History of Philosophy Lecture 18 John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

1
History of PhilosophyLecture 18John Stuart
Mill Utilitarianism

• By David Kelsey

2
Mill

• John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
• He was the greatest 19th century defender of
  Utilitarianism.
• He was a child prodigy.
• Defended womens suffrage.
• His text Utilitarianism was published in 1861.

3
Utilitarianism

• The greatest happiness principle
• Actions are right in proportion as they tend to
  promote happiness,
• wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
  happiness.
• Or
• Always do whatever will produce the greatest
  happiness for the greatest number.

4
Utilitarianismits two parts

• Any version of Utilitarianism (including Mills
  version) is composed of two other views
• Consequentialism
• We determine whether an act is right or wrong by
  looking at its consequences.
• Hedonism
• This tells us what makes for a better or worse
  consequence.
• Good what promotes pleasure
• Bad what promotes pain.

5
Consequentialism

• Consequentialism To determine whether or not an
  action is right
• weigh the good consequences of doing the action
  against the bad consequences of doing it.
• And weigh the good consequences of not doing the
  action against the bad consequences of not doing
  it.
• Do whatever will have the best overall
  consequences.
• Sorting good from bad Thus, to determine whether
  or not an action is right
• One must be able to sort the good consequences
  from the bad consequences.
• The meaning of good and bad
• Defining the good then the Right Thus,
  Consequentialist moral theories, like
  Utilitarianism,
• define the good, I.e. what they want to promote,
  then define what is right by simply calculating
  what will best promote that good.

6
Consequentialism

• Other ways to define Consequentialism
• Between two actions, perform the one that has
  better consequences.
• One determines whether an act is right or wrong
  by looking solely at its consequences.
• The end justifies the means.
• The consequences of an action can justify the
  action itself.
• Thus, if harming someone will somehow cause more
  good overall than bad, one ought to harm that
  person.

7
Hedonism

• Hedonism says that a good thing is one that adds
  to the sum total of human happiness.
• Happiness pleasure and the absence of pain.
• Unhappiness pain and the absence of pleasure.
• Hedonism Happiness
• What makes something, anything and not just life,
  good is the amount of happiness it produces.
• Happiness is the only non-derivative good
• It is the only thing that is good as an end in
  itself.
• Derivative goods money, knowledge, fulfilling
  personal relationships, etc.

8
Calculating Pleasures

• Jeremy Bentham, who with Mill created the
  Utilitarian theory, took it upon himself to
  provide a way to calculate pleasures and pains
• A calculus of pleasures and pains
• He first lists the various pleasures and pains
• Those of sense, of wealth, of skill, of a good
  name, of piety, power, happy memories, etc.
• He then highlights the ways in which pleasures
  and pains can differ
• Intensity
• Duration
• Certainty or uncertainty
• Propinquity or remoteness
• Fecundity
• Purity
• Extent
• So Pleasures and Pains can be quantified.
• We have a mathematical formula for determining
  what actions we ought to perform. This is a
  science of pleasures and pains.

9
Mills argument for Hedonism

• The non-derivative good is what people want
  non-derivatively
• Mill thinks that a non-derivatively good thing
  must be what all people want non-derivatively
  what people want for itself, as an end, not as a
  means to something else.
• So Mill thinks we should define good as
  whatever people desire in itself.
• But, Mill says, the production of pleasure and
  the absence of pain is what everyone desires.
• And not only this, pleasure is the only thing
  people desire in itself.
• His evidence for this look around!!!
• What people do desire is just the production of
  pleasure and the absence of pain.
• Mill says just look around think about yourself

10
The form of Mills argument

• The form of Mills argument
• 1. A non-derivatively good thing is one that
  people want for itself.
• 2. Happiness is the only thing that people want
  for itself.
• 3. Thus, happiness is the only non-derivative
  good.
• Is this argument sound?
• Premise 1
• Premise 2?
• What about the move to the conclusion?

11
Objection to Hedonismthe life of the beasts

• Some people object that hedonism is degrading.
• It makes the best life the life of the beasts.
• If a pig can live a life completely satisfied,
  while a morally concerned and thoughtful man like
  Socrates cannot ever be so satisfied, isnt the
  life of the pig preferable?
• Mills reply
• It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
  fool satisfied
• Human beings have faculties more elevated than
  the animal appetites, and when once made
  conscious of them, do not regard anything as
  happiness which does not include their
  gratification.

12
Mills reply

• The form of Mills reply
• 1-There are higher and lower pleasures.
• 2-Any amount of higher pleasure is preferable to
  any amount of lower pleasure.
• His evidence anyone who has experienced higher
  pleasures would prefer them, on reflection, to
  lower pleasures.
• Higher pleasures
• any use of the mind including reflection or
  thought,
• Lower pleasures
• All pleasures not as a result of using the mind.
• 3-Since the life of the beast produces only lower
  pleasures, the life of the beast isnt the best
  life at all.

13
The life of virtue

• Objection wouldnt you rather be virtuous than
  happy.
• Selling out
• Often we have the opportunity to sell out, to
  get something that will make us happy at the cost
  of doing bad.
• Many people would rather not do that.
• Mills reply
• The life of virtue is an important part of being
  happy.
• You wouldnt really be happy if you sold out.
• Selling out is usually a matter of trading
  virtue for something that is only derivatively
  good, like money.

14
Who counts?

• Objection it is difficult to determine just who
  we include in our calculation of utility?
• Do we include all persons whose interest may be
  affected?
• Only those in our own state? Our own community?
  Our own family?
• What about non-human sentient beings? Should
  their pleasure or pain count?
• Singer
• argues that since animals can feel pleasure and
  pain just like humans, their interests must be
  taken into account when calculating the overall
  good an action produces.
• So it is morally wrong to eat animals, to
  experiment on them, or to imprison them in zoos.
• Can you think of Mills reply to Singers
  argument?
• What about future generations?
• Should we consider the interests of future
  persons?
• Should we consider the environment?

15
Quantifying happiness?

• To determine how much pleasure vs. pain an act
  produces
• one must consider whether an act will lead to
  greater pleasure than pain
• one must also consider the intensity of that
  pleasure (and the intensity of that pain).
• Is an action Morally right if it
• Brings a good number of people a small amount of
  pain
• But also brings a small number of people a great
  amount of pleasure.
• But it is extremely difficult to calculate the
  intensity of pleasure and pain.
• Could you assign numeric values to your pleasures
  and pains?
• And how do we assign numeric values to your
  pleasures and pains in comparison to my pleasures
  and pains or between higher and lower pleasures?
• Mills reply
• Estimation is sufficient

16
Calculation is based onmere prediction

• Isnt it just impossible to weigh out the
  pleasure and pain that result from an action.
• Consider
• How can we even predict all of the consequences
  of our actions?
• And how do we predict the pleasure and pain that
  will result from the consequences of our actions?
• A plausible response
• We are only trying to maximize probable utility.

17
Demanding-ness

• Utilitarianism really asks us to leave our lives
  to go cure world hunger
• If everyones happiness is of equal value to our
  own, then it will be hard to justify doing
  anything other than working to alleviate world
  hunger.
• Justifying School or a steak dinner?
• The response
• We know what will produce our own happiness
  better than what will produce happiness in other
  people.
• Counter-response
• Basic necessities

18
Utilitarianism ignoresthe distinctness of
persons

• Utilitarianism could justify inflicting pain in
  some if others are afforded pleasure
• Slavery example
• a utilitarian would have to weigh the suffering
  of those who would be slaves against the benefits
  accruing to those who would be slave owners.
• Making the trade off
• It may be possible for a single individual to
  make this trade-off
• One could weigh the pain of having a tooth pulled
  against the benefit of getting rid of the
  toothache,
• But is it really possible to make this trade-off
  between people?
• Can you really justify inflicting pain on one
  person by pointing to the increased pleasure this
  will bring to others?

19
What about promises?

• Utilitarianism does not give sufficient weight to
  past acts
• Utilitarianism is forward looking
• it gives no weight to past acts.
• Past events have relevance only to the extent
  that they affect future consequences.
• For the Utilitarian, the fact that I have
  promised to do something is not in itself a
  reason for doing it.
• As a Utilitarian, I will keep my promise only if
  keeping it will have the best consequences

20
Promises once again

• The Utilitarian will often talk of justifying
  keeping a promise because of the negative
  consequences brought if it is broken
• I make it less likely that people will rely on my
  promises in the future
• Undermining the institution of promise keeping
• But dont we keep our promises for reasons other
  than that doing so produces pleasure?
• Dont we have a hard time breaking promises just
  because of what a promise is?
• Isnt there something valuable about keeping a
  promise in and of itself?

21
What about Rights?

• For a Utilitarian there arent any absolute
  prohibitions
• For anything can be justified if it produces the
  best consequences.
• Thus, there are no absolute rights either.
• But arent there absolute rights?
• These are rights that cannot be violated under
  any circumstances.
• Consider the rights not to be tortured or
  murdered or
• The reply
• while murder or torture, etc. might maximize
  happiness in extreme circumstances,
• such circumstances are very unlikely
• it would almost always maximize happiness to
  respect rights against such conduct.
• The counter
• But this still allows for individual violations
  of such rights

22
The fatal flaw of Utilitarianism

• The problem with Utilitarianism
• a Utilitarian would tell you to kill an innocent
  if it meant the production of more pleasure than
  pain.
• The real problem the Utilitarian puts the good
  before the right
• Utilitarians first decide what is good and then
  decide what is right by looking at what will
  produce the greatest amount of good.
• As long as you do this, critics argue, no act is
  always morally wrong
• Put the right before the good
• Some critics argue this is the only way to solve
  this problem

23
Williams

• Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was a British
  philosopher.
• Taught at Cal Berkeley
• Was a great admirer of Mill, but not himself a
  Utilitarian.
• Like Mill he wanted to apply his philosophical
  views to form public policy.

24
Applying our moral theoriesMoral Dilemmas

• So far we have looked at a few Ethical Theories,
  including both Utilitarianism and Deontology.
• Ethical theories give general answers to the
  question What ought I do?
• But sometimes more specific answers are
  interesting.
• Moral dilemmas
• are specific cases in which it is hard to tell
  what one ought to do.
• We can use our reactions, our gut feeling or
  intuitions, to moral dilemmas to find out which
  of our ethical theories we think is the correct
  one.
• The Williams Dilemma
• Compare the answer of the Utilitarian to that of
  the Deontologist

25
George the Chemist

• George the Chemist
• George, who has taken his Ph.D in chemistry,
  finds it extremely difficult to get a job. He is
  not very robust in health, which cuts down the
  number of jobs he might be able to do
  satisfactorily. His wife has to go out to work
  to keep them, which itself causes a great deal of
  strain, since they have small children and there
  are severe problems about looking after them.
  The results of all this, especially on the
  children, are damaging. An older chemist, who
  knows about this situation, says that he can get
  George a decently paid job in a certain
  laboratory, which pursues research into chemical
  and biological warfare. George says that he
  cannot accept this, since he is opposed to
  chemical and biological warfare. The older man
  replies that he is not too keen on it himself,
  come to that, but after all Georges refusal is
  not going to make the job or the laboratory go
  away what is more, he happens to know that if
  George refuses the job, it will certainly go to a
  contemporary of Georges who is not inhibited by
  any such scruples and is likely if appointed to
  push along the research with greater zeal than
  George would. Indeed, it is not merely concern
  for George and his family, but (to speak frankly
  and in confidence) some alarm abut this other
  mans excess of zeal, which had le the older man
  to offer to use his influence to get George the
  jobGeorges wife, to whom he is deeply attached,
  has viewsfrom which it follows that at least
  there is nothing particularly wrong with research
  into CBW. What should he do? (From the first
  page of Williams Utilitarianism and Integrity)

26
Georges options

• George gets to choose between these actions
• A. working to make chemical weapons.
• B. Being unemployed.
• Their consequences
• A. George makes small amounts of chemical
  weapons.
• B. Someone else who doesnt see anything wrong
  with making chemical weapons makes large amounts.
• What should George do? What would you do?

27
Some things to notice

• George is in a tough position.
• Thats why it is a moral dilemma.
• Changing the case to make things easier doesnt
  help
• Thats just changing the topic.
• Changing the case to make things harder is ok.
• because were interested in the hard cases.
• The hard cases are where ethical theories help us
  out.

28
Jim and Pedro

• Jim and Pedro
• Jim finds himself in the central square of a
  small South American town. Tied up against the
  wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified,
  a few defiant, in front of them several armed men
  in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki
  shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and,
  after a good deal of questioning of Jim which
  establishes that he got there by accident while
  on a botanical expedition, explains that the
  Indians are a random group of the inhabitants
  who, after recent acts of protest against the
  government, are just about to be killed to remind
  other possible protestors of the advantages of
  not protesting. However, since Jim is an
  honoured visitor from another land, the captain
  is happy to offer him a guests privilege of
  killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim
  accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion,
  the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if
  Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion,
  and Pedro here will do what he was about to do
  when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim, with
  some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction,
  wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could
  hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the
  soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from
  the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to
  work any attempt at that sort of thing will mean
  that all the Indians will be killed, and himself.
  The men against the wall, and the other
  villagers, understand the situation, and are
  obviously begging him to accept. What should he
  do? (From the first page of Williams
  Utilitarianism and Integrity)

29
Jims options

• Jim gets to choose between these actions
• A. Killing one of the villagers himself.
• B. Not killing anyone.
• Their consequences
• A. One villager gets killed (by Jim) and the rest
  of the villagers go free.
• B. Twenty villagers get killed (by Pedro).
• What should Jim do? What would you do?

30
Utilitarianismand the dilemmas

• In both of our dilemmas
• Option (a) (making weapons/killing the villager)
• leads to the best consequences available, but
  involves doing something morally repugnant.
• Option (b)
• leads to less good consequences, but you get to
  have a clean conscience.
• Utilitarians seem to have to choose (a).
• Deontologists would choose (b).

31
Utilitarianism andNegative Responsibility

• Utilitarianism and Negative responsibility
• According to Williams, Utilitarianism entails the
  notion of negative responsibility
• If I am ever responsible for anything, then I
  must be just as much responsible for things that
  I allow or fail to prevent, as I am for things
  that I myselfbring about. (492, I.e. the 6th
  page of the article)
• Thus, for a Utilitarian, should Jim refrain from
  killing the 1 Indian, he is morally responsible
  and so blameworthy for the deaths of the Indians
  Pedro kills.
• And should George not take the job, he is
  responsible for the increased weapons production
  of the new hire.

32
Williams on Moral Responsibility

• Williams on Moral Responsibility
• For Williams, Jim is only morally responsible for
  his own actions, not for Pedros. So Jim cant
  be blamed for what Pedro does.
• And George is only morally responsible for his
  actions, not for those of whoever will take the
  chemical weapons job if he doesnt take it.
• Williams supports for this view (492, 6th page of
  the article)
• While the deaths, and the killing, may be the
  outcome of Jims refusal, it is misleading to
  think, in such a case, of Jim having an effect on
  the world through the medium (as it happens) of
  Pedros acts for this is to leave Pedro out of
  the picture in his essential role of one who has
  intentions and projects, projects for realizing
  which Jims refusal would leave an opportunity.
  Instead of thinking in terms of supposed effects
  of Jims projects on Pedro, it is more revealing
  to think of the effects of Pedros projects on
  Jims decision

33
The dilemmas are Counterexamples to
Utilitarianism

• So Williams thinks the dilemmas are
  counterexamples to Utilitarianism
• The dilemmas show that sometimes the right thing
  to do isnt to bring about the best consequences.
• Sometimes it is more important to stick by what
  we believe.
• The Utilitarian reply Its selfish!
• Isnt it really just selfish to try to keep your
  own conscience clean by allowing someone else to
  do something wrong?
• What would the villagers ask of Jim?

34
Williams reply a loss of personal integrity

• Williams response A loss of personal Integrity!
• Utilitarianism entails that the projects and
  commitments with which a person is most deeply
  identified, those which make up who a person is,
  can be swept aside for the sake of the greater
  good.
• The decision so determined is, for
  utilitarianism, the right decision. But what if
  it conflicts with some project of mine? This,
  the utilitarian will say, has already been dealt
  with the satisfaction to you of fulfilling your
  project, and any satisfaction to others of your
  so doing, have already been through the
  calculating device and have been found
  inadequate. Now in the case of many sorts of
  projects, that is a perfectly reasonable sort of
  answer. But in the case of projects of the sort
  I have called commitments, those with which one
  is more deeply and extensively involved and
  identified, this cannot just by itself be an
  adequate answer, and there may be no adequate
  answer at all. For, to take the extreme sort of
  case, how can a man, as a utilitarian agent, come
  to regard as one satisfaction among others, and a
  dispensable one, a project or attitude round
  which he has built his life, just because someone
  elses projects have so structured the causal
  scene that that is how the utilitarian sum comes
  out? (494, I.e. the final page of the Williams
  article)
• Note that Williams is most worried about
  Utilitarianisms attack on what he calls
  commitments
• Examples of commitments

35
Personal Integrity

• A loss of personal integrity again
• It is the Utilitarians commitment to the
  sacrifice of ones own projects, commitments,
  goals and principles for the sake of the greater
  good, which lies at the heart of its attack on
  ones own personal integrity
• It is absurd to demand of such a manthat he
  should just step aside from his own project and
  decision and acknowledge the decision which the
  utilitarian calculation requires. It is to
  alienate him in a real sense from his actions and
  the source of his action in his own convictions.
  It is to make him into a channel between the
  input of everyones projects, including his own,
  and an output of optimific decision but this is
  to neglect the extent to which his actions and
  his decisions have to be seen as the actions and
  decisions which flow from the projects and
  attitudes with which he is most closely
  identified. It is thus, in the most literal
  sense, an attack on his integrity. (Williams, pg
  494, I.e. the final page of the article)
• The Utilitarian response
• why cant your integrity be built upon the
  Utilitarian principle?