Transcript Types of Arguments

Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism has its origins in the
hedonism of the ancient Cyrenaics and
Epicureans.
• The originator of modern Utilitarianism
was Jeremy Bentham.
– 18th Century English philosopher.
– Sought to make ethics quantitative,
as Sir Isaac Newton had made
science.
• The Fundamentals of Utilitarianism
– All humans by nature seek to attain
pleasure and avoid pain.
• “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, as well as to determine
what we shall do. On the one hand,
the standard of right and wrong, on
the other, the chain of causes and
effects, are fastened to their throne.
• “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. In words a man may pretend to
abjure their empire: But, in reality, he
will remain subject to it all the while.”
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and
Legislation
• In taking this view of human nature,
Bentham follows Thomas Hobbes and
David Hume, as well as the ancient
Cyrenaics and Epicureans
– All humans, by nature, seek utility.
• Utility: A balance of pleasure over
pain.
• “By utility is meant that property in any
object, whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness (all this in the present case
comes to the same thing) or (what
comes again to the same thing) to
prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party
whose interest is considered . . . .”
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and
Legislation
– Egalitarianism: Every individual’s
utility counts the same as every other
individual’s utility.
– Thus, the proper goal of morality is to
achieve the most overall utility.
• “The community is a fictitious body,
composed of the individual persons
who are considered as constituting as
it were its members. The interest of
the community then is what? — the
sum of the interests of the several
members who compose it.”
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation
– For Bentham, utility is judged
quantitatively only.
• There is no accounting for the
alleged quality of utility.
• “Prejudice apart, the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts
and sciences of music an poetry. If
the game of push-pin furnish more
[utility], it is more valuable than
either.”
Jeremy Bentham, The Rationale of
Reward
• Bentham’s Seven Quantitative
Utilitarian Criteria
– Intensity
• How strong is it?
– Duration
• How long does it last?
– Certainty
• How likely is it to happen?
– Propinquity
• How near at hand is it?
– Fecundity
• How likely is it to produce more?
– Purity
• How free of pain is it?
– Extent
• The number of people affected by
it.
• How to make a utilitarian moral choice
– Determine who is affected by your
choice.
– Determine your alternatives.
– Using the seven criteria, determine
the utility for each affected individual
for each alternative.
– Sum up the total utilities for each
alternative.
– Choose the alternative that yields the
most overall utility.
• Rule Utilitarianism
– Doing a utilitarian analysis for every
moral choice is virtually impossible.
– Thus, most contemporary utilitarians
prefer rule utilitarianism.
– Rule Utilitarianism: Follow the rules
that, in the long run, produce the most
overall utility.
– With rule utilitarianism, the utilitarian
analysis is done only once, when
deciding which rules to follow.
– After that, moral choice is just a matter of
following the rules.
• Objections to Utilitarianism
– “It’s a pig morality.”
• Humans are too noble for a
morality that only seeks to
maximize pleasure and minimize
pain.
• Bentham’s response:
– Get over it!
– Humans are nothing more than
pleasure seekers and pain
avoiders.
• John Stuart Mill’s Response
– 19th Century English philosopher
– Bentham’s godson
– Tried to reform utilitarianism so
that quality, not just quantity,
matters, when evaluating utility.
– “If one of two [pleasures] is, by
those who are competently
acquainted with both, placed so
far above the other that they
prefer it, even though knowing it
– “to be attended with a greater
amount of discontent, 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.”
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
– But what does this really prove?
– Later on, Mill shows his elitist
biases.
– “Few human creatures would
consent to be changed into any
of the lower animals, for a
promise of the fullest allowance
of a beast’s pleasures; no
intelligent human being would
consent to be a fool, no
instructed person would be an
ignoramus,
– “no person of feeling and
conscience would be selfish and
base, even though they should
be persuaded that the fool, the
dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they are
with theirs. They would not
resign what they possess more
than he for the most complete
satisfaction of all the desires
which they have in common with
him . . . .
– “It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And, if the
fool, or the pig, are a different
opinion, it is because they only
know their own side of the
question. The other party to the
comparison knows both sides.”
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
– What it boils down to is this:
» Mill is saying, if you want to
know what pleasures are
qualitatively better, ask a
person of culture and refined
taste.
» In other words, ask a person
that thinks like I do.
– Mill’s attempt to introduce a
qualitative element into
utilitarianism is generally
considered a failure.
– “The good of the many outweighs the
good of the one.”
• Utilitarianism seems to allow
sacrificing the individual for the good
(utility) of the group.
• Is this just?
– This consequence is contrary to
the intuition that each human
person has an inherent dignity that
should not be sacrificed, no matter
how much society as a whole gains
from the sacrifice.
• An example is an episode of Star
Trek: The Next Generation
– The Enterprise encounters an
alien race called the Edo who
seem to be living the life of
Paradise.
– When Wesley, the son of the
ship’s doctor, accidentally breaks
one of the Edo’s rules, the Star
Fleeters find out the high cost of
the Edo Paradise.
– Captain Picard comes to the
conclusion that the value of the
individual sometimes outweighs the
cost to the group.
– The conviction that all humans have
a fundamental dignity that should not
be violated or sacrificed is the key to
Deontology, which is the ethical
tradition we will look at next time.