Principles of Morals and Legislation Jeremy Bentham Utilitarianism Principles of Morals and Legislation Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) English Social Reformer Influential Modern Utilitarian

The Principle of Utility An action is right just in case it brings about more happiness for everyone affected than any other alternative What is happiness? It’s pleasure and the absence of pain. Examples: The prohibition to kill an innocent person The obligation to help an old lady cross the street Imagine a world where everyone acted on utilitarian principles. Wouldn’t the world be a much better place?

Pleasure Give an in principle way to determine every ethical questions In contrast to Christian ethics, morality can be done without having to do Biblical interpretation i.e. without deciphering what God’s commandments are. One just has to look at the impact of our action on human nature i.e. on pleasure and pain

Impartiality Degrees of Partiality To ourselves To our own group To our own country To human beings To sentient creatures

Bentham: The Hedonic Calculus Add up the pleasures of all those involved and subtract the pains for each alternative actions Pick the one that promotes the most pleasure Math and Ethics merge: all consequences must be measures and weighed

Factors by which to measure pleasure Intensity Duration Tendency to promote further pleasure And many others

Triage Process of prioritizing the wounded and severely injured by order of severity Field assessments are made by two methods: primary survey (used to detect & treat life-threatening injuries) and secondary survey (used to treat non-life threatening injuries) with the following categories: Class I Patients who require minor treatment and can return to duty in a short period of time. Class II Patients whose injuries require immediate life sustaining measures. Class III Patients for whom definitive treatment can be delayed without loss of life or limb. Class IV Patients requiring such extensive care beyond medical personnel capability and time.

Ex. 3: Kill innocent person to save hostages? Difference from example 2: human production of the greater evil Absolutist: shows clearly that you bear a special responsibility for what you do, as opposed to what merely happens in consequence of what you do Utilitarian must deny this

The Adultery Case Consider the following case: Suppose someone cheats on their spouse They will derive some pleasure from this, and if the spouse does not find out, then there is no pain involved So, is this, on utilitarian grounds, the morally right thing to do? Answer: It’s more complicated. If you do cheat, are you yourself becoming less and less interested in maintaining the marriage. You may be getting a little pleasure by cheating, but losing interest in a marriage, which you want to have in the long run If cheating was the morally right thing to do, then marriage as an institution would be in jeopardy; And consequently, we lose the benefits of marriage i.e. secure long-term companionship, means for raising children, etc. When we consider all of these factors, it is evident that cheating is, on utilitarian grounds, morally wrong.

Application of Utilitarian Theory If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war, and thereby attack an enemy force and kill several hundred enemy soldiers, that is a morally good choice even though the eighty might be lost. If lying or stealing will actually bring about more happiness and/or reduce pain, Act Utilitarianism says we should lie and steal in those cases.

Application of Utilitarian Theory Actual Cases The decision at Coventry during WWII. The decision was made not to inform the town that they would be bombed. The Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicle would sometimes explode when hit. The model was not recalled and repaired by Ford because they felt it was cheaper to pay the liability suits than to recall and repair all the defective cars.

Criticisms of Bentham’s theory Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be happy watching a man being eaten by wild dogs, it would be a morally good thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone (especially someone whose death would not cause grief to many others) and throw the man into a cage of wild, hungry dogs.

Mill: “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested benevolent spectator.” (100) Mill was a follower of Bentham and adopted most of his thought

Objection to Bentham’s Utilitarianism Pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”

Qualities of Pleasure Intellectual Social Sensual

Judging Quality Which pleasures are higher? See what the competent judge prefers Who is competent to judge? Those who experience all pleasures i.e. intellectual, social, sensual

Bentham v. Mill Debate But Bentham thinks you are the most competent judge of quality for you: Case: Is it better for you to spend your weekends at the library (in pursuit of intellectual pleasures) or drinking (in pursuit of sensual pleasures)? Bentham: depends on the person (whatever is more pleasant for them) Mill: does not depend on the person – the life pursuing intellectual pleasures is better

Epistemological Objection to Utilitarianism Another objection to both Bentham and Mill is how do we know what the long term consequences are going to be? It seems difficult to know what pleasure there will be from our own actions. Reply (Bentham/Mill): We have plenty of evidence to make decisions including evidence and personal experiences from our own life, and evidence from the past. The cases from history can be analogous to count as evidence. Example: Should we engage in War in Iraq? Look at past evidence – track record of US military engagements, track record of other countries involved in military action in Iraq, etc. We don’t need absolute certainty, but evidence that suggests at least what is probably going to happen.

Two Types of Utilitarianism Rule: An action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (John Stuart Mill) Act: An Action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. (Jeremy Bentham)

Act Utilitarianism [Bentham] Looks at the consequences of each individual act and calculate utility each time the act is performed.

Objection to Act Utilitarianism Practicality objection: we don’t have time to calculate at each point in time what the pleasure/pain consequences will be So, it looks like it is practically impossible to be a good person

Rule Utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism: consider the consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule and calculate the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule In particular cases, follow the rule that leads to overall utility This way you don’t have to think about what to do in every situation. Just follow the rule. Examples of Rules: Never commit adultery Give to charity 5% of your income Never eat meat

The Act Utilitarian response Following a rule in a particular case when the overall utility demands that we violate the rule is just rule- worship. If the consequences demand it, we should violate the rule Furthermore, act utilitarians can follow rules-of-thumb (accumulated wisdom based on consequences in the past) most of the time and engage in individual calculation only when there is some pressing reason for doing so.

Working with Different Utilitarian Theories: An Example A prominent leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do? For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment. For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

Problematic Case: The Trolley Problem Source: Nichols, S. http://www.philosophy.utah.edu/faculty/nichols/

Scenario 2: looks to be same, but people won’t do it. EMOTIONAL REACTIONS Scenario 1: looks like it is about consequences, having three lives live on Scenario 2: looks to be same, but people won’t do it. Traditional Philosophers are divided over what is going on here Ordinary Folk almost universally find actions in 1 right, but wrong in 2. Universal reaction of men: Tell us what? Do experts have different reactions? Source: Nichols, S. http://www.philosophy.utah.edu/faculty/nichols/

Analysis of Trolley Problem Most people would say that the lever should be pulled in the first scenario But, most people would say that you shouldn’t push the large man over the bridge Note that the two scenario are identical in terms of the consequences [in both cases you can save 5 people and kill another] The trolley problem is supposed to put into question the idea that consequences [whether pleasure or something else] are what matters to morality; since in both scenarios the consequences are going to be the same The extravagance of the scenario is not important. No one is going to be put in the circumstances described. But, that doesn’t matter; the scenario is meant to show that there is something wrong with the theory i.e. that morality isn’t just about consequences.