Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Morality

Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract principles or a divinely given religious code Morality has to do with bringing about as much happiness/pleasure as possible in this world.

The Principle of Utility

One moral truth in the universe

The Basic Idea Whenever we have a choice between alternative actions or social policies, we must choose the one that has the best over all consequences for everyone concerned.

Basic Intuitions Behind Utilitarianism

We should oppose suffering & promote Happiness

We should consider all parties and act to bring about the best consequences

The Upshot of Utilitarianism

Product of European Enlightenment; the theory emphasizes human reason and claims to make morality into a science By performing simple calculations, we can determine what is morally right and wrong It makes no references to God or religion As a theory, it taps into fundamental human intuitionsnamely, that the point of morality is to make the world a better, happier place

Foundations of Utilitarianism
1.

Consequentialism:
Moral credit is assessed solely in terms of the consequences of an action.

(The intentions and motives behind an action never figure into the analysis of an action.)

2.

Pleasure is the only intrinsic good:

Pleasure is the only thing that has value in itself. Everything else is valuable only insofar as it produces pleasure

Pleasure is the Only Intrinsic Good

Intrinsic Goods:

Something that is good in itself; something that has worth and value that is not dependent upon anything else; something that is good for its own sake.

Common Examples: Health, beauty, friendship, love, joy, happiness.. The Utilitarian Says Pleasure is the ONLY Intrinsic Good

Instrumental Goods:

All Other Goods Are Instrumental Goods

Something that is good only because of what one can get out of it; something whose value is dependent upon something else; something thats value is dependent upon its consequences; something that only has use value. Common Example: Money

The Utilitarian says that love, friendship, justice, etc. are all instrumental goods

Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism

Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism Maximize Apply The Pleasure Principle Of Utility Utility Each And Every Time One Acts

The Principle Of Is The Only Moral Truth

Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism

The Principle of Utility: An action is morally right if and only if it maximizes utilityi.e., if and only if the balance of benefit to harm calculated by taking everyone affected by the act into consideration is greater than the balance of benefit to harm resulting from any alternative act.

Cost-Benefit Analysis
P1 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 6 5 -12 -3 1 P2 2 -4 -1 -1 1 P3 -7 0 -6 -2 1 P4 4 6 15 7 1 Total 5

7
-4 1 4

How To Calculate

Set out all the relevant alternative acts List all the individuals who will be affected by the acts, including oneself Assess how the individuals, including oneself, will be affected by the various actions Choose the act which maximizes utility, i.e., which results in the greatest total balance of benefit to harm

Two Types Of Objections

One: Numbers??? How can we quantify pains & pleasures? How do we establish a specific numerical value? The numbers seem arbitrary. Two: Too Time Consuming??? Are we supposed to draw a chart each and every time we go to act? Wouldnt drawing a chart each and every time we go to act be too time consuming??

Responses

Drawing a chart is not necessary; one can quickly estimate the values in ones head Assigning values to various actions is possible; calculate according to criteria such as:

Intensity Duration Fruitfulness Likelihood of Success

Bentham & Mill On Higher Pleasures

Hedonistic Utilitarianism: Pleasure is the ultimate good & the only intrinsic good

Bentham All pleasures are equal in value Pushpin is as good as poetry. Mill Some pleasures are more valuable than others

Mills Theory: Higher and Lower Pleasures

Higher Intellectual Pleasures Books, Poetry, Opera, Mental Activities, etc. Aesthetic Pleasures Waterfall, Rose Garden, Etc Lower Base Pleasures Food, Sex, Physical Enjoyment, etc...

Applications: Euthanasia

A person is terminally ill with a painful cancer

Traditional Morality (Christianity) Life is a gift from God. Only God may decide when life will end. Euthanasia is murder and is contrary to traditional morality. Utilitarianism What action would maximize utility? Killing the patientand hence ending her miserymight not only be morally permitted, but also morally required.

Euthanasia
1.

The morally right thing to do, on any occasion, is whatever would bring about the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness On at least some occasions, the greatest balance of benefit over unhappiness may be brought about by performing a mercy killing. Thus, on at last some occasions, performing a mercy killing is the morally right course of action.

2.

3.

Peter Singer & Animal Rights

Dominant morality in Western Civilization excludes non-human beings from moral consideration: Aristotle: Animals exist to serve human purposes Christianity: Animals do not have souls Descartes / Kant: Animals lack reason & free will Others: Animals lack language, intelligence, etc.

Racism & Sexism

Racists & sexists defend their policies of unequal treatment on the basis of alleged factual differences between ethnic groups and/or the sexes: differing moral and intellectual capacities, etc. Some racists/sexists exert a great amount of time and energy trying to establish genetic grounds for their discriminatory policies. Those who defend the equality of the sexes and races usually try to ground their claims to equality in arguments showing that the alleged differences between people are due to environmental factors (such as economic and social histories).

Singer On Moral Consideration

Peter Singer: Intelligence, rational capacities, the use of language, etc. are all totally irrelevant to establishing a policy of equal treatment in respect to moral considerations. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of moral consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. Utilitarianism: The capacity to experience pain and pleasure is the only criterion relevant for determining whether or not a being deserves moral consideration.

Self-awareness Ability to express a preference

Speciesism

Racism & sexism are morally wrong in virtue of the fact that the victims, who are entitled to full moral consideration, suffer unnecessarily. While most of us nowadays recognize that racism and sexism are morally wrong, few of us recognize that Speciesism is morally wrong for the very same reason. Speciesism = Treating the interests of the human species as superior to the interests of other non-human species.

Animal Rights

Based upon the Utilitarian criterion for moral consideration, animals interests are deserving of equal moral consideration. Animals have rights!! Animals can experience pain and pleasure.

Self-aware Show preferences

If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.

Eating Meat Is Immoral

Our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. A plant-based diet is healthier than an animal-based diet. Therefore, we have no need to eat other animals. Animals suffer immensely as a result of our production & consumption practices. Animal suffering upsets the principle of utility. Therefore, our consumption and production of animal meat is gravely morally wrong.

1.

2. 3. 4.

Experimentation On Animals Is Immoral

1.

Most experimentation on animals by drug companies and universities is pointless cruelty. For example:

Drug companies test new shampoos and cosmetics that they are intending to put on the market by dropping them into the eyes of rabbits held open by metal clips, in order to observe what damage results.

2.

Such cruelty violates the principle of utility. Therefore, such experimentation is gravely morally wrong.

1. 2.

Affluent countries grossly indulge in luxury living. There are a great many human beings in the world who do not even have basic necessitiessuch as food, clothing, and medicines. The money that affluent countries spend on excess consumerism could be better utilized by giving to charitable organizations. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so. Death by starvation or curable disease is very bad; and we can prevent many people from dying of starvation by sacrificing our luxuries, which are not as important. Therefore, we ought to do so.

World Poverty

3.

4.

5.

6.

Bobs Bugatti
Bobs Bugatti One child dies

Our Luxury Living Many children die

Bobs conduct seems clearly wrong. He should have sacrificed his Bugatti for the life of the child. But we too have opportunities to save the lives of children. We can give to Unicef or Oxfam America. In fact, $200 would transform a sickly 2-year-old into a healthy 6-year-old

Problems With Utilitarianism: Human Rights???

Consider the following case: An otherwise healthy 18 year old goes to the emergency room with appendicitis. The surgeon is an avid utilitarian. He calculates his options and decides against saving the adolescent. A1 = Use patient for body parts A2 = Restore patient to health

A 1 A 2

P1 P2 P3 P4 Total -10 10 10 10 +20 10 -10 -10 -10 -20

Problems With Utilitarianism

Violation of individuals Rights
Surgeon (patients right to life) Framing innocent person (mans right to justice) Peeping Tom (womans right to privacy)

Social Injustice
Letting a guilty party go free Slavery

Other Problems

Objections to consequentialism Objections to pleasure as only intrinsic good The theory is too demanding!! Promise keeping is not obligatory

Rule Utilitarianism

The principle of utility is satisfied by following a general list of rules. If everyone follows a list of rules, then the world will be a happier, better place and utility will be satisfied. The rule utilitarian asks: What if everyone followed that rule? Would that make the world better or worse? Over all, in the long run and all things considered, the world will be better off if EVERYONE follows a list of general rules.

Rule Utilitarianism
General Rules: 1.1 Doctors can kill patients for body parts.

Result: Chaos, nobody goes to Dr.s, sickness

Or 1.2 Doctors should follow their Hippocratic oath and try to cure all of their patients.

Result: People cured, trust, Health

2.1 People can spy upon others for cheap thrills.

Result: Anxiety, paranoia, $$ security, no trust

Or 2.2 People should respect each others privacy.

Result: Respect, well-being, trust,

The Problem With Rule Utilitarianism

We are only obligated to follow the general list of rules if doing so will maximize utility. But what if breaking a rule would maximize utility? The principle of utility over-rides any general rule. The principle of utility is the ONLY moral truth; it and it alone is morally obligatory. Thus, one can break a general rule if doing so would maximize utility.

The Exception Rule

General Rules Do not cheat Do not kill Help others in need Respect others privacy
Exception

Rule: You can break any

of the other general rules if doing so will maximize utility

Rule Utilitarianism Doesnt Seem Possible

Since there is no way to get rid of the exception rule, Rule Utilitarianism collapses into Act Utilitarianism. There seems to be no justification for following rules that do not maximize utility.