Utilitarianism Ethics Dr. Jason M. Chang

Consequentialism Locates morality entirely in the consequences An action is morally right if it generates the best consequences (of the possible courses of action) A question for consequentialism o What is meant by consequences?

Jeremy Bentham ( ) “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do…”

Jeremy Bentham ( ) “They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it.”

Jeremy Bentham ( ) “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.”

Principle of Utility The morally right action is the action that produces the greatest happiness (pleasure) for the greatest number of people.

Features of Utilitarianism Everyone affected by action is counted Everyone’s happiness counted equally Assumes happiness can be quantified Consequences include everything that will happen in the world if action is performed

Calculating Consequences Mother-in law Father-in- law SpouseYouTOTAL Tell the truth Tell a white lie Scenario #1: The Pot Roast

Calculating Consequences Person 1Person 2Person 3Person 4TOTAL Lay off Lay off Scenario #2: Manager’s Dilemma

Advantages of Utilitarianism Definite method for deriving morally right action Reduces moral disagreement Makes sense that morality is about consequences

The Queen v. Dudley and Stevens

Facts: May 19, 1884: The English yacht Mignoette sets sail Crew = Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and Parker the cabin boy July 5: Mignoette sunk; crew forced onto lifeboat Crew have little food and no drinking water July 18: Dudley and Stephens kill Parker Crew feeds on Parker’s body and blood

The Queen v. Dudley and Stevens Analysis: Issue o May an innocent person be killed (and eaten) to save the lives of others? Argument from Dudley and Stephens’ defense o Actions committed out of necessity to prevent some greater harm (i.e., the death of all) o Dudley and Stephens’ action was justified

The Queen v. Dudley and Stevens Analysis: Court’s decision o Killing to prevent greater harm may not be excused when the person killed is innocent Court’s reasoning o Allowing killing to prevent greater harm sets a dangerous precedent o Cannot compare the value of different human lives

The Queen v. Dudley and Stevens From the Court’s Opinion: “By what measure is the comparative value of lives be measured? Is it to be strength, or intellect, or what? […] In this case the weakest, the youngest, the most unresisting, was chosen. Was it more necessary to kill him than one of the grown men?”

Ford Pinto Case

The Ford Pinto was rushed into production in much less than the usual time. Pre-production crash tests showed that rear-end collisions would rupture the car’s fuel system easily Ford decided to manufacture the car anyway, even though Ford owned a patent on a much safer gas tank. For more than eight years, Ford lobbied against government safety standards that would have forced Ford to change the gas tank. (* Facts according to Mark Dowie in “Pinto Madness”)

Future productivity losses Direct$132,000 Indirect$ 41,300 Medical costs Hospital$ 700 Other$ 425 Property damages$ 1,500 Insurance administration$ 4,700 Legal and court$ 3,000 Employer losses$ 1,000 Victim’s pain and suffering$ 10,000 Funeral$ 900 Assets (lost consumption)$ 5,000 Miscellaneous$ 200 * NHTSA 1972 StudyTotal per fatality: $200,725 Ford Pinto Case

Ford’s Cost/Benefit Analysis Benefits of fixing gas tank: (180 x $200,000) + (180 x $67,000) + (2,100 x $700) = $49.5 million Costs of fixing gas tank: 12.5 million vehicles x $11 = $137 million

Criticisms of Utilitarianism Happiness is difficult to calculate o Especially when having to calculate value of human lives Fails to account for rights and dignity of persons