Week 3: Utilitarianism

Trolley Scenario

Utilitarianism

Two British Philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1747-1832) John Stuart Mill (1806 –1873) Founder of Modern Utilitarianism Social Reformer Famous Defender of Utilitarianism Defender of Political (Classical) Liberalism Early Feminist

Utilitarianism Definition: Utilitarianism (Bentham) :: an action done by person P is (more) morally right just in case the action brings about (more) happiness for everyone affected than any other alternative action open to P Consequentialist: the only thing that matters to morality are the consequences (effects) of actions Morality without Religion

What is Happiness? Happiness = presence of pleasure and absence of pain being happy is having pleasure and not having any pain

Calculating Happiness Hedonic Calculus: add up the pleasures of all those involved and subtract the pains for each alternative action Bentham: calculate by quantity of pleasure only Intensity Duration Tendency to promote further pleasure

Cases Murder Theft Adultery 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.

Charity The Giving Pledge a campaign to encourage billionaires to contribute at least half of their wealth to philanthropic causes Bill and Melinda Gates pledge to give away 95% of their wealth (presently $95 billion)

Higher and Lower Pleasures

Quality of Pleasures (Mill) “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 from High to Low Intellectual: Highest Social Sensual: Lowest

Utilitarianism Which pleasures are higher? The ones a competent judge prefers The competent judge is one who has experienced all pleasures of all qualities Is not emotionally affect; e.g. depressed, going through a life crisis, etc. makes an objective evaluation Mill: a competent judge always picks intellectual over all other pleasures.

Epistemological Objection: How do we know what the consequences are?

Objection: How do we figure out what the consequences will be? Reply (Bentham/Mill) We have lots of evidence from personal experiences and from the past. Analogous circumstances can be used as evidence (e.g. historical evidence of war causing mass casualties) Certainty is not needed, only evidence that a consequence is probable

Practicality Objection

Practicality Objection There is evidence but there is not enough time to calculate consequences of each action Objection 1: utilitarianism does not guide action utilitarianism does not tell us what to do in practice [it does not guide action], so it is useless Objection 2: utilitarianism implies that it’s impossible to be a good person

Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism: judge each individual action on its consequences alone. Employing 25 child laborers in one country to make cheaper products for a jeans company in Canada, the profits for the thousands of shareholders in the company would be massively increased. Rule Utilitarianism: judge whether a rule followed by everyone maximizes consequences and whether the action follows that rule Mills (version): 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. Rule: hire child laborers to increase profit in an entire economy does not increase the general good. sometimes more people would experience increased happiness/pleasure if I were to give my money to charity rather than pay my taxes but if everyone were to do this the general good would suffer - there would be no money for roads, schools and social welfare. Examples of Rules Never commit adultery, Give to charity 5% of your income, Never eat meat

The Politician and the Homeless 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.

Partiality Objection choosing how to spend one’s day, who to spend time with, and so forth

“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.” (Mill, 100) Friendship: Can you be a good friend be a utilitarian? who you spend your time with?

Partiality Can a utilitarian have friends or intimate relationships? No. we can never be partial to a person; spend more time with team, take care of their interests. But, a life with intimate friends and lovers is a better life than one without. Moral obligations often prioritize groups over everyone To ourselves, husband/wife/partner, own group, own country (nationalism), Examples: partner does not want to leave, but you can get a job

Case Study: 1972 Ford Pinto Cost Benefit Analysis Option 1: Fix the car’s exploding gas tank: $11/car to fix x 12.5 million car = $137.5 million Option 2: Pay the Victims: $200,000 /death x 180burn deaths + $67, 000 / injury x 180 burn injuries + $700 / burned car x 2,100 burned cars = $49.5 million Investigation found 500+ deaths in 7 years, many more serious injuries| Is this a proper utilitarian calculation? Is it the right thing to do?

Milton Friedman’s Response

Philosophical Definitions 3 Not from this weeks reading.

Requirements for Philosophical Definition Non-circular: definition of C cannot use C in definition No counter-examples Definition of C must state a sufficient condition for being C Definition of C must state a necessary condition for being C

Exercise: Define Car