Utilitarisme négatif

L'utilitarisme négatif est une version de la théorie de l'éthique de l'utilitarisme qui donne une plus grande priorité à la réduction de la souffrance (utilité négative ou « désutilité ») qu'à l'augmentation du bonheur (utilité positive)[1].

En cela, il diffère de l'utilitarisme classique qui ne prétend pas que la réduction de la souffrance est intrinsèquement plus importante que l'augmentation de bonheur. Toutefois, les deux versions de l'utilitarisme avancent que les actions sont moralement justes ou mauvaises uniquement de par leurs conséquences sur la somme totale de bien-être[2], cette expression se référant à l'état de l'individu.[3] L'expression « utilitarisme négatif » est utilisée par certains auteurs pour désigner la théorie selon laquelle la réduction de la souffrance est la seule chose qui compte moralement.[4] D'autres auteurs distinguent entre des versions « fortes » et « faibles » de l'utilitarisme négatif, les « fortes » étant concernées seulement par la réduction de la souffrance (ou bien-être négatif), alors que dans les versions « faibles », ce sont à la fois le bien-être et la souffrance qui importent, bien que la souffrance importe davantage que le bien-être[5].

D'autres versions de l'utilitarisme négatif diffèrent par l'importance qu'elles donnent à la souffrance (la version négative de l'utilité) par rapport au bien-être (utilité positive), ainsi que différentes conceptions de ce qu'est le bien-être (utilité). Par exemple, l'utilitarisme négatif des préférences dit que la somme de bien-être dépend de préférences liées à la frustration. L'utilitarisme négatif hédoniste pense le bien-être en termes d'expériences agréables et désagréables.[6] Il existe de nombreuses autres variantes sur la façon dont l'utilitarisme négatif peut être interprété.

L'expression « utilitarisme négatif » a été introduit par R. Ninian Smart en 1958 dans sa réponse à La Société Ouverte et Ses Ennemis de Karl Popper. Smart a également présenté le plus célèbre argument à l'encontre de l'utilitarisme négatif[7], en disant que l'utilitarisme négatif impliquerait qu'un dirigeant en mesure de détruire la race humaine, instantanément et sans douleur, aurait un devoir de le faire.[8] De nombreux auteurs ont approuvé les versions de cette objection, tandis que d'autres lui ont opposé des contre-arguments.

Histoire

L'expression « utilitarisme négatif » a été introduite par R. N. Smart en 1958 dans sa réponse au livre de Karl Popper, La Société Ouverte et Ses Ennemis, publié en 1945[9]. Dans son livre, Popper met l'accent sur l'importance de la prévention de la souffrance dans les politiques publiques[10]. Les idées négatives de l'utilitarisme présentent des similitudes avec les anciennes traditions comme le Jaïnisme et le Bouddhisme[11]. Le philosophe grec Hégésias de Cyrène est considéré comme « l'un des premiers représentants de l'utilitarisme négatif »[12]. Plus proche de nous, au 19^e siècle, on peut trouver des idées similaires à l'utilitarisme négatif dans les œuvres du psychologue anglais Edmund Gurney qui écrit^[Où ?] que « Il restera toujours assez de souffrance pour que la question de l'opportunité ... de leur séjour sur terre soit une question à laquelle les chiffres répondront ... par la négative. . . . Lorsque nous oublions la douleur, que nous la sous-estimons ou que nous disons que les gens "s'y habituent", nous perdons vraiment de vue ce qu'est réellement l'univers que nous voulons concevoir de manière adéquate.[13] »

Citations

For example, Leslie 1998, p. 12: "'Negative utilitarianism' is concerned mainly or entirely with reducing evils rather than with maximizing goods." The example unpleasant experiences is an example based on a hedonistic theory of well-being, according to which pleasant experiences are good for individuals and unpleasant experiences are bad for individuals. But there are other theories of well-being and negative utilitarianism need not adopt a hedonistic theory.
Bykvist 2009, p. 19: "The whole family of utilitarian theories is captured by the equation: Utilitarianism = Consequentialism (nothing but the values of outcomes matter for the rightness of actions) + Welfarism (nothing but well-being matters for the value of outcomes)."
Bykvist et 2009 2009, chpt. 4.
Smart 1958.
Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 29 says that strong versions of negative utilitarianism "give all weight to disutility" and weak versions "give some weight to positive utility, but more weight to disutility." Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 115: “Our point of departure was the firm intuition that unhappiness and suffering have greater weight than happiness. By taking this stand we revealed ourselves as members of the negative utilitarian family.” Ord 2013: “NU [negative utilitarianism] comes in several flavours, which I will outline later, but the basic thrust is that an act is morally right if and only if it leads to less suffering than any available alternative. Unlike Classical Utilitarianism, positive experiences such as pleasure or happiness are either given no weight, or at least a lot less weight.”
Negative Utilitarianism FAQ 2015.
Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 31.
Smart 1958, p. 542.
Smart 1958, p. 542: "Professor Popper has proposed a negative formulation of the utilitarian principle, so that we should replace ‘Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number’ by ‘The least amount of avoidable suffering for all’. He says: ‘It adds to the clarity of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness’. However, one may reply to negative utilitarianism..."
For example, Popper wrote, "I suggest, for this reason, to replace the utilitarian formula ‘Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number’, or briefly, ‘Maximize happiness’ by the formula ‘The least amount of avoidable suffering for all’, or briefly, ‘Minimize suffering’. Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Routledge, 2012, 755 p. (ISBN 978-0-415-61021-6, lire en ligne), p. 548 Popper claimed that "there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure... In my opinion human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway. A further criticism of the Utilitarian formula "Maximize pleasure" is that it assumes a continuous pleasure-pain scale which allows us to treat degrees of pain as negative degrees of pleasure. But, from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man's pain by another man's pleasure. Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all..." Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies : Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato, Routledge, 2002, 284–285 p. (ISBN 978-0-415-23731-4)
Contestabile 2014, p. 310: "Negative utilitarianism and Buddhism share the following intuitions: Negative utilitarianism—understood as an umbrella term—models the asymmetry between suffering and happiness and therefore accords with the Buddhist intuition of universal compassion. The Noble Truths of Buddhism accord with the negative utilitarian intuition that (global) suffering cannot be compensated by happiness. Some forms of Buddhism and negative utilitarianism share the intuition that non-existence is a perfect state." (Lire en ligne) Goodman 2009, p. 101: “Negative utilitarianism shares with Buddhism a strong focus on alleviating the suffering of beings.” (in Consequences of Compassion: An Interpretation and Defense of Buddhist Ethics)
Keown 1992, p. 175: “one of the earliest exponents of NU, Hegesias...”
"Enough suffering will always remain to make the question of the desirability . . . of their sojourn on earth a question which numbers will answer . . . in the negative. . . . When we forget pain, or underestimate it, or talk about people 'getting used to it', we are really so far losing sight of what the universe, which we wish to conceive adequately, really is." (Voir source)

Portail de la philosophie

Cet article est issu de Wikipedia. Le texte est sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes. Des conditions supplémentaires peuvent s'appliquer aux fichiers multimédias.

[1] For example, Leslie 1998, p. 12: "'Negative utilitarianism' is concerned mainly or entirely with reducing evils rather than with maximizing goods." The example unpleasant experiences is an example based on a hedonistic theory of well-being, according to which pleasant experiences are good for individuals and unpleasant experiences are bad for individuals. But there are other theories of well-being and negative utilitarianism need not adopt a hedonistic theory.

[2] Bykvist 2009, p. 19: "The whole family of utilitarian theories is captured by the equation: Utilitarianism = Consequentialism (nothing but the values of outcomes matter for the rightness of actions) + Welfarism (nothing but well-being matters for the value of outcomes)."

[Bykvist20092009chpt._4-3] Bykvist et 2009 2009, chpt. 4.

[Smart1958-4] Smart 1958.

[5] Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 29 says that strong versions of negative utilitarianism "give all weight to disutility" and weak versions "give some weight to positive utility, but more weight to disutility." Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 115: “Our point of departure was the firm intuition that unhappiness and suffering have greater weight than happiness. By taking this stand we revealed ourselves as members of the negative utilitarian family.” Ord 2013: “NU [negative utilitarianism] comes in several flavours, which I will outline later, but the basic thrust is that an act is morally right if and only if it leads to less suffering than any available alternative. Unlike Classical Utilitarianism, positive experiences such as pleasure or happiness are either given no weight, or at least a lot less weight.”

[Negative_Utilitarianism_FAQ2015-6] Negative Utilitarianism FAQ 2015.

[ArrheniusBykvist199531-7] Arrhenius et Bykvist 1995, p. 31.

[Smart1958542-8] Smart 1958, p. 542.

[9] Smart 1958, p. 542: "Professor Popper has proposed a negative formulation of the utilitarian principle, so that we should replace ‘Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number’ by ‘The least amount of avoidable suffering for all’. He says: ‘It adds to the clarity of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness’. However, one may reply to negative utilitarianism..."

[10] For example, Popper wrote, "I suggest, for this reason, to replace the utilitarian formula ‘Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number’, or briefly, ‘Maximize happiness’ by the formula ‘The least amount of avoidable suffering for all’, or briefly, ‘Minimize suffering’. Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Routledge, 2012, 755 p. (ISBN 978-0-415-61021-6, lire en ligne), p. 548 Popper claimed that "there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure... In my opinion human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway. A further criticism of the Utilitarian formula "Maximize pleasure" is that it assumes a continuous pleasure-pain scale which allows us to treat degrees of pain as negative degrees of pleasure. But, from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man's pain by another man's pleasure. Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all..." Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies : Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato, Routledge, 2002, 284–285 p. (ISBN 978-0-415-23731-4)

[11] Contestabile 2014, p. 310: "Negative utilitarianism and Buddhism share the following intuitions: Negative utilitarianism—understood as an umbrella term—models the asymmetry between suffering and happiness and therefore accords with the Buddhist intuition of universal compassion. The Noble Truths of Buddhism accord with the negative utilitarian intuition that (global) suffering cannot be compensated by happiness. Some forms of Buddhism and negative utilitarianism share the intuition that non-existence is a perfect state." (Lire en ligne) Goodman 2009, p. 101: “Negative utilitarianism shares with Buddhism a strong focus on alleviating the suffering of beings.” (in Consequences of Compassion: An Interpretation and Defense of Buddhist Ethics)

[12] Keown 1992, p. 175: “one of the earliest exponents of NU, Hegesias...”

[13] "Enough suffering will always remain to make the question of the desirability . . . of their sojourn on earth a question which numbers will answer . . . in the negative. . . . When we forget pain, or underestimate it, or talk about people 'getting used to it', we are really so far losing sight of what the universe, which we wish to conceive adequately, really is." (Voir source)