Utilitarianism

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Bentham and Mill

45

England

Bentham (1748-1832)

Mill (1806-1873)

1700 Mozart (1756-1791) Kant (1724-1804)

1900

Germany

America
For comparison

Jefferson (1743-1826)

Lincoln (1809-1865)

Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

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.

45

Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

One goal of utilitarianism is to provide a way to resolve moral disputes. Bentham notes that if we can all agree that Good = Pleasure, then we can make moral progress scientifically by determining which actions really do produce the most pleasure. His view if often called Hedonistic Utilitarianism.

45

Hedonistic Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

If our central obligation is to act so as to produce the most good (pleasure), then we need a way to calculate which alternative action open to us at a given time is best (productive of the most good, pleasure).

Bentham identifies 7 features of pleasures that allow us to determine how great a given pleasure is

45

Hedonistic Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Hedonic calculus: measure the rightness of an action by these features: 1) Intensity (a more intense pleasure is preferable to a weaker pleasure) 2) Duration (pleasures that last are preferable to those that dont) 3) Certainty (if the act guarantees a pleasure, that act is better than one that merely makes pleasure likely) 4) Propinquity (if the pleasure is far off in space or time, the act is less right) 5) Fecundity (the likelihood that the pleasure or pain will be followed by more pleasures or pains) 6) Purity (a pleasure that is mixed with pain is not as good as one that just pleasure) 7) Extent (the more people who will enjoy the pleasure, the better the act)

John Stuart Mill added the 7th criterion, though Benthams own principles suggested it.

45

Mills Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the son of James Mill, a friend of Benthams Mill took Benthams Utilitarianism and made two major changes: 1.He emphasized the greatest good for the greatest number 2.Rejected Benthams calculus, saying that quality of pleasures is crucial in deciding what is right, not mere quantity.

45

Mills Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Bentham had famously said,

quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.

Mill rejects that view and argues for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

45

Mills Utilitarianism
What justifies the distinction between higher and lower pleasures? Mill provides 2 reasons 1. He famously says, it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2)

2. 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. (Utilitarianism,
Chapter 2, see: http://fair-use.org/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/index, my brackets)

Mills Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

While many agree that there is a qualitative difference between pleasures, Mill loses Benthams ability to quantify good, and so loses some of the problem solving appeal of Utilitarianism.

Note that Utilitarianism accepts and emphasizes the distinction between what is in our selfish interests and what is our duty: Utilitarianism is a demanding theory.

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism -1
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Utilitarianism requires that we choose the act that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Does that apply to all our acts? Practically speaking, Mill cut us some slack, saying he never meant that we should always be trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, but can he say that? By what principle? Must I not say, Well, Im tired and going to bed now, but I could stay up and try to solve problems for the world. Since Im a good problem solver, I suppose the good I could produce through self-sacrifice suggests I should stay up and try.

y Can a consistent Utilitarian get a good nights sleep? y Does Utilitarianism turn us into good-making machines?

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 2
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

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, lets 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 doesnt 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?

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 3
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Is Utilitarianism prejudiced about the future? When you make a promise, does your action in the past limit your ability to act in the future?

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 4
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate peoples 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.

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

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.

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Utilitarian Response: You didnt read the definition of the Principle of Utility closely enough:
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

Notice that what makes an action right or wrong is the actions tendency to produce certain consequences (pleasure, happiness, goodness, etc.), not its actually producing those consequences. So, since paying back debts tends to produce good consequences, that action is right, and a case of moral knowledge, even though it happened to have bad consequences that one time.

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Critics 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, Ill 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 kids lives. The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions rather than their actual consequences, seems false.

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
Utilitarians response: 0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Okay, look, if you want to get technical about it, I suppose risking a kids life for an 80% chance of improving the lives of other kids seems wrong. But change the goods a bit: make it saving the lives of starving kids. Now were seriously weighing a 20% chance at death for one kid against an 80% chance of saving, say, ten lives. Call me corrupt, but I think wed have a moral obligation to take that offer. The death of one kid has, say, one hundred units of disvalue (-100), while the saving of ten kids would have one thousand units of value (+1,000). So, if we adjust the value of the consequences for the probability of their occurring, we have
20% x -100 = -20 80% x +1,000 = +800

This risk/reward assessment suggests a +780 recommendation for accepting the offer. The Principle of Utility would say to accept the offer. Should we accept the principle?

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Critics Response: Its still wrong to make that sort of judgment without the consent of those whose lives youre gambling with. Utilitarians Response: Sometimes, like in this scenario, you dont have the option to get consent in those cases, you do your best, and the Principle of Utility is as good a guide as any. Critics Response: Says you. Oh, and something else

45

Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011

Critics Response (continued) Value-adjusted, possible consequences of an action are not consequences you arent really much of a utilitarian, or consequentialist, anymore. Utilitarian Response: Well, consequences are still the main consideration when deciding what to do, even if they themselves arent what make our actions right or wrong.

45