Utilitarianism Bentham and Mill

England Germany America Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873) 1700 1900 Mozart (1756-1791) Kant (1724-1804) Germany America For comparison Jefferson (1743-1826) Lincoln (1809-1865)

Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is the first notable figure endorsing “the principle of utility.” That principle states: an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question Bentham is famous for identifying happiness with pleasure, and providing a “hedonic calculus” for determining the rightness of an action.

Utilitarianism One goal of utilitarianism is to provide a way to resolve moral disputes. Bentham notes that if we can all agree that Good = Pleasure, then we can make moral progress scientifically by determining which actions really do produce the most pleasure. His view if often called “Hedonistic Utilitarianism.”

Hedonistic Utilitarianism If our central obligation is to act so as to produce the most good (pleasure), then we need a way to calculate which alternative action open to us at a given time is best (productive of the most good, pleasure). Bentham identifies 7 features of pleasures that allow us to determine how great a given pleasure is…

Hedonistic Utilitarianism Hedonic calculus: measure the rightness of an action by these features: Intensity (a more intense pleasure is preferable to a weaker pleasure) Duration (pleasures that last are preferable to those that don’t) Certainty (if the act guarantees a pleasure, that act is better than one that merely makes pleasure likely) Propinquity (if the pleasure is far off in space or time, the act is less right) Fecundity (the likelihood that the pleasure or pain will be followed by more pleasures or pains, respectively) Purity (the likelihood that a pleasure or pain will not be followed by its opposite) Extent (the more people who will enjoy the pleasure, the better the act) John Stuart Mill added the 7th criterion, though Bentham’s own principles suggested it. Read Nozick’s ‘The Experience Machine’ Excerpt

Mill’s Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the son of James Mill, a friend of Bentham’s Mill took Bentham’s Utilitarianism and made two major changes: He emphasized the greatest good for the greatest number Rejected Bentham’s calculus, saying that quality of pleasures is crucial in deciding what is right, not mere quantity.

Mill’s Utilitarianism Bentham had famously (and very unpretentiously) said, quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry. Mill rejects that view and argues for a distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures.

Mill’s Utilitarianism What justifies the distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures? Mill provides 2 reasons He famously says, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Utilitarianism, Chapter 2) He also says that the only competent judge of two things is someone with experience of both, and: “If one of the two [pleasures] is … placed [by such competent person] so far above the other that they prefer it …, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.” (Utilitarianism, Chapter 2. My brackets)

Utilitarianism – Problem Solving Problem While many agree with Mill that there is a qualitative difference between pleasures, that admission to a large degree ruins our ability to quantify pleasure, and so ruins some of the problem solving appeal of Utilitarianism. Are religious pleasures higher than humanistic intellectual pleasures? Are the pleasures of childhood higher than those of young adulthood? Are all those different in kind?

Utilitarianism – A Demanding Theory Note that Utilitarianism accepts and emphasizes the distinction between what is in our self- interest and our duty. As soon as the happiness of two other people conflicts with your own happiness, you lose out. Being a moral person quickly becomes quite difficult.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism -1 Utilitarianism requires that we choose the act that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Does that apply to all our acts? Practically speaking, Mill cut us some slack, saying he never meant that we should always be trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, but can he say that? By what principle? Must I not say: “Well, I’m tired and going to bed now, but I could stay up and try to solve problems … make extra money for charity. Since I’m a good problem solver, I suppose the good I could produce through self-sacrifice suggests I should stay up and try.” Can a consistent Utilitarian get a good night’s sleep? Does Utilitarianism turn us into good-making machines?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 2 Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice? Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl 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 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, 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 will allow him to live well with his neighbors. What should the Marshall do? According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best consequences seems to be letting the man go. Everyone will be happy: the Marshall doesn’t enjoy killing, the man wants to live, the woman loves him, the Teller had no family, no one much liked him anyway. Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 3 Is Utilitarianism prejudiced about the future? When you make a promise, does your action in the past limit your ability to act in the future?

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 4 Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate people’s rights on occasion. If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to the emergency room, each needing a different vital organ to survive, and the doctor looks at you or me, in for a hangnail, should he or she put us under and remove our organs for the Prize winners? That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to clearly be the best option in terms of producing the most good for the greatest number.

The Trolley Problem Consider Trolley problem: (1st 10 minutes) Consider Nicholas’ solution:

Mill’s On Liberty In this work is Mill’s philosophically radical idea that, as long as you’re not hurting others, you are free to do whatever you please with your own mind and body. It isn’t that different from the Medieval conception of Ethics as concerned with Duty vs. Interest, or what you owe to others (God and other humans) vs. what you can permit for yourself. It is different, though, because in the Middle Ages you would have been hard pressed to find someone permitting as much freedom as Mill has in mind.

The Harm Principle Harm Principle: The only end for which people are entitled, individually or collectively, to interfere with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Mill, On Liberty, page 6, here. Typically, harming someone is acting to produce some condition at variance with their interests, hence, no: Killing them (decreasing their life) Wounding them (decreasing their health) Stealing from them (decreasing their wealth) Slandering them (decreasing their honor) Etc.

but … What Constitutes Harm? Inaction can be harm? Do I have to go to school? Do I have to vote? Okay to live like a hermit? Do I have to swim out and rescue a drowning baby?

but … What Constitutes Harm? Psychological harm? Crab Grass? Paint choices? Clothing choices? Unfair Treatment?

but … What Constitutes Harm? Increased probability of harm is harm? Speeding? Designing out-of-code stairs in your own home? Dependents limit freedom to harm self? Setting a bad example?

but … What Constitutes Harm? What about stuff loaded with pleasure for some people? Prostitution Bestiality Incest Group Sex Voluntary Amputation

Free Speech Mill argues for the value of free speech. No idea should be rejected out-of-hand, and no ideas should be forbidden from consideration… No legislature or executive whose interests aren’t exactly the same as the people’s should be allowed to tell them what to believe or to decide what doctrines or arguments they shall be allowed to hear. and in a footnote, same page … If the arguments of my present chapter have any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of proclaiming and discussing—as a matter of ethical conviction—any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. Mill, On Liberty, page 10, here.

but … Can’t Speech Harm? The first famous detraction from freedom of speech is … You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. –Oliver Wendell Holmes (paraphrase) Mill distinguishes between speech that violates rights and speech that merely harms someone. He allows for speech that harms, so long as the speech is responsible (true speech that harms is immune from censure, unless spoken at a time that incites the violation of rights).

but … Can’t Speech Harm? Pornographic speech? Hate speech? Is there a difference between harm and offense? Should speech be limited by what is offensive to people, even if the speech doesn’t cause a measurable infringement of rights?