Introduction to Ethics Lecture 11 Utilitarianism

1
Introduction to EthicsLecture 11Utilitarianism

• 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.
• 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, harming someone could be justified

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
• Purity
• Extent
• So Pleasures and Pains can be quantified.
• We have a mathematical formula, a science, of
  pleasures and pains.

9
A Side noteThe two forms ofUtilitarianism

• Utilitarianism comes in two forms
• The first is called Act Utilitarianism
• The view that you should determine whether any
  act is morally right by looking at the
  consequences of that act itself.
• The second is called Rule Utilitarianism.
• The view that you should determine whether any
  act is morally right by looking at the
  consequences of a rule which says that everyone
  should perform that act in like circumstances.
• You want a rule that would overall best serve to
  maximize happiness.

10
Objections toRule Utilitarianism

• Objection to Rule Utilitarianism it collapses
  into act utilitarianism.
• This is because no matter what the rule, there
  will be some circumstances in which it is
  beneficial to break the rule, which means the
  rule would have to be modified to make an
  exception for those circumstances.
• But deciding whether a rule should be modified is
  tantamount to just being an act utilitarian

11
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 for itself, as an
  end, not as a means to something else.
• But, Mill says, the production of pleasure and
  the absence of pain is what everyone wants for
  itself.
• His evidence for this look around!!!
• What people do desire is just the production of
  pleasure and the absence of pain.

12
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?

13
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
• 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.

14
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.
• Questions

15
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.

16
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.
• What about future generations?
• Should we consider the interests of future
  persons?
• Should we consider the environment?

17
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).
• But it is extremely difficult to calculate the
  intensity of pleasure and pain.
• Could you assign numeric values to your pleasures
  and pains?
• Could you assign numeric values to your pleasures
  and pains vs. mine, or higher vs. lower pleasure
  and pains.
• Mills reply
• Estimation is sufficient

18
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.

19
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 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

20
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 can you really justify inflicting pain on one
  person by pointing to the increased pleasure this
  will bring to others?

21
What about promises?

• Utilitarianism does not give sufficient weight to
  past acts
• Utilitarianism is forward looking
• 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

22
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?
• Isnt there something valuable about keeping a
  promise in and of itself?

23
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.
• The reply
• It would almost always maximize happiness to
  respect rights against such conduct.
• The counter
• But this still allows for individual violations
  of such rights

24
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