display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
4 ideas
4287 | Utilitarianism merely guides us (by means of sympathy) when the moral law is silent [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Utilitarian thinking does not replace or compete with the moral law, but guides us when the moral law is silent and only sympathy speaks. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.63) | |
A reaction: If the moral law is silent, it is not quite clear why we should follow sympathy rather than contempt. There is the well-known danger here of the moral law turning out to lack content. |
4280 | Utilitarianism is wrong precisely because it can't distinguish animals from people [Scruton] |
Full Idea: It was precisely the inability of utilitarianism to explain the distinction between animals and people which led to its rejection. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.50) | |
A reaction: A nice turning of the tables, rejecting the utilitarian pride in incorporating animals into their theory where others (like Kant) reject them. Yet in one respect (suffering) they are inescapably very like us. |
4281 | Utilitarianism says we can't blame Stalin yet, but such a theory is a sick joke [Scruton] |
Full Idea: Stalin and Hitler justified their actions in utilitarian terms, ..and no one can accuse them, for who knows what the long-term effects of their actions might be? But a morality which can't pass final judgement on Hitler or Stalin is a kind of sick joke. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.52) | |
A reaction: A powerful argument against simplistic consequentialism. We can judge an action at any time, even beforehand, and that must be part of morality, which can't just observe the unfolding consequences. |
4282 | Morality is not a sort of calculation, it is what sets the limits to when calculation is appropriate [Scruton] |
Full Idea: It is nearer the truth to see morality as setting the limits to practical reasoning, rather than being a species of it. Moral principles tell us precisely that we must go no further along the path of calculation. | |
From: Roger Scruton (Animal Rights and Wrongs [1996], p.52) | |
A reaction: Well said. If you are assessing whether an act of vicious brutality is required, you have probably already gone morally astray. It is not hard, though, to think of counterexamples, especially in wartime. |