Utilitarianism PSIR308

Two distinctive features 1) Promoting the happiness, or welfare, or well-being of human beings 2) It is a consequentialist moral theory 1- not religious, do’s or donts 2- act or policy does some identifiable good or not

Two building blocs of utilitarianism 1. an account of human welfare, or utility, and 2. a instruction to maximize utility by means of giving equal weight to each person’s utility

Defining Utility: greatest happiness for the greatest number A) welfare hedonism: experience of sensation of pleasure is the central human good Criticism: Nozick’s machine, injecting drugs into us in order to maintain constant pleasure. This would be a waisted life. B) non-hedonistic mental state utility: We should include other mental states (e.g. having pleasure of reading and writing) Criticism: we want to write, not just the experience of writing. 1- Bentham: pushpin, poetry, writing in pain

Definition continues C) Preference Satisfaction: Utility is increased by satisfying people’s preferences. Criticism: Preferences do not define our good. 1) mistaken preferences: by mistake studying Pols. And IR - Things worth having to do versus current preferences 2) Adaptive preferences: If you cannot achieve something, it loses its import: ‘soar grapes’. A repressive system may be better to provide the preferences of its citizens, as they would be socialized in such way not to desire certain things

Definition continues D) Informed preferences: Criticism: what is an informed criticism? What is the time aspect, e.g. should we be more concerned about today or tomorrow? - Clash of preferences: career paths and romantic love - Uninformed preferences can be satisfied too: cheated husband case? Should he be better of not knowing the truth, or live a lie? - rational preferences of dead people: my reputation shall proceed - interpersonal comparability: family, neighbours, friends - we should give appropriate background conditions of our preferences - we can satisfy all-purpose goods: Husband’s welfare is diminished for sure.

Maximising utility What to do in case of conflicting preferences? -satisfy as many informed preferences as possible Unsatisfied preferences Equal amount of utility matters equally Acting according to utilitarian principles: Direct utilitarianism: agents calculate the consequences of his actions to maximize his utility Indirect utilitarianism: the idea of maximizing utility is not necessary during the decision-making: Agents should follow non-utilitarian principles to maximize utility.

Two main objections to utilitarian decision-making 1) special relationships: U-agents ground their actions on utilitarian calculations in assuming that each agent stands in the same moral relationship to them. Criticism: what about moral relationships to family, friends, lenders, etc. There are obligations I have to follow, even if other who I have no obligation would benefit more E.g. loan: should I pay my debt, or donate the money to UNICEF? Should we still pay the loan even such act would be the cause of a war? Utilitarian says: I should pay, because it maximises utility. Common sense: pay the loan regardless of whether it maximizes utility Utilitarianism may be alienating, e.g. detach ourselves from our commitments Check here, page 24 last paragraph: nice quote. Ice cream case: you GF and your want different sorts, and following utılıtarian principlesç you have to choose the one that majority prefer and it happens that your ex is within the majority group while your GF is within the other group. You better of moving from direct utilitarian prınciple if you want keep your GF. You cannot seperate ice cream for your GF as this would violate equal treatment of preferences.

2) Illegitimate preferences: The case of not building a health centre because of racial discrimination in a mainly white society. Or, should we kill alcoholics staying on parks because they disturb the public. So, some preferences are illegitimate. Unfair preferences: e.g. not selling houses to immigrants, even though the owner does not hold any prejudice, as this may decrease the value of the property Take away! Kymlicka p. 27, parag. 4, last sentence: we cannot consider each source of utility and each kind of preference of equal importance or even legitimate

From act utilitarianism to rule utilitarianism Not act but which rules maximise utility Criticism: The problem is there: aiming to maximise utility but illegitimate preferences and special obligations cannot be a concern of utility maximization game The problem is the process of decision-making: From decision-making to a standard of rightness: right act maximises utility versus deliberately acting to maximise utility

Two arguments for Utility maximization A) equal consideration of interests: Aggregating individual interests and desires Treating people with equal consideration Maximization of utility is a by-product B) Teleological utilitarianism: Maximizing utility is the goal. Interest of individuals are considered equally because this is the only way to maximize utility Eg. 18 units of utility for 5 billion versus 1 unit of utility for 100 billion Rawls sees utilitarianism from this point of view. That is, if the problem is respecting the people versus respecting the good, it is positioned within the second view

Inadequate conception of equality Does utilitarianism allow some people to be treated as less than equals, as means to other people’s ends? Criticism: source of happiness and kinds of preference External preferences: Goods, resources, and opportunities available to others. On this account, can people want minorities to have less resources? Selfish preferences: desire for more than one’s own share of resources

People who lack of resources benefit more if well-off give some of their share. No problem with this. But, are resources really mine. Some say, people could demand benefiting from personal property if they could make better use from it and more will benefit at the end. E.g. using one’s garden for public purposes