Utilitarianism 97 03

8/2/2019 Utilitarianism 97 03

1/20

425

10011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Utilitarianism

Bentham and Mill


2/20

5

1700 1900

Kant (1724-1804)

Germany

England Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873)

Jefferson (1743-1826)

AmericaFor

comparison Lincoln (1809-1865)

Mozart (1756-1791)


3/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011UtilitarianismJeremy Bentham (1748-1832) isthe first notable figure endorsingthe principle of utility. That

principle states:an action is right as it tends to promotehappiness, wrong as it tends todiminish it, for the party whoseinterests are in question

Bentham is famous for identifyinghappiness with pleasure, andproviding a hedonic calculusfor determining the rightness ofan action.


4/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011UtilitarianismOne 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 mostpleasure.

His view if often called Hedonistic

Utilitarianism.


5/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Hedonistic UtilitarianismIf 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 usat a given time is best (productive of the mostgood, pleasure).

Bentham identifies 7 features of pleasures thatallow us to determine how great a givenpleasure is


6/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Hedonistic UtilitarianismHedonic 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 thatmerely 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 morepleasures or pains)

6) Purity (a pleasure that is mixed with pain is not as good as one that justpleasure)

7) Extent (the more people who will enjoy the pleasure, the better the act)

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


7/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Mills UtilitarianismJohn Stuart Mill (1806-1873) wasthe son of James Mill, a friend ofBenthams

Mill took Benthams Utilitarianismand made two major changes:

1.He emphasized the greatest goodfor the greatest number

2.Rejected Benthams calculus,saying that quality of pleasures iscrucial in deciding what is right,not mere quantity.


8/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Mills UtilitarianismBentham 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 lowerpleasures.


9/20

Mills UtilitarianismWhat justifies the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

Mill provides 2 reasons

1. He famously says, it is betterto be a human dissatisfiedthan a pigsatisfied; betterto be Socrates dissatisfiedthan a fool satisfied(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2)

2. He also says that the only competent judge of two things is someonewith 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 otherpleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribingto the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighingquantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account. (Utilitarianism,Chapter 2, see: http://fair-use.org/john-stuart-mill/utilitarianism/index, my brackets)


10/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Mills UtilitarianismWhile many agree that there is a qualitative

difference between pleasures, Mill loses

Benthams ability to quantify good, and soloses some of the problem solving appeal ofUtilitarianism.

Note that Utilitarianism accepts and emphasizesthe distinction between what is in our selfishinterests and what is our duty: Utilitarianism isa demanding theory.


11/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism -1Utilitarianism 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 someslack, saying he never meant that we should always be trying toproduce 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 bednow, but I could stay up and try to solve problems for the world. SinceIm a good problem solver, I suppose the good I could producethrough 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?


12/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 2Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice?

Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl heading to theMexico 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 todecide whether to let him go or shoot him from a distance. If the Marshall letsthe man go, lets suppose the man will live a good life, raise a family, and be agood husband. The killing was out of character, and the money will allow himto 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 enjoykilling, 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?


13/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 3Is Utilitarianism prejudiced about the future?

When you make a promise, does your action

in the past limit your ability to act in the

future?


14/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 4Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate peoples

rights on occasion.

If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to theemergency room, each needing a different vital organ tosurvive, and the doctor looks at you or me, in for ahangnail, should he or she put us under and remove ourorgans for the Prize winners?

That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to clearlybe the best option in terms of producing the most goodfor the greatest number.


15/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5Since the consequences of any action are unknowable,

Utilitarianism is inconsistent with the view that wedo, on occasion, know what is right.

For example, we pay back a debt to a friend who takesthe money, buys a gun, and shoots a cop. On theview that consequences make an action right or

wrong, our paying back that debt was wrong. Wemight want to say, however, that paying back thedebt was right, and a case of moral knowledge. Ifso, Utilitarianism is false.


16/20

425

1

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

Notice that what makes an action right or wrong is the actionstendency 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 thoughit happened to have bad consequences that one time.


17/20

425

1

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

Consider another case: While viewing the suffering in Darfur, apsychopath 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 townto help underprivileged kids.

Since accepting the offer will probably have good consequences (theaction has a tendency to produce good consequences), the Principle ofUtility 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 exampleeven if it probably will result in improving other kids lives.

The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions rather thantheir actual consequences, seems false.


18/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5Utilitarians response: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 seemswrong. But change the goods a bit: make itsaving the lives of starvingkids. 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 Ithink wed have a moral obligation to take that offer.

The death of one kid has, say, one hundred units of disvalue (-100), while thesaving 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 theiroccurring, we have

20% x -100 = -20

80% x +1,000 = +800

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


19/20

425

1

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

Its still wrong to make that sort of judgment without the consentof those whose lives youre gambling with.

Utilitarians Response:

Sometimes, like in this scenario, you dont have the option to getconsent in those cases, you do your best, and the Principle ofUtility is as good a guide as any.

Critics Response:

Says you. Oh, and something else


20/20

425

1

0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 5Critics Response (continued)

Value-adjusted, possible consequences of an action

are not consequences you arent really much of autilitarian, or consequentialist, anymore.

Utilitarian Response:

Well, consequences are still the main considerationwhen deciding what to do, even if they themselvesarent what make our actions right or wrong.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ich-bin-riezl
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Utilitarianism 97 03

Documents