Tutorial Questions 8

1- Explain Hedonism, consequentialism, maximalism and universalism

• Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences.

• Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the
thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek. The
problem in hedonism lies in the fact that it prioritizes the happiness of the individual
while at the same time disregarding any harm that the individual’s actions may bring to
others
• Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad.
• Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and
everyone equally.

2- Distinguish between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism

https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-act-and-rule-utilitarianism/

Parameters
of Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism
Comparison

Act utilitarianism is a philosophy Rule utilitarianism is similar but

that judges the morality of an considers not just whether the
Definition action based on its immediate outcome was good or bad but
consequences, without concern also how likely it was that action
for future or long-term effects. would produce a good outcome.

Intent Act utilitarianism would be more Rule utilitarianism are less likely
likely to do something to take immediate action unless it
immediately, without much is necessary and with a lot of
consideration for the thought put into how it will
 consequences. affect others.

Act utilitarianism would judge an

Rule utilitarianism, however, are
event by its immediate benefits
more likely to think about how
for oneself or others but not take
Judgement their actions will affect
into account what might happen
themselves and those around
as a result of this action in the
them in the long run.
future.

Act utilitarianism would need to Rule utilitarianism is more likely

take into account the immediate to help someone else if they are
physical consequences of their currently suffering from a
Actions actions and not worry about other terrible injury or if someone is
effects that might occur in the happy and content, but they will
future or how it will affect those not do anything to help them if
around them. they are suffering.

Act utilitarianism would need a

rule that always helps others in A rule utilitarian would need a
the same way every time it’s more specific rule, such as
Rules
followed. For instance, providing “always provide food for people
food for people who want it may who want it.”
be an act utilitarian action.

Second answer
 Act utilitarianism operates by considering what would be best for everyone in an entire
community, including all different perspectives at any given time. Rule utilitarianism is a
moral theory that focuses on fairness. It recognizes individual rights to avoid the greater
good of society are compromised for one or more people within society.
 Act utilitarianism doesn’t care about what happens to an individual person as long as the
greater good of society is achieved. Rule utilitarianism is best when it comes to issues
involving a conflict between the rights of an individual, and the needs/wants of society.
  Act utilitarianism focuses on how an action will affect everyone else in society and not
just one or two people that are involved. Rule utilitarianism does not want anyone
person’s rights violated, even if that means that everyone else in society must suffer as
well.
 Act utilitarianism, as its name suggests, focuses on a particular act within society. It
doesn’t care about an individual’s rights or needs in any way; it only cares about how that
action will affect everyone else in society. Rule utilitarianism considers what would
happen if we made that rule law and applied it to everyone in society.
 Act utilitarianism does not consider the consequences of its actions, but rule
utilitarianism considers both. Rule utilitarianism care about making sure that everyone in
society has their rights and needs met; act utilitarianism do not even bother with those
things as they only focus on one action at a time.

3- Discuss theory of pain and pleasure by Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was a non-believer and ordered in his will that his mortal remains should be
stuffed and kept within precincts (area) of University College London where today can be seen.
The face is a replica; he is wearing his favourite hat and sits on his writing chair. Jeremy
Bentham is regarded as the founding father of classical Utilitarianism. He was part of a
movement that wanted radical (deep) change in the British Society without the violence of
revolution. He wanted to bring an intellectual change. Brought up in a strong non-conformist
religious environment, Jeremy Bentham became a fervent opponent of both the established
Church of England and of the Christian faith in general. Bentham called himself a non-theist.
Jeremy Bentham, like his friend, James Mill (father of John Stuart Mill) rejected the term
‘atheist’ because it is impossible for any human being to know whether God exists or not.
Therefore, because Bentham is a non-theist, he rejected morality based on divine authority. He
believed there is one single basis for ethics and that is Nature. While he said, nature of man
replaces God as the sole higher authority to which human beings must turn in order to
understand themselves, the world and moral life, Bentham wrote that nature has placed mankind
under the governance of 2 Sovereign Masters: Pain and Pleasure. He does not turn to God and
does not believe in God  He is a non-theist because he rejected the term ‘atheist
Bentham believed that not only is humanity under these Twin Masters, but also that every person
should prefer pleasure to pain. However, Bentham gives no reason why we should prefer
pleasure over pain. He argued that this is fundamental and needs no evidence. He also explains
that pleasure and pain are not just physical sensation but they are also a psychological state that
comes from a feeling of pain or pleasure. We prefer pleasure and not pain. Criticism: However,
some people prefer pain over pleasure criticism to that classical utilitarian theory is that some
people may prefer pain over pleasure whether such pain is physical or psychological. The answer
to this is that such people do not see pain as pain but rather as pleasure. Thus, a hermit/ sage
might suffer hardship by living in a cave all his life, but he regards the suffering as a necessity
and as a steppingstone to the pleasure of a heavenly reward. For the recluse/ hermit, the physical
pain is a psychological pleasure. Pain can be physical, but it develops mental peace or
psychological happiness. There must be a necessary pain in order to achieve a good. Therefore
pain may later bring happiness. Bentham’s application of this moral theory leads to the
construction of a method. All actions must be calculated in terms of the maximisation of
happiness and the minimisation of pain. This method of assessing whether pleasure outweigh
pain is called the Hedonic Calculus.
https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/northumbria-university/jurisprudence/
utilitarianism/1359923

4- Discuss Rawls’ criticism on unilateralism

Moral philosophers have spilled a good deal of ink disputing the value of consequentialism in general,
and utilitarianism. It is unlikely that there will be time in your jurisprudence course to treat the subject in
detail, but you will need to know its essence, if only to understand its modern outgrowth, the economic
analysis of law, and to appreciate theories, especially Rawls’s, which seek to avoid the drawbacks of
utilitarianism.
Th e attacks on utilitarianism are many and varied. I shall identify eight such criticisms. A fundamental
assault on utilitarianism is made by those—who include Bernard Williams and Rawls himself—who
argue that it fails to recognize the ‘separateness of people. It suggests that utilitarianism, at least in its
pure form, treats human beings as means rather than ends in themselves.

5- What is the relationship between law and economics?

The central criterion of ‘law and economics’ or ’economic analysis of law’ as a jurisprudential
approach is that laws should lead to efficient use of resources, or ‘laws should be efficient’.
Kronman (1995) remarked: “The law and economics movement was and continues to be an
enormous enlivening force in American legal thought and, I would say, today continues and
remains the single most influential jurisprudential school in this country. Economic Analysis of
Law is done both positively (to describe why the law is or is not efficient) and normatively (to
propose laws which are efficient)

6- Critically discuss Posner’s economic analysis of

law?
Richard Posner [1973] brought economic analysis of law to the attention of the general legal
academy; by the late 1970s, his work had provoked a vigorous controversy. This controversy
was both general and doctrinally specific. Posner had claimed generally that the common law
was and ought to be efficient. This latter claim provoked a broad controversy about the
evaluation of legal rules.
Economic analysis of law is not a single, unitary practice but a set of projects that share a
methodological approach. The typical economic analysis of law does not set its task within the
framework of a general legal theory. Rather, it addresses a specific question about the causes or
consequences or social value of a specific legal rule or set of legal rules. Phrased differently, the
typical economic analysis of law investigates a specific legal rule or institution rather than make
general claims about the nature of law.

Nonetheless, economic analysis of law, or at least strands of it, implicitly offer distinctive, often
radical, answers to the questions addressed by legal theory. Moreover, some strands suggest a
radically different perspective on law and legal theory. The next section sets out the complex set
of claims that emerge from the mass of economic analyses of law and identifies three projects
that organize much of the work in the field. Subsequent sections ask what perspective on law
these claims and projects implicitly or explicitly provide.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-econanalysis/

7- What is meant by Pareto efficiency?

Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is an economic state where resources cannot be
reallocated to make one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.
Pareto efficiency implies that resources are allocated in the most economically efficient manner,
but does not imply equality or fairness. An economy is said to be in a Pareto optimum state
when no economic changes can make one individual better off without making at least one
other individual worse off.

Pareto efficiency, named after the Italian economist and political scientist Vilfredo Pareto
(1848-1923), is a major pillar of welfare economics. Neoclassical economics, alongside the
theoretical construct of perfect competition, is used as a benchmark to judge the efficiency of
real markets—though neither perfectly efficient nor perfectly competitive markets occur outside
of economic theory.

In practice, it is almost impossible to take any social action, such as a change in economic
policy, without making at least one person worse off, which is why other criteria of economic
efficiency have found a wider use in economics.

These include the following:

 Buchanan unanimity criterion: under which a change is efficient if all members of

society unanimously consent to it.
 Kaldor-Hicks efficiency: under which a change is efficient if the gains to the winners of
any change in allocation outweigh the damage to the losers.
 Coase Theorem: which states that individuals can bargain over the gains and losses to
reach an economically efficient outcome under competitive markets with no transaction
cost.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pareto-efficiency.asp#:~:text=Pareto
%20efficiency%20is%20when%20an,can%20move%20toward%20Pareto
%20efficiency.

8- Explain John Rawls theory of justice

The Rawal’s Principle of Justice was propounded as a contractualist theory of justice
where Rawl opined that these principles will be accepted freely by rational egoist in a
contractual state of nature as it applies to practices and constitutions. Rawal’s principle
was build up on the notion of fairness where each person should be granted equal rights
and liberties as well as the economics are catered to the benefit of the least advantage. So,
Rawl has made his two heavy famous notions of principles of justice which we are now
familiar.

The criticism arises from Rawl’s principle is not mainly on Rawl’s egalitarian, but it
circles around the efficiency and practicality of its theoretical construction. Under
Rawl’s First Principle of Justice, he proposed the idea that every person is entitled to
extensive equal rights and similar liberty for everybody else. This notion of equality is
not uncommon on the perspective of human rights, however, Rawl’s concept of equality
did not find solitude in some others due to certain factors.

Firstly, Rawl’s received criticism from the Left and Right. Some criticisms from the Left
are from Okin and Colen. For example, according to Okin, Rawl’s Principles of
Justice is inconsistent with the justice in family and gender structure in a family
institution. Customly,Rawl’s principles did not take into consideration the inherent and
significant role of each gender traditional roles in a Traditional Family. As an example,
the role of a woman in a Traditional Family is to maintain the household and most
oftenly, took upon the duty of raising and taking care of the child which is in contrary, to
the role men play of ‘bringing home the bacon’ and ensuring all the family’s necessities
such as water, food and shelter are well catered. Thus, if the man or the woman
does not adhere to the customary roles recognized under the traditional family
institution, justice could not be served as the man and woman fails to carry out their
duties as a father and a mother where as a result, the welfare and the duty of raising
children will be neglected and the main purpose of a family institution will be broken
down. Furthermore, take into consideration that Rawl’s idea of equality is where there is
no dominant factions or member of the group. Rawl’s views that this is justice where the
agreed rules are to be applied to every member of the group alike and all members live
together on equal terms without any member that can tailor the rules to their advantage
and thus, no subordination.
Secondly, according to Cohen’s criticism on Rawl’s Theory of Justice application in a
market does not compatible with the Incentive-Based arguments for inequality. Rawl’s
Difference Principle allows social and economic inequalities to be arranged as long as
they are for the greatest advantage for the least advantaged. For instance, a ‘talented’
person within a market requires incentives or money to be more efficient. On the other
hand, the least advantaged would be far worse by removing those incentives, resulting in
fewer benefits to go around. To Cohen, by requiring incentives to be productive, it does
not adhere to the Difference Principle as in a society that is governed by the Difference
Principles, the people do not require the sort of incentives that the Incentives-Based
argument imposed on them. This is because, a society standing only when its citizens
adhere to and affirms its principles of justice.

Thirdly, in relation to Rawl’s Difference Principle above, criticism from the Right comes
from Nozick where he disagrees with Rawls’ idea of ‘natural theory’. As stated
previously, under Rawl’s Second Principle of Justice, Rawl’s theory is that the social
and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they can benefit the least
advantage. Meanwhile, Nozick provides his view on the justice of holdings. Firstly, a
person who is acquires a certain property, advantage or interest (hereafter known as ‘X’)
in accordance to The Principle of Just Acquisition is entitled to X. Secondly, a person
who acquires X in accordance with the Principle of Justice in Transfer from some other
person entitled to X, he will be entitled to Lastly, no one is entitled to X except by
repeated application of the above. Thus, Nozick opined that if people are entitled to
something, they are entitled to anything that flows with their natural assets. Therefore,
Nozick rejected Rawls’ theory on arranging the social and economic benefit to the
advantages of the worst-off or the least benefit. The Difference Principle is criticized
for ignoring the idea that some people deserve certain economic benefits
regardless whether they are not from the class of least advantage, but due to their hard
work and effort. Furthermore, Rawls’ second principle implies that inequalities
are allowed as long as they benefit the worst-off.
 In addition, some criticize the Difference Principle being similar to the Utilitarianism as
these two permit or demand inequalities to certain extent in order to benefit the least
advantaged. Although the Utilitarianism concerned more about the total or average
welfare which might help the least advantaged but not specifically cater to the welfare of
the worst-off. Thus, there is a big concern on the productivity of the
economy if this particular concept of distributive economic advantages is accepted
because its application may leads to practical biasness, injustice and instability on a
particular society’s economy.

In addition, Rawl had not provided us with the rigorous explanation on his derivation on
the principle of justice. As we can see that Rawl’s derivation of his principles of justice
did not succeed as such derivation is impossible. Equality to some certain extent is
acceptable undiscourageable but at the same time there must be some acceptable limit as
to the application of the idea of equality since everything and everyone has its own
intended purpose which are crucial in the society. Thus, any disturbance to these roles
may bring chaos and instability. Same goes to providing the benefits to the least
advantage, where the advantage provided freely must be proportionate and reasonable.

9- What is meant by the original position?

The original position is a position that free and rational persons would accept as an initial
position of equality for the purposes of defining the fundamental terms of their association. It is a
position from which any reasonable person would derive the same principles of justice. Each
member of society enters the original position from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ meaning that no
one would know his place in society, his class position or social status, nor would anyone know
his fortune in the distribution of his natural assets, abilities, intelligence, strength, etc. In other
words, anything that could produce inequality is unknown to the social contractors and therefore
they agree with each other on an equal basis. Based on this presumption, Rawls goes on to
deduce a precise formulation of the principles.

10- Describe two principles of justice

The first principle is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with a similar liberty for others which include, among other things, political liberty,
freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of conscience, the right to hold personal property and
the right to fair treatment under the law. Every citizen guarantees the basic liberties of others so
long as their basic liberties are guaranteed in return.

The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
both (A) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (B) arranged so that everyone
should have a fair and equality of opportunity to fill offices and other positions. The second
principle is controversial. Part A requires that any disparity in wealth or income to be for the
good of society as a whole, while part B demands equal opportunity. It is in Rawls justification
of part A of the second principle that we find his views regarding the arbitrariness of talents and
how the fruits thereof should be distributed.

Rawls states that as long as everyone is ignorant of themselves outside the original position, then
it seems reasonable and generally acceptable that no one should be advantaged or disadvantaged
by natural fortune or social circumstances in the choice of principles. He states that inequality
leading from natural talent and previous social endowment is arbitrary and unearned, hence any
advantage to the individual must also be to everyone’s advantage. Otherwise, no one would
agree to it under the original position.

Rawls rejects the idea of simply letting the free market system work as not only would it allow
the privileged social class to perpetuate itself, but also because natural liberty permits the
distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and
talents. Rawls argues that distributive shares are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery;
and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective. Thus re-distribution is necessary to
counter the arbitrariness of the natural lottery.

The reference to natural lottery indicates that significant inequalities derive, to a large extent,
from chance and not merit. Thus, from the perspective of the Rawlsian negotiators, on the chance
that they might be someone born unlucky in the natural lottery – with few talents, born to a poor
family, etc – they want to make sure they are not unjustly punished for that bad fortune and for
this reason they would agree on a principle which seeks to arrange inequalities so that they are to
the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.
It is important to note that the first principle is prioritized over the second in order to prevent the
loss of liberty where this would be sufficiently compensated by the resulting social and economic
gains. Without such a precedence, it is conceivable that slavery or something like it could
justified in the name of social welfare

However, this precedence is criticized for the fact that a citizen’s freedom to hold inherited
property, for example, would override the distribution of economic benefits and,thus, the
precedence accorded to the principle of liberty would benefit the most advantaged. To this Rawls
responds that liberty should only take priority in ‘favourable circumstances’ by which he means
that at least the basic needs of the members of society must be met before liberty trumps