Philosophy March 10th Objective Opener: How would you calculate the amount of pain or pleasure and action would cause? Understand problems of Utilitarianism through thought experiments.

Bentham’s ways of calculating the amount of pleasure or pain Intensity: incredibly painful or just mildly uncomfortable. Duration: how long is lasts? How do you pull off a band-aid? Certainty: how likely is the pleasure or pain going to occur? Propinquity: how close in time? Immediately or delayed, the further away the more likelihood of interventions. Fecundity: the likelihood of something giving rise to more of the same. A gift that keeps on giving? Purity: how likely a pleasure is to give rise to later pain (you reap what you sow) or pain to later pleasure (no pain no gain). When you combine these factors you get the actual Utility of the act. You then select the act that maximizes overall utility.

Application of Utilitarianism You will evaluate 5 case studies in your group. Decide what a utilitarian would say to do in each. In what case is the utilitarian approach more reasonable and in which case is it not?

Decide what a utilitarian would say to do in each. In what case is the utilitarian approach more reasonable and in which case is it not? A friend is very excited about a new haricut that looks horrible on him/her. Your friend asks you what you think of it. What do you say? Would it be any different if it was an outfit that the firend was trying on but had not yet bought? A friend has just bourght a CD and after listening to it, you love it. Your friend lends it to you. Is it ok to put it on your iPod? A friend asks you to look over his college essay. You are very busy with your own work and don’t have the time to do a good job. Should you agree to do it? You forgot to do the reading for philosophy class and have time over lunch. You realize that you’ve forgotten your book, but see a friend’s copy. He will not be around to ask if you can borrow it and you will get it back to him in class. Do you borrow the book? You are approached by a homeless person and asked for money. The person says that he needs it for a cup of coffee. You doubt that it will really be spent for coffee, do you give him the money?

Thought Probe: Animal Rights Animals can suffer. Should animal suffering be taken into account when performing utilitarian calculations? If so, how much weight should animal suffering be given? As much as human suffering?

Problems with Rights According to act-utilitarianism, the end justifies the means—as long as one maximizes happiness, it doesn’t matter what means one uses to do so. This is inconsistent with the notion of rights—that certain things should not be done to others even if they produce good consequences.

Thought Experiment: Brandt’s Utilitarian Heir Suppose that Mr. X and his family are destitute and that his father, who is ill and in a nursing home, is well-to-do. Suppose further that hastening his father’s death would produce more happiness than letting him waste away in the nursing home. Should Mr. X hasten his father’s death?

Problems with Duties We have a number of duties to others, including a duty not to break our promises. Act-utilitarianism maintains, on the contrary, that our only duty is to maximize happiness.

Thought Experiment: Godwin’s Fire Rescue Suppose that an archbishop and your mother are caught in a fire and only one of them can be saved. Saving the Archbishop would produce more happiness than saving your mother. Should you save the Archbishop?

Problems with Justice Justice requires that equals be treated equally. According to act- utilitarianism, if treating equals unequally maximizes happiness, then we should act unjustly.

Thought Experiment: Ewing’s Utilitarian Torture “Suppose we could slightly increase the collective happiness of ten men by taking away all happiness from one of them.” Should we take away that man’s happiness?

Rule-Utilitarianism What makes an action right is that it falls under a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize happiness, everyone considered. To decide whether an action is right, we must decide what rule it falls under and whether generally following that rule would maximize happiness.

Problems with Rule Utilitarianism A morally correct rule is one that, if followed, would maximize happiness. Rules that would maximize happiness, however, would have exceptions. Rules with enough exceptions, however, would sanction the same actions as act-utilitarianism.

Thought Experiment: Nozick’s Experience Machine Suppose a machine could give you any experience you desired. Would you plug in? For how long? Would there be anything wrong with spending your entire life in such a machine?

Thought Probe: Beneficial Drugs Suppose there were a legal drug that reduced irritability, increased productivity, and had no negative side effects. Would it be morally permissible for an employer to require employees to take it? Would it be morally permissible for an employer to put it in the company’s water supply? Does your answer support or undermine utilitarianism?

Thought Experiment: Williams’ South American Showdown Jim finds himself in a town square where 20 Indians are lined up to be killed by a firing squad. The captain in charge says he will let 19 of the Indians go free if Jim agrees to kill one himself. Is Jim morally obligated to kill one of the Indians? Why or why not?

Thomson’s Trolley Problem You are the driver of a runaway trolley whose brakes don’t work. You come to a fork in the tracks: on one fork is one worker and on the other is five workers. You can switch the trolley onto either fork. Which fork should you take?

Thomson’s Transplant Problem You are the world’s best transplant surgeon. You currently have five patients who need different organs. A man comes to the clinic for a checkup and you find that his organs match all of those waiting for organs. Would it be morally permissible for you to cut him up and transplant his organs? Why or why not?

Relevant Difference What’s the relevant difference between the Trolley case and the transplant case? In both cases, you would be sacrificing one to save five. Can we justifiably treat these cases differently? If so, how?

Crash Course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI