Foot’s diagnosis of utilitarianism’s appeal and her attempted philosophical exorcism

Foot’s diagnosis of utilitarianism’s appeal and her attempted philosophical exorcism

It is human nature to seek happiness within us and the world around us. Philosophers have come up with various theories that try to explain happiness, virtues and morality. An example of such an argument is utilitarianism which advocates for those actions that bring pleasure and satisfaction. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism in that the outcome of any action determines whether the action is good or bad. Therefore, it is paramount for one to choose an activity that produces the best results of pleasure and happiness. This paper will focus on Foot’s diagnosis of utilitarianism’s appeal and her attempted philosophical exorcism.

Foot’s diagnosis of utilitarianism

Foot, in her argument, compared two theories of description that are utilitarianism and consequentialism. The principle of consequentialism states that the outcome of any action determines whether it is good or bad. The goodness and rightness of any given action determine if the activity is morally right or wrong. Human beings have the freedom to choose any activity, whether good or bad. If the result of any activity is reasonable then to consequentialism it morally right, but if the outcome of a job is wrong, then the action will be termed as ethically wrong.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, consists of consequences and identification of those state of affairs that bring about pleasure and happiness or the highest satisfaction of desire. In Foot’s view, what is wrong with utilitarianism is its consequentialism. It is suggested that good does not automatically lead to an increase in pleasure and happiness. In choosing an action, one has to identify the activity to be involved in the possible results from the given activity if the activity whether wrong or bad bring about pleasure and happiness then to the utilitarianism theory the activity is morally right.

Foot, in her theory, argues that utilitarianism has its unique attraction in that happiness, pleasure and satisfaction of our desires are what we see as good. However, these attractions, according to Foot loses their power when they are derived from oppressing others, for example, is the execution of the poor by the rich. In her theory, Foot tries to identify what is so convincing about consequentialism? She argues that it can never be morally right to choose a bad state of affairs over a good one. From this argument, she says that utilitarianism is not a convincing answer to the issue that consequences of a chosen action should not be the basis of moral opinions. Foot also argues that we have gone wrong in acknowledging the ideology that there are good and better states of affairs based on the requirements of consequentialism.

Foot, in her argument, wonders why utilitarianism fuels so much debate when very few philosophers believe in it. For example, Bentham, in his theory, equates evil with pain and good with pleasure. She says the attractiveness of utilitarianism is on its consequentialism. In her opinion, she argues that its consequences should judge the morality of any given action, and this is what most people find to be very challenging. For example, the rich will choose to oppress and execute the poor because they are in poor. To the rich, there is nothing wrong with their actions. However, oppression of the poor is not morally right based on the suffering and pain the poor undergo.

According to Foot, consequentialism holds that we always prefer to choose that which is morally right. She goes ahead and argues that people go wrong in accepting the ideology that there are good and bad states of affairs that are required by consequentialism. Foot simply acknowledges that in the everyday living of human life, we cannot conclusively say one stand is better than the other. Foot insists that in all areas of morality, there are no truths.

In her theory, Foot looks at the ideology of a good state of affairs. She says we can judge the various state of affairs to be better than others. She goes ahead and asks if we understand what is meant by the statement good state of affairs. Every day we say it is good that something happened to us or the world around us. The word good is used in reference to many things. According to Foot, doubt does not arise from how we use the word good but rather how it appears in reference to consequentialism and utilitarianism. It is important to ask the context in which the state of good affairs is used. In her, argument Foot says they what is seen as a good state of affairs can turn out to be bad and what is a bad state of affairs can turn out to be good. According to utilitarianism, we are supposed to believe the best state of affairs is one that brings us pleasure and happiness. This principle rules out the possibility of something good coming out of a bad situation. A debate, therefore, about what is the best state of affairs from a personal point of view. Different people have different opinions about what is a good state and what is not. Therefore, a good rule of affairs should not be the guiding principle of what is morally right and what is wrong.

Consequentialism states that the primary focus is what is the best state of affairs and not what is morally right or wrong. Before we draw moral judgements, it is essential to focus on what is considered potentially good and bad state of affairs. Harsanyi reasons that the only coherent morality is one whereby the wrongness or rightness of a deed is arbitrated by its relationship to a certain outcome.

In our everyday moral code, there are many necessities and bans that do not align with the ideology that goodwill is the whole of morality. There lie issues that lie between goodwill and justice. We should not refer to an action that is unjust as an act of goodwill. Therefore, there exists a possibility for the existence of a good or bad state of affairs in morality. It is because a person who does things for the well-being of others thinks about the good and the bad state of affairs. A person who acts out of goodwill mainly focusses on minimizing harm and loss. Such a person main focus is the well being of others and not satisfying their pleasure or happiness.

From a morality point of view, there exists the ideology of the good and unfortunate state of affairs. Morals in society are developed to control human behavior and conduct. Consequentialism focus on the outcome of action as the determinant of whether an effort is reasonable or not. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, focuses on both the activity and its consequences to bring about pleasure and happiness. Foot, therefore, argues that these two theories should include virtues, morals and justice cannot be determined by ones’ actions to achieve pleasure and happiness. For example, in friendship, one party can intentionally exploit the other person for their good. Such acts done by one party to derive their own happiness cannot be considered as a pleasant affair. Therefore, some actions that people undertake though they give them satisfaction cannot be regarded as moral.

Conceptualism, to some extent, does not promote justice. Some people will be unfair to others so as to satisfy their own happiness, and such actions are not virtuous and morally right. Foot gives an example of the rich and the poor. The rich oppress the poor and execute for their own selfish gains. These actions though they give the rich happiness and immense pleasure, deny the imperfect justice. Therefore, there is need to have moral legislation that will clearly state what is morally acceptable in society and what is not.

Happiness is as a result of our actions with an aim to achieve happiness and pleasure. However, there are actions that one can take that focusses on the well being of the other person. People who do things out of goodwill do not seek their own happiness or pleasure. Such individuals do not conform to the theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism. The motive of their goodwill usually is not self-driven. In other cases, a bad state of an affair can result in the happiness of the other person. For example, a person who misplaces a parcel and later receives it from a good Samaritan who collected it gets happy from an unhappy situation. Therefore, good deeds should not be the only determinant of happiness and pleasure since, at the time, something good can come from good condition.

In conclusion, Foot in discusses the utilitarianism theory, which states that the choice of action and its consequences result in happiness and pleasure. She argues that consequentialism is a constituent of utilitarianism. In her theory, she argues that even the people who do not believe in utilitarianism are still influenced by it. It is because whether an action is good or bad, it can affect ones’ happiness and attainment of pleasure. She argues that acts of goodwill give satisfaction to the other person. Hence an individuals’ choice of action and its consequences should not be the only determinant of what is morally right. Foot also proposes moral legislation as a determinant of what is ethically correct in society.