UtilitarianismUtilitarianismHow ought we to act?How ought we to act?

1700 1900

Kant (1724-1804)

Germany

England Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873)

Jefferson (1743-1826)

AmericaFor comparison Lincoln (1809-1865)

Mozart (1756-1791)

Making Ethical JudgmentsMaking Ethical Judgments

Areas of Emphasis in Making Moral Judgments

Purpose or Motive

Act, Rule, or Maxim

Results or Consequences

Making Ethical Judgments in Making Ethical Judgments in UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Utilitarianism says that the Utilitarianism says that the ResultResult or or the the ConsequenceConsequence of an Act is the real of an Act is the real measure of whether it is good or bad.measure of whether it is good or bad.

This theory emphasizes This theory emphasizes Ends over Ends over Means.Means.

Theories, like this one, that emphasize Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or consequences are called the results or consequences are called teleologicalteleological or or consequentialistconsequentialist..

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is the first notable figure is the first notable figure endorsing “the principle of endorsing “the principle of utility.” That principle states: utility.” That principle states:

an action is right as it tends to an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in questionwhose interests are in question

Bentham is famous for Bentham is famous for identifying happiness with identifying happiness with pleasure, and providing a pleasure, and providing a “hedonic calculus” for “hedonic calculus” for determining the rightness of determining the rightness of an action.an action.

Bentham’s Formulation of Bentham’s Formulation of UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Man is under two great masters, pain Man is under two great masters, pain and pleasure.and pleasure.

The great good that we should seek The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a hedonistic is happiness. (a hedonistic perspective)perspective)

Those actions whose results increase Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are good. happiness or diminish pain are good. They have “utility.”They have “utility.”

Four Theses of UtilitarianismFour Theses of Utilitarianism Consequentialism:Consequentialism: The rightness of actions The rightness of actions

is determined solely by their consequences.is determined solely by their consequences. Hedonism:Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an Utility is the degree to which an

act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the goodgood that we seek and that we that we seek and that we shouldshould seek. seek.

MaximalismMaximalism: A right action produces the : A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least greatest good consequences and the least bad.bad.

Universalism:Universalism: The consequences to be The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone equally.and everyone equally.

Hedonic CalculusHedonic Calculus Bentham’s objective was Bentham’s objective was

to measure the values of to measure the values of various pleasure and painsvarious pleasure and pains

He developed the He developed the HedonicHedonic or or Felicific Calculus Felicific Calculus ((Greek ‘hedone’ means Greek ‘hedone’ means pleasure)pleasure)

This is an attempt to This is an attempt to provide a method for provide a method for measuring the values of measuring the values of various pleasures and various pleasures and pains according to a set of pains according to a set of criteriacriteria

1.     1.        Intensity Intensity – How – How deep is the pleasure or deep is the pleasure or pain?pain?

2.     2.     DurationDuration – How long it – How long it lastslasts

3.     3.     Certainty Certainty – How sure – How sure we are that it will happen?we are that it will happen?

4.     4.     ExtentExtent – How many – How many people will be affected?people will be affected?

5.     5.     Remoteness Remoteness - Is it in - Is it in the near or distant future?the near or distant future?

6.     6.     RichnessRichness – How much – How much it will lead to more pleasureit will lead to more pleasure

7.     7.     PurityPurity – How free from – How free from pain it ispain it is

ApplicationApplication Bentham thought all types Bentham thought all types

of pleasure and pain could of pleasure and pain could be weighed on the same be weighed on the same scale. They could be scale. They could be compared quantitively compared quantitively because there was no because there was no difference qualitatively. difference qualitatively.

He once said that ‘He once said that ‘quantity quantity of pleasure being equal, of pleasure being equal, push-pin (a child’s game) push-pin (a child’s game) is as good as poetry.’ is as good as poetry.’

Mill’s UtilitarianismMill’s Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the son of James Mill, a was the son of James Mill, a friend of Bentham’sfriend of Bentham’s

Mill took Bentham’s Mill took Bentham’s Utilitarianism and made two Utilitarianism and made two major changes:major changes:

1.1.He emphasized the greatest He emphasized the greatest good good for the greatest for the greatest numbernumber

2.2.Rejected Bentham’s Rejected Bentham’s calculus, saying that quality calculus, saying that quality of pleasures is crucial in of pleasures is crucial in deciding what is right, not deciding what is right, not mere quantity.mere quantity.

Mill rejects Bentham’s view that Mill rejects Bentham’s view that there is no qualitative difference there is no qualitative difference between pleasures and pains, and between pleasures and pains, and argues for a distinction between argues for a distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures.“higher” and “lower” pleasures.

Mill’s UtilitarianismMill’s Utilitarianism

What justifies the distinction between “higher” and What justifies the distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures? “lower” pleasures?

Mill provides 2 reasonsMill provides 2 reasons1.1. He famously says, “it is He famously says, “it is betterbetter to be a human to be a human

dissatisfieddissatisfied than a pig satisfied; than a pig satisfied; betterbetter to be to be Socrates Socrates dissatisfieddissatisfied than a fool satisfied” than a fool satisfied”

2.2. He also says that the only competent judge of two He also says that the only competent judge of two things is someone with experience of both, and: “If one things is someone with experience of both, and: “If one of the two [pleasures] is … placed [by such competent of the two [pleasures] is … placed [by such competent person] so far above the other that they prefer it …, and person] so far above the other that they prefer it …, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.”render it, in comparison, of small account.”

Two Types of UtilitarianismTwo Types of Utilitarianism RuleRule: An action is : An action is

right if and only if it right if and only if it conforms to a set of conforms to a set of rules the general rules the general acceptance of which acceptance of which would produce the would produce the greatest balance of greatest balance of pleasure over pain pleasure over pain for the greatest for the greatest number. (John number. (John Stuart Mill)Stuart Mill)

ActAct: An Action : An Action is right if and is right if and only if it only if it produces the produces the greatest balance greatest balance of pleasure over of pleasure over pain for the pain for the greatest greatest number. number. (Jeremy (Jeremy Bentham)Bentham)

Act Utilitarianism – Look at the Act Utilitarianism – Look at the consequences of each individual act consequences of each individual act and calculate utility each time the and calculate utility each time the act is performed act is performed

Rule Utilitarianism – Look at the Rule Utilitarianism – Look at the consequences of having everyone consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule, and calculate follow a particular rule, and calculate the overall utility of accepting or the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rulerejecting the rule

Criticisms of BenthamCriticisms of Bentham

It is perfectly reasonable, It is perfectly reasonable, according to Bentham's according to Bentham's theory, for one to commit theory, for one to commit an act for wrong reasons, an act for wrong reasons, or even commit a wrong or even commit a wrong act, yet still be considered act, yet still be considered to be acting correctly if the to be acting correctly if the consequences produce a consequences produce a long term pleasure people long term pleasure people concerned.concerned.

Can we ever accurately Can we ever accurately predict the consequences predict the consequences of an act? Not unless we of an act? Not unless we have a time machine!!have a time machine!!

Could Utilitarianism involve Could Utilitarianism involve causing some people causing some people misery misery for the sake of great for the sake of great benefits for many others?benefits for many others?

Bentham was an ‘Act’ Bentham was an ‘Act’ Utilitarian-would it really Utilitarian-would it really be possible or feasible to be possible or feasible to work out the work out the consequences of EVERY consequences of EVERY scenario in real life? scenario in real life? (compare with J.S (compare with J.S Mill-’Rule’ UtilitarianMill-’Rule’ Utilitarian

Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of Utilitarianism Bernard Williams Bernard Williams (1929–2003) (1929–2003)

criticizes the implied “doctrine of criticizes the implied “doctrine of negative responsibility” in negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For example, a thug Utilitarianism. For example, a thug breaks into my home and holds six breaks into my home and holds six people hostage, telling us he will people hostage, telling us he will kill all of us. “However,” the thug kill all of us. “However,” the thug says, “if you will kill two of your says, “if you will kill two of your family, I will let you and the other family, I will let you and the other three live.”three live.”

With Utilitarianism, the With Utilitarianism, the goodgood thing thing to do is to kill two members of my to do is to kill two members of my family. family.

Criticisms of UtilitarianismCriticisms of UtilitarianismIf I am to bring the greatest happiness to If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, not putting my own the greatest number, not putting my own happiness above others, that may lead to happiness above others, that may lead to a dilemma. I live in a neighbourhood a dilemma. I live in a neighbourhood where 83% of my neighbours use drugs. I where 83% of my neighbours use drugs. I could make them most happy by helping could make them most happy by helping supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel uncomfortable doing that. Utilitarianism uncomfortable doing that. Utilitarianism could be used to justify an act that could be used to justify an act that common morality would find abhorrent.common morality would find abhorrent.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Criticisms of Utilitarianism Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice?Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice?

Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl heading to the Mexico border. The man was desperate for money heading to the Mexico border. The man was desperate for money and shot the teller at the bank while robbing it. He is 50 yards and shot the teller at the bank while robbing it. He is 50 yards from the border and the Marshall has to decide whether to let him from the border and the Marshall has to decide whether to let him go or shoot him from a distance. If the Marshall lets the man go, go or shoot him from a distance. If the Marshall lets the man go, let’s suppose the man will live a good life, raise a family, and be a let’s suppose the man will live a good life, raise a family, and be a good husband. The killing was out of character, and the money good husband. The killing was out of character, and the money will allow him to live well with his neighbors. What should the will allow him to live well with his neighbors. What should the Marshall do?Marshall do?

According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best consequences According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best consequences seems to be letting the man go. Everyone will be happy: the seems to be letting the man go. Everyone will be happy: the Marshall doesn’t enjoy killing, the man wants to live, the woman Marshall doesn’t enjoy killing, the man wants to live, the woman loves him, the Teller had no family, no one much liked him loves him, the Teller had no family, no one much liked him anyway.anyway.

Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate people’s rights on occasion.people’s rights on occasion.

If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to the emergency room, each needing a different the emergency room, each needing a different vital organ to survive, and the doctor looks at vital organ to survive, and the doctor looks at you or me, in for a hangnail, should he or she you or me, in for a hangnail, should he or she put us under and remove our organs for the put us under and remove our organs for the Prize winners? Prize winners?

That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to clearly be the best option in terms of producing clearly be the best option in terms of producing the most good for the greatest number.the most good for the greatest number.

BUT in response:BUT in response: Mill’s Mill’s harm principleharm principle

I regard utility as theultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the

largestsense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive

being.Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual

spontaneityto external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which

concern theinterest of other people.” (‘On Liberty’ Ch 6)

In other words, Mill made it clear that In other words, Mill made it clear that while he supported the rights of the while he supported the rights of the individual to pursue his or her own individual to pursue his or her own happiness, this was only insofar as happiness, this was only insofar as the pursuit of this happiness did not the pursuit of this happiness did not interfere with the rights and interfere with the rights and happiness of others.happiness of others.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Since the consequences of any action are Since the consequences of any action are unknowable, Utilitarianism is inconsistent unknowable, Utilitarianism is inconsistent with the view that we do, on occasion, know with the view that we do, on occasion, know what is right.what is right.

For example, we pay back a debt to a friend For example, we pay back a debt to a friend who takes the money, buys a gun, and who takes the money, buys a gun, and shoots a cop. On the view that consequences shoots a cop. On the view that consequences make an action right or wrong, our paying make an action right or wrong, our paying back that debt was wrong. We might want to back that debt was wrong. We might want to say, however, that paying back the debt was say, however, that paying back the debt was right, and a case of moral knowledge. If so, right, and a case of moral knowledge. If so, Utilitarianism is false.Utilitarianism is false.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Criticisms of Utilitarianism Critic’s response:Critic’s response:

Consider another case: While viewing the suffering in Darfur, Consider another case: While viewing the suffering in Darfur, a psychopath offers you this deal: a psychopath offers you this deal:

““Put a bullet in this revolver, spin the chamber, aim at some Put a bullet in this revolver, spin the chamber, aim at some passing kid, and fire. If the kid survives, I’ll donate a passing kid, and fire. If the kid survives, I’ll donate a playground in your home town to help underprivileged kids.”playground in your home town to help underprivileged kids.”

Since accepting the offer will probably have good Since accepting the offer will probably have good consequences (the action has a tendency to produce good consequences (the action has a tendency to produce good consequences), the Principle of Utility says the action is consequences), the Principle of Utility says the action is right. Surely, however, the action is morally wrong: we are right. Surely, however, the action is morally wrong: we are not justified in risking the life of the kid in the example not justified in risking the life of the kid in the example even if it even if it probably probably will result in improving other kid’s lives.will result in improving other kid’s lives.

The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions rather than their actual consequences, seems false.rather than their actual consequences, seems false.