Utilitarianism

Our Everyday Ethical Choices Consider the last ethical choice you had to make in the most general terms, what were you thinking about? If you think was the Holocaust was a very bad event, what seems like a very good explanation as to what made that event bad? Lastly, consider some project that humans often engage in (building a skyscraper, highway, or some other major project), what factors are often taken under consideration?

Consequentialism What is consequentialism? Utilitarianism is a consequentialist’s theory. That is to say that the final outcome is the element which has real ethical value. No matter what act was preformed to produce some result, if the result is good then so is the act. The above entails that if some result is bad then whatever act caused it was also bad.

The Best Consequence What is the best consequence? Some have proposed that gaining knowledge is the best consequence. Some have proposed that gaining money or other materialistic goods is the best consequence. Hedonism One of the more promising suggestions is hedonism. Hedonism claims that the only thing that has real value is pleasure or happiness. What has disvalue is pain. The more happiness some event has, the more value that event has. The more pain some event has, the more disvalue some event has.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a combination of Consequentialism and Hedonism. The best consequence is the consequence which maximizes happiness and minimizes pain.

No Absolute Rules We might recognize that no rule can’t be overridden if the consequences for following that rule are severe. Consider the rule: It is always wrong to lie.

Non-Human Animal Happiness Anyone who has owned a pet might recognize that there are obvious instances where those animals are happy or instances where that pet was in pain. Is utilitarianism going to take into account non-human animals?

Utilitarianism is too demanding (1 st Version) In your text, you probably noticed the types of calculations one must consider in order to determine what the right act is supposed to be. How could anyone ever have access to all the information necessary to determine which act will maximize the happiness? What is wrong with this objection?

Demandingness (2 nd version) Notice that if you calculated how much happiness would be produced from giving up a lot of your possessions to help starving children then, given utilitarianism, you are obligated to do that. However, we often think of those actions as supererogatory, not obligatory.

Negative Responsibility Can we be held ethically responsible for inaction? Consider the child drowning in the pond. Consider the madman case #1. Remember that some of you had the intuition that inaction in the madman case #1 still made it the case that you were responsible for letting the 5 people die.

Negative Responsibility Are we always responsible for our inaction? Am I responsible for you coming to class today because I didn’t barricade the door? Clearly, there are limits to negative responsibility, otherwise we would be responsible for a lot of events. However, notice that utilitarianism is committed to this idea of negative responsibility. Any inaction that does not maximize happiness and minimize pain is inaction which is wrong.

Utilitarianism is not demanding enough Each person’s happiness is equal so consider the second mad man thought experiment again. Which act is the utilitarian committed to?

Friendship and Special Obligations Remember the second madman thought experiment. Many of you had the intuition that you have some special ethical obligation to your sibling. However, utilitarianism seemed to be committed to this idea of “agent-neutrality”. Everyone counts the same.

Friendship and Special Obligations As intuitive as “agent-neutrality” might seem on the surface (thinking of the judge case), when looking at the special obligations we have to our relatives (especially our children), that doesn’t seem “agent-neutral”. However, the utilitarian can make the case that this special relationships do make the world a happier place. The world is better with relationships like siblings, parents, children, spouses, etc.

When Utilitarianism seems to get it wrong. When considering the happiness machine, why might we think that it is wrong to turn on the machine? If we want to argue that it is wrong to turn on the machine, what ethical notion could we appeal to?

Justice There are seem to be instances where utilitarians are committed to performing what look like unjust acts. Also consider Driver’s Drifter thought experiment.

Possible Solution to the Justice Problem Rule-utilitarianism- follow rules that have a tendency to maximize happiness even if in a few rare cases it doesn’t. In order to keep this view from collapsing into act- utilitarianism, one must be willing to