Good opening paragraphs are just that. They cheer the sodden examiner. Bad opening paragraphs are either a complete waste of time, or just the wrong sort of thing in a Philosophy essay. The examiner's heart sinks into his stomach. And Ugly opening paragraphs have the right kind of idea, poorly executed. You must avoid the Bad, on pain of condemning yourself to a Desmond. And it is well worth working on the Ugly to at least aspire to the Good. The devil, of course, is in the details, case by case. So read through several examples.
Act-Utilitarianism (hereinafter AU) is that version of Utilitarianism upon which an act is to be assessed for rightness or wrongness purely on the utility of the actual (in some versions the likely, or expected) consequences of that very act. Let us sharpen this with a definition:
DEF: An act a is right iff it maximises utility (w.r.t. other possible courses of action)
Rule-Utilitarianism (RU) structures things differently. It advocates an indirect connection between rightness and consequences, upon which the rightness of an action depends upon it falling under a moral rule which so certifies it, the rule in its turn being validated by the consequences of its general acceptance. For purposes of comparison let us have a parallel definition:
DEF: An act a is right if it is so certified by a rule R which belongs to a maximal (let us say) set of rules S
DEF: A set of rules S is maximal iff its general acceptance maximises utility (w.r.t. other possible sets of rules)
Absolutely magic. Crisp, sharp, clear. And focussed: straight into philosophical analysis in the canonical style. No time wasted. No waffle. No padding. A nice touch with the shorthand, which will save much time later. This candidate is in total command of the material, and knows where he/she is going. Clear Distinction Plus.
The BadIn order to answer this question it is necessary to first define Act-Utilitarianism and Rule-Utilitarianism, and then to investigate whether Mill was an act- or a rule-utilitarian, and finally to come up with an answer one way or the other. My answer will be that the truth lies somewhere in between. Act-utilitarians are only bothered about individual acts, but Rule-utilitarians think that they get it wrong, and that there is a place for rules in utilitarianism.
Absolutely appalling. Firstly, this is a complete waste of time: these vague thoughts now need sharpening along the lines of The Good answer. So the candidate might as well have begun with paragraph 2. The only effect of this one is to tell the examiner that the candidate is a fuckwit.
Secondly, this paragraph has no intrinsic connection with utilitarianism. Or, indeed, with anything. It is generated by a programme which writes first paragraphs for any question. Suppose the title had been "Is Aten of more central symbolic significance in Egyptian mythology than Osiris?" Then the programme generates
"In order to answer this question is is necessary to discuss the symbolic significance of Aten and Osiris, and then to investigate whether one was more central to Egyptian mythology than the other. My answer will be that the truth lies somewhere in between. Supporters of Aten think that Aten is of central importance, but supporters of Osiris think that they are wrong, and that there is a case to be made for Osiris."
The Ugly Act Utilitarians think that morality is basically about producing as much happiness as possible with every act. Rule Utilitarians think that iswrong, because Act Utilitarians would sometimes have to do horrible things, like sherrifs killing innocent people. So Rule Utilitarians think that morality is basically about rules, but because they are Utilitarians they think that we ought to have rules which produce the most happiness. But Rule Utilitarians have problems as well, because they have to follow their rules even when it means making people unhappy. Jonathan Glover says this is rule-worship.
Oh dear. Woolly and undisciplined. Too many thoughts run together in a single breath. Gestures at the arguments which are (presumably) to be deployed later, mixed up with facile descriptions of the doctrines these arguments will be deployed against. And everything at such an amorphous level that it is already hard to see how the candidate will be able to bring those arguments to bear sharply on their supposed targets. Still, jolly good for Jonathan Glover. I dare say he's against making people unhappy. If I had a penny for every time I had to read the word 'basically' in these scripts, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt. I wonder what's on Radio 3 .
