Utilitarianism How ought we to act?

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)

Making Ethical Judgments

Making Ethical Judgments in Utilitarianism Utilitarianism says that the Result or the Consequence of an Act is the real measure of whether it is good or bad. This theory emphasizes Ends over Means. Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or consequences are called teleological or consequentialist.

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.

Bentham’s Formulation of Utilitarianism Man is under two great masters, pain and pleasure. The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a hedonistic perspective) Those actions whose results increase happiness or diminish pain are good. They have “utility.”

Four Theses of Utilitarianism Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences. Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek. Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad. Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone equally.

Hedonic Calculus Bentham’s objective was to measure the values of various pleasure and pains He developed the Hedonic or Felicific Calculus (Greek ‘hedone’ means pleasure) This is an attempt to provide a method for measuring the values of various pleasures and pains according to a set of criteria 1.       Intensity – How deep is the pleasure or pain? 2.     Duration – How long it lasts 3.     Certainty – How sure we are that it will happen? 4.     Extent – How many people will be affected? 5.     Remoteness - Is it in the near or distant future? 6.     Richness – How much it will lead to more pleasure 7.     Purity – How free from pain it is

Application Bentham thought all types of pleasure and pain could be weighed on the same scale. They could be compared quantitively because there was no difference qualitatively. He once said that ‘quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin (a child’s game) is as good as poetry.’

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 rejects Bentham’s view that there is no qualitative difference between pleasures and pains, 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” 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.”

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 – Look at the consequences of each individual act and calculate utility each time the act is performed Rule Utilitarianism – Look at the consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule, and calculate the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule

Criticisms of Bentham Could Utilitarianism involve causing some people misery for the sake of great benefits for many others? Bentham was an ‘Act’ Utilitarian-would it really be possible or feasible to work out the consequences of EVERY scenario in real life? (compare with J.S Mill-’Rule’ Utilitarian It is perfectly reasonable, according to Bentham's theory, for one to commit an act for wrong reasons, or even commit a wrong act, yet still be considered to be acting correctly if the consequences produce a long term pleasure people concerned. Can we ever accurately predict the consequences of an act? Not unless we have a time machine!!

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Bernard Williams (1929–2003) criticizes the implied “doctrine of negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For example, a thug breaks into my home and holds six people hostage, telling us he will kill all of us. “However,” the thug says, “if you will kill two of your family, I will let you and the other three live.” With Utilitarianism, the good thing to do is to kill two members of my family.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, not putting my own happiness above others, that may lead to a dilemma. I live in a neighbourhood where 83% of my neighbours use drugs. I could make them most happy by helping supply them with cheap drugs, but I feel uncomfortable doing that. Utilitarianism could be used to justify an act that common morality would find abhorrent.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism 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 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.

interest of other people.” (‘On Liberty’ Ch 6) BUT in response: Mill’s harm principle I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people.” (‘On Liberty’ Ch 6)

In other words, Mill made it clear that while he supported the rights of the individual to pursue his or her own happiness, this was only insofar as the pursuit of this happiness did not interfere with the rights and happiness of others.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Since the consequences of any action are unknowable, Utilitarianism is inconsistent with the view that we do, on occasion, know what is right. For example, we pay back a debt to a friend who takes the money, buys a gun, and shoots a cop. On the view that consequences make an action right or wrong, our paying back that debt was wrong. We might want to say, however, that paying back the debt was right, and a case of moral knowledge. If so, Utilitarianism is false.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Critic’s response: Consider another case: While viewing the suffering in Darfur, a psychopath offers you this deal: “Put a bullet in this revolver, spin the chamber, aim at some passing kid, and fire. If the kid survives, I’ll donate a playground in your home town to help underprivileged kids.” Since accepting the offer will probably have good consequences (the action has a tendency to produce good consequences), the Principle of Utility says the action is right. Surely, however, the action is morally wrong: we are not justified in risking the life of the kid in the example even if it probably will result in improving other kid’s lives. The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions rather than their actual consequences, seems false.