Utilitarianism

• EMP (24 pages)– Moral Reasoning in Western Culture

(Lucas), pp. 115-117; Utilitarianism and the Greatest Good (Lucas), pp. 119-121; Utilitarianism (Mill), pp. 123-131; Utilitarianism, (Pojman), pp. 133-137; The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (LeGuin), pp. 139-142.

• CSME (5 pages)– Leave No One Behind (Rubel), pp. 3-5; – Hiroshima: The First Use of Nuclear

Weapons (Valaquez and Rostenkowski) pp. 75-76.

Objectives from reading:

Comprehend the moral basis and standard of Utilitarianism

• What is Utilitarianism?• What is the difference between

Mill & Bentham’s concept of utilitarianism?

• Difference between “rule” & “act” utilitarianism

• What are the strengths & weaknesses of utilitarianism as a moral theory?

• Understand the “Principle of Utility.”

Those Who Walk Away From OmelasWhy do some people walk away?

What is the author saying about utilitarianism?

How many of your troops are you willing to risk?

The Range of Ethics

Absence of Ethics

The Criminal

“I KILLED HIM AND I DON’T CARE”

The Delinquent

“I DON’T CARE ABOUT THAT”

“CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.”

Duty EthicsDeontological

NormativeRelativism

DescriptiveRelativism

IndividualRelativism

AcceptedPractices

Utilitarianism

Most Pleasure

Greater Net Happiness

Based On : Consequences Outcomes

Kantian – Duty

Truth

Justice

Rights

Divine Law

Natural Law

Aristotle

Honor

Character

Habituation

Stoicism

Rule Based Moral Theories

Character Based

Relativism ConsequentialismTeleological Ethics

Virtue

• We don’t require moral theories to tell us that lying and homicide are wrong, and helping those in need is a good thing to do.

• Moral theories – explain WHY these things are right and wrong, and – give me REASONS for believing them so

• Moral theories also – help illuminate “grey areas,” – clarify difficult problems, or – resolve conflicts that arise

What do Moral “Theories” Offer?

What are the Characteristics of a Good Moral Theory?

• Clear and unequivocal: – tell us what actions are right (or wrong) and WHY

• Reliable:– Offers straightforward answers in a wide variety of situations & able to resolve

conflicts when they arise

• Comprehensive: – Covers not only individual actions, but social and political practices, institutions,

and policies

• Psychologically realistic: – Doesn’t depend on false assumptions about what people are like

• Yields predictable results in familiar situations • Is not wildly at odds with our habits, intuitions, and customary

responses to ordinary problems

Counting Costs &Making Tough Calls

Military decision-making, and public policy generally (including economic policy), frequently make use of “outcomes-based” reasoning

The “right” decision, action, or policy is often defined as the one that optimizes the balance of benefits over harms for all affected. For example:

President Truman’s decision to use nuclear force on Hiroshima “Lifeboat” dilemmas “Medical triage” decisions

Isn’t the military a decidedly “Utilitarian” organization? Is this good or bad???

Isn’t the military a decidedly “Utilitarian” organization? Is this good or bad???

Utilitarianism

The “utility” (usefulness or moral rightness) of a policy is measured by its tendency to promote the “good” (or to prevent harm).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) :“The good” is simply pleasure

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) : “The good” is happiness - a more complex notion,

achieved by living a principled and prudent life”

Bentham and Mills were reformers concerned with political reform and franchising the populace

Bentham and Mills were reformers concerned with political reform and franchising the populace

Bentham’s “Act” Utilitarianism

• “Nature has placed mankind under the governancy of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

• “The principle of utility . . . Is that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question”

• “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. . .”

Net Utility

For every human action, X, there is a quantity u(X) associated with that action, called the “net utility” of that act.

– This net utility of X is the sum of all the benefits (B) minus the harms (H) of the action X

The net utility of X must be calculated for all individuals, i, affected by X; thus:

u (X) = B(x) - H(x), for all i

An action is “morally right” if it has a higher net utility than any alternative.

This is why Navy Options must take Calculus…This is why Navy Options must take Calculus…

Early Criticisms of Bentham’s Approach

• Hedonism – a moral theory “fit for swine”

• Atheistic – leaves out God(and by extension, any higher-order moral considerations)

• Promotes selfishness – calculus of pure self-interest

Bentham’s rebuttal: Vulgar or not, nature has placed us under two masters, pleasure and pain - there is no other standard

Those who walk away…

• Why did they walk?• Would you stay or

would you walk away?

• …or would you try and change it?– What important values

appear to be missing in the Utilitarian calculus?

LeGuin won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974LeGuin won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974

Modern Criticisms

• Quantification and measurability of “the good”• Incommensurate notions of “the good”• Ignores other, morally relevant considerations

– Human Rights– Justice– Distribution of “the good”

• Difficult and often inconsistent in practice to solve for U(x) and maximize this variable

• No value in performing more than required by duty

Because the “good” hinges on the happiness of the majority, utilitarianism is often associated with democracy.  On further contemplation, however, might it just as easily be associated with Hitler’s Germany?

Because the “good” hinges on the happiness of the majority, utilitarianism is often associated with democracy.  On further contemplation, however, might it just as easily be associated with Hitler’s Germany?

John Stuart Mill’s Revisions: Utilitarianism

• Elevate the “Doctrine of the Swine” – – Pleasures of the intellect, not the flesh– Qualitatively better, not quantitatively

• “Happiness” is NOT simply equivalent to pleasure– “lower quality pleasures”

• shared with other animals – e.g., food, sex

– “higher quality pleasures,” • uniquely human, involving our so-called higher faculties

“It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool or a pig satisfied.”“It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool or a pig satisfied.”

Utilitarianism is NOT equivalent to selfishness. Mill writes:“. . .between his own happiness and that of another, utilitarianism

requires that one be strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.”

“…not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned.”

Notions like “rights” and “justice” are merely “rules of thumb” that represent underlying calculations of overall utility (rule utilitarianism)

Is this what Mill really meant?

Is this what Mill really meant?

John Stuart Mill’s Revisions: Utilitarianism (Cont)

The Principle of Utility

(or Principle of Greatest Happiness) says:

“The greatest happiness of all of those whose interest is in question, is the right and proper, and universally desirable, end of human action.”

The greatest good for the greatest numberThe greatest good for the greatest number

The Principle of Utility

“Principle of Utility” performs three vital functions:

1) Explains the foundations, and offers justification, for our moral rules, laws, and customs, or

2) Exposes the inadequacy of unjust laws or customs that do NOT promote utility; and

3) Offers us a means for resolving conflicts between rules and laws, or deciding vexing cases on which traditional moral rules and laws are silent

Do no harm Don’t lie

Help those in needTreat as equals

Don’t Steal Respect life

Protect

the innocent Mill – 147

Intro - 139

Act vs Rule Utilitarianism

• Assesses the consequences of our actions– Is there justification in harming

someone?

• An act is right if, and only if, it results in as much good as any available alternative

• Assess the consequences of following particular rules:– Is there justification in harming

a small number of people in order to save a larger number?

• An act is right if, and only if, it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules, whose acceptance will lead to greater utility for society than any other available alternative.

Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism

Pojman – 151-152

So how do you measure good/bad consequences?

• The principle of utility (or Principle of Greatest Happiness) says:– “The greatest happiness of all of those whose

interest is in question, is the right and proper, and universally desirable, end of human action.”

• Happiness can then be looked at either long term or short term, physical pleasure or intellectual happiness

• Should allow everyone affected by the act to “get a vote”

• We already reason like this in many cases

• Act Utilitarian: The principle should be applied to particular acts in particular circumstances

  • Rule Utilitarian: An action is right if it conforms to a rule of conduct

that has been validated by the principle of utility 

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF UTILITARIANISM?

• IS IT LOGICAL? INTUITIVE? • IS THIS A MORAL THEORY YOU CAN USE TO

MAKE DECISIONS?– Is pleasure vs pain the right metric?

• WHAT IS UTILITARIAN REASONING BASED ON?– CONSEQUENCES – (OUTCOMES) – TELEOLOGICAL

1. RIGHT/WRONG DETERMINED BY GOOD/BAD OUTCOME2. PLEASURE (+) PAIN (-) 3. HUMAN FLOURISHING (+) SUFFERING (-)

Evaluating Actions by Their Consequences (Examples from the trivial to the life determining)

Example: (Not a deep moral issue)Do I eat the donut this morning?

Considerations:– Long term – at least 500 calories = ¼ pound to my body weight – Short term pleasure – burst of sugar in my mouth– Will make me sleepy after about 45 min.– I love donuts, they make me happy– My heart condition– Am I a SWO?– Other consequences to consider?

A Little More Complex…

EXAMPLE: CALCULATING THE CONSEQUENCES Should I stay in the Navy after obligated service? How do I decide?

One way is to look at consequencesconsequences and measure happinessmeasure happiness.stay in navy leave

navyJob security (+1000) need to pay for college (-500)Get to serve country (+200) will miss the camaraderie (-100)will have obligated service (-300) will not have to deploy

(+600)Travel around world (+100)Variety of duty (+100)Have to leave home (-600)

Weighted Values: Commonly Accepted Decision-Making ProcessWeighted Values: Commonly Accepted Decision-Making Process

How would a Utilitarian divide the $$?

Option$ A B C

Person A $100 $33.33 $80

Person B $0 $33.33 $40

Person C $0 $33.33 $0

Option$ A B C

Person A $100 $33.33 $80

Person B $0 $33.33 $40

Person C $0 $33.33 $0

Triage

Medical Triage Example

1) Will die without extraordinary

measures

2) Will live---don’t treat

now

3) Might save if they get medical

attention

Is this a “fair” concept?

• How do we morally justify letting people die without medical attention? Shouldn’t we be trying to save every human life?

• How would you feel if you woke up on tent #1?

• How do we morally explain to the patient in tent #1 they will not see a doctor?

Closing the Hatch

Crimson Tide

Questions on Closing the Hatch… • Would you give the order to close the

hatch?• What moral reasoning did you use?

But…if your principle as C.O. is protect the lives of your men/women, then how do you justify giving the order to intentionally kill one of your men?

– Will this moral reasoning work in all situations?

– How do you deal with your moral conscience after closing the hatch?

Criticisms

• Tyranny of the masses– Cannibalism makes all but one person happy

• Ability to predict the future– Forecast the consequences or the “ends”

• Which is fairer?– Equal opportunity or equal happiness?

• $300 split 3 ways…

– Are numbers the best metric?• 1 life for 1? …for 2?,,,for 5?...for 100?

Hiroshima

• GROUP A: Use Utilitarian Reasoning to argue for dropping the bomb

• GROUP B: Use any reasoning to argue against dropping the bomb

• Which choice brings about the “greatest happiness?”

• Is “happiness” always the critical point?• Who decides…What if the US lost the war?• Is victory = tyranny of the masses?

Leave No One Behind

• 2 Options– Send the second helo– Don’t risk another rescue

• What is right?• How did you decide?

Reading & Homework for Next ClassIntro to Military Justice

• Naval Law, 3rd Edition– Chapter 1: Background of Military Justice -16 Pages

– Chapter 2: Fundamentals of Military Justice- 5 Pages

jag.navy.mil– UCMJ– Manual for Courts Martial

(MCM 2000)– JAG Manual– US Navy Regulations

Objectives from reading & homework:

Comprehend the purpose, scope and constitutional basis of US Navy Regulations & the UCMJ and relate these regulations to personal conduct in the military service.

Comprehend JO roles/responsibilities relative to the military justice system and be aware of the essential publications relating to military justice.

Know how discipline and punishment differ.

Know the correct requirements for using Extra Military Instruction (EMI).

Be aware of administrative methods used to maintain good discipline.