the character of Antigone is very interesting considering the time the

play was written in. Similar to the time of Wollstonecraft, women in ancient Athens were not

allowed the same types of rights as men. They were seen as inferior beings and not allowed

the rights to vote, own land or receive education. Because of this, many have portrayed

Antigone as a character that defies patriarchal norms. (Robert, 2010).

Creon is seen as king or ruler that everybody obeys, not out of respect but of the fear of what

he will do to people that disobey him. Because of this, Creon keeps on putting up laws that

people in his kingdom can not help but follow. Most characters in the play are victims of this.

But Antigone is an exception. From the beginning, she defies Creon and wants to do right by

her brother.

Antigone stands up to a character such as Creon through her own moral judgments and

personal intellect. It is even mentioned in the play that Creon is furious at somebody such as

Antigone, a mere woman, defying his orders. So, I believe that the acts of Antigone are not

only a sign of defiance towards dominating authoritative systems but a sign of rebellion to the
systems of the patriarchy. Furthermore, the sisterly bond between Antigone and Ismene can

also be seen as a symbol of feminism. Because one of the central factors of women

empowerment is female kinship and friendship. (Walsh, 2008).

In Antigone’s Claim, Butler mentions that gender is a performance that fits into the society of

the time. She elaborates on this and mentions the different kinds of assumptions people make

about others on the basis of looks, characteristics about their gender. In society, in different

times, gender has always had different criterias and performances. In the time of Antigone,

women were expected to be quiet, graceful, meek and conform to all rules without question.

But if we look at the actions of Antigone, we will realize that she does not fit into the criterias

for women in her time. This is why Butler argues that Antigone is an ambiguous character in

terms of gender. She is not as furious, emotionless or physically dominating or aggressive as

the men in her time and she is not as quiet, conforming or graceful as the women in her time.

To conclude, due to her intellect and different kind of characteristics that sets her apart from

both men and women of her time, Antigone holds an ambiguous gender identity according to

Butler. (Butler, 2000).

References:

Butler, Judith. Antigone's Claim: Kinship between Life & Death. New York: Columbia

University Press, 2000.

González, M. M. (1997). MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT AND THE “VINDICATION OF

THE RIGHTS OW WOMAN”: POSTMODERN FEMINISM vs. MASCULINE

ENLIGHTENMENT. Atlantis, 19(2), 177–183. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41055470

ROBERT, W. (2010). Antigone’s Nature. Hypatia, 25(2), 412–436.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40602713

WALSH, K. (2008). Antigone Now. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 41(3), 1–

13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44029635

Wollstonecraft, M. (2004). A vindication of the rights of Women. Penguin Books.