Transcript Slide 1

Utilitarianism
A Consequentialist Theory
•Answer to the fundamental
philosophical question: What is the
right-making or wrong-making
characteristic of acts and other morally
relevant things? What constitutes moral
good?
•The morally good things generate some
important set of benefits for relevant
entities according to a distribution
scheme which is deemed proper.
Utilitarianism
Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed to be morally
good, bad etc ?
Q2: Which benefits are considered important in picking out
the good things. What do the “things” in Q1 aim to generate?
Q3: Which possible distribution is proper?
Such theories are
differentiated from one
another by their answers to
four questions having to do
with elements of the
definition:
“things”
‘benefits’
Q4: Which entities are morally relevant?
‘distribution’
‘entities’
Utilitarianism
Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed to be morally
good, bad etc ?
Possible answers: Acts, Rules, Standard Operating Procedures,
Practices, Character traits, Ideals
Q2: Which benefits are considered important in picking out
the good things? What do the “things” in Q1 aim to generate?
Possible answers: pleasures, preference satisfactions, human
flourishing, material wealth, happiness,..
Q3: Which possible distribution is proper?
Possible answers: the greatest overall amount to self, society,
the highest average over a group or over an individual’s
lifetime, the greatest amount to the greatest number.
Q4: Which entities are morally relevant?
Possible answers: self, all humans, all sentient creatures
(capable of experiencing pains and pleasures)
Such theories are
differentiated from one
another by their answers to
four questions having to do
with elements of the
definition:
“things”
‘benefits’
‘distribution’
‘entities’
Benefits that count
Consequentialist Theories
(the basic units of
the theory!)
Aspects of Human
Pleasures
Flourishing
Hedonistic
Ethical
Egoism
(HEE)
Ayn
Rand’s
Ethical
Self
Egoism
(REE) (Objectivism)
Bentham’s
Mill’s
Hedonistic
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
(MU)
(HU)
Society
Entity that
need
considering
Consequentialist Theories
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism: the morally correct acts,
practices or character traits for any given
individual are those that generate the
valued benefits (whatever they may be)
according to the favored distribution
(highest overall amount, or average
amount over a lifetime, for example) for
that individual.
Nutshell: The morally correct course of
action is always to act in the interest of
your own happiness
HEE
REE
HU
MU
Ayn Rand
Consequentialist Theories
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts,
practices or character traits for any given
individual are those that generate the
valued benefits (whatever they may be)
according to the favored distribution
(highest overall amount or average
amount, for example) for society as a
whole.
Nutshell: The morally correct course of
action is always to act in the interest of
society’s general happiness.
Jeremy Bentham in a Box
J.S. Mill Caricature
HEE
REE
HU
MU
The basic thing that distinguishes
utilitarianism from other forms of
consequentialism is its focus on society
as a whole: A general statement of the
utilitarian position is this: The
morally correct courses of action, rules,
standard operating procedures or
character traits, from among all the
alternatives, are those that generate the
greatest net benefit for the greatest
number of individuals in society.
Utilitarianism
“Approval” or “Conventionalist”
Theories
of Ethical Properties
Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts,
practices or character traits for any given
individual are those that generate the
valued benefits (whatever they may be)
according to the favored distribution
(highest overall amount or average
amount, for example) for society as a
whole.
Nutshell: The morally correct course of
action is always to act in the interest of
society’s general happiness.
Different versions of utilitarian thought focus on the social
impact of individual acts, rules or practices, even character
traits and ideals (such as that of liberty). John Stuart Mill
concerns himself with each of these and combines them,
creating a powerful utilitarian theory which revolves around
the notion of human flourishing or happiness (Greek term:
εὐδαιμονία, which we will run into again later in the course).
For purposes of discussion, it is useful to differentiate two
forms of Utilitarianism. We do this keeping in mind that they
actually are two aspects of utilitarian theory.
Utilitarianism
To do this, it is necessary to tell a story..
Utilitarianism
Five friends are spelunking in a newly discovered cave. It happens to be
located on the Eastern Seaboard, and has been created over many years
by the actions of the tides. As the five explore inside, the entrance they
used, adjacent to the beach, is inundated by the incoming high tide. This
is one of those areas where the low tide will travel over a half mile out,
but high tide comes rushing in with a vengeance.
They see there is no way to escape via the entrance. They scramble
around looking for options. There is an opening at the top of the cave.
They find a way up, as the waters furiously rise. They are racing the
incoming tide. They make it to the top, a sort of natural ledge allows
them to make their way to the opening in the roof of the cave. Hastily,
they begin to make their way out.
Fred is closest, so he goes to lift himself up, and out. As he lifts his body
up through the hole, he becomes very securely lodged. He tries to move.
The others push on him, hoping to move him completely through. He
doesn’t budge. In the panic, he had not noticed he had his backpack on.
It is the root of the problem. The others try to pull it out. They cannot
cut it away, for Fred has most of the tools in his backpack. Panic sets in.
Barney yells “what d’ we do now?” The water is upon them.
Utilitarianism
Fred can hear what is going on, and yells at Barney to calm down.
Barney calms himself. “Look, if we dynamite our way outa’ here, we can
go to the topside of the cave, and pull Fred out.” Fred yells approval.
Wilma likes the idea. “Good. But, we need the dynamite and the
detonator.” She usually carried the detonator, having designed it
herself from an old car entry remote. She riffles quickly through her
pockets, “Got it!”
“Great. I have the dynamite,” Barney says as he quickly takes off his
backpack and unzips it. He looks, fumbles around and digs furiously
through it, to no avail. “Damn it. We’re screwed.”
Fred meanwhile has realized he has the dynamite in his backpack. As
the thought hits him, he stops struggling against the grip of the exit.
At the same time, an eerie quiet descends upon the group still in the
cave.
He knows. They know. They know he knows. He knows they know.
Finally, he hears Wilma: “Fred? Fred? Can you hear me? We can save
ourselves, but..” She cannot bring herself to say it.
Barney plaintively adds “We won’t do it unless you say so. Only if you
say so Fred. Please..hurry. We’re running out of time.
Utilitarianism
Fred feels the moral pull, but is afraid for his life. He is ashamed but he
simply says “Please, for God’s sake don’t. Forgive me.”
The group look at each other, look at Fred’s suspended lower half, and
down at the furious waters. They have no more than another minute.
What should they do?
Let’s take a vote on the case. You have two, and only two options.
1.
Use the detonator, blow Fred up. This will allow the four to escape.
Obviously, Fred will not be so lucky.
2. Let Nature take its course. Fred will survive, will eventually be able
to wriggle free of the exit. Wilma, Barney and the others will perish.
And the vote says..
Utilitarianism
YES
Blow Up Fred
NO
Let Nature take
its course
And have you all vote!
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
YES
NO
And have
youResults?
all vote!
Vote
Utilitarianism
If you primarily focus on:
How individual acts or options
impact overall social happiness
you are an “Act Utilitarian”
Act Utilitarianism Simply Stated:
Your moral obligation in any given situation is to take the
action open to you that will bring about the greatest net
balance of happiness for the greatest number.
This is the “utilitarian intuition” that seems to drive the
vote results in the Cave Case.
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its
course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses
of action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
Be sure to take account of all individuals affected by the option, and count
each person’s harms and benefits equally. Give no individual’s benefits or
harms greater weight (including your own.) Why? Intuitively, we feel moral
deliberation should be impartial. We blame folks for unduly considering
themselves. This equal weighting is the Utilitarian’s way to incorporate this
common moral intuition.
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its
course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses
of action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one
possible way to do this:
A. Do your best to assign positive values for benefits you have determined. In this case,
preservation of life, a vital benefit, is obviously paramount. But important too are various
benefits that accrue because the individuals involved survive. You should count all these.
B. Do your best to assign negative values for harms you have determined.In this case, death
is obviously the paramount harm. But important too, are the various harms that accrue due to
the loss of the individuals involved.You should count all these.
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its
course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses
of action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one
possible way to do this:
4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of
harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results by
the number of people that will be affected by your
choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will prevent a
several people from dying.
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to
choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature
take its course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible
courses of action do I have?
Blow up Fred
Let Nature take its course
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
Save four lives +150 x 4 = +600
Lose four lives -150 x 4 = -600
For each of the identified options ask:
Lose one life
Save one life
What are the benefits generated by this course of
action?
Calculus Result
-150
x 1 = -150
= +450
Calculus Result
+150 x 1 = +150
= -450
What are the harms generated by this course of
action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is
one possible way to do this:
4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of
harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results
by the number of people that will be affected by
your choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will
prevent a several people from dying.
Assuming all else as being equal, the utilitarian calculus shows that the class
vote is in fact the correct course of action by Act Utilitarian standards.
According to utilitarians, we are OBLIGATED to act in those ways that maximize
utility. So, we must blow up Fred, and would be blameworthy if we didn’t.
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to
choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature
take its course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible
courses of action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
As with any philosophical theory, plausibility often
varies with the example used. In this case, we have
been presented with an example that highlights one
aspect of utilitarian theory, and lends credibility
to that aspect, something we have abstracted from
the whole and called “Act Utilitarianism.”
What are the benefits generated by this course of
action?
What are the harms generated by this course of
action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is
one possible way to do this:
4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of
harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results
by the number of people that will be affected by
your choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will
prevent a several people from dying.
But, is that the whole story? As you might suspect,
the answer is “no.” There are other examples that
throw doubt upon Act Utilitarianism, and according
to some, upon Utilitarianism as a whole. They seem
to show it leads to immoral results.
Others claim these examples are not fatal to
Utilitarianism, but rather emphasize another aspect
of the theory; one which must be fully incorporated
in a successful and robust final theory.
In order to flesh this out, it is necessary to tell
another story..
Utilitarianism
It is necessary to tell another story, and
have you vote..
Utilitarianism
Sheriff Justice has a real problem on his
hands. He lives in a remote town of the
Wild West. A brutal shooting of the
Burt family occurred a month ago. A
great deal of circumstantial evidence
point to Reed, a local everyone
knows. His bloody boot prints were
found at the scene. A weapon was found
on his farmland, hidden in the hollow of
a tree. There is a ballistic match between
the rounds and the weapon. He did not
get along with the head of the family,
Gleason. They had heated arguments,
and have gone to court several times,
suing each other over land rights. In
general, Reed is not liked,
his
It iswhile
necessary
to tell another story..
victims were popular, and kindly.
Utilitarianism
Sheriff Justice knows that Reed did not commit the
crime. He knows this because Reed, an alcoholic, was
home that afternoon, evening and night, passed
out. The sheriff made a regular habit of checking up on
Reed, who had a habit of getting drunk, and wandering
around town, falling asleep in odd places. Justice would
take him home if he found him. On this particular night,
at the time the crime occurred, Reed was at home, and
in fact never left home for town. The Sheriff has
surmised that someone passing through town and
aware of the animosity between Reed and Burt snuck
into Reed's house, used one of his rifles, and wore his
boots to kill and rob the family, while also framing Reed
for the deed. This man is long gone, and the Sheriff has
good reason to believe he is in Morocco.
It is necessary to tell another story..
Utilitarianism
The townsfolk are aware of the circumstantial evidence
against Reed. The Sheriff has attempted to tell them
what he knows, and what he has surmised. They are
angry, and refuse to listen. They do not believe the
Sheriff, and have promised to take Reed themselves,
and generally riot in town, killing and destroying
property as they go, if he doesn't do what he is
‘supposed’ to do.
The Sheriff knows he can arrest Reed, and that will
dissolve the crisis. But, he also knows that to arrest him,
and later release him with or without a trial will bring
on the rioting, only later.
He also knows he runs no risk of the truth finally coming
out about this case, if he does arrest try and either jail or
execute Reed.
Should he arrest, try and convict Reed or not?
Utilitarianism
YES
NO
Blow Up Fred
Arrest, try,
convict
And have you all vote!
Do not arrest
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
YES
NO
And have
youResults?
all vote!
Vote
Utilitarianism
If you primarily focus on:
How rules or practices impact
overall social happiness you are
a “Rule Utilitarian”
Rule Utilitarianism Simply Stated:
Your moral obligation in any given situation is to act in
accordance with the rule (or set of rules) that, if followed
by all or most people in like circumstances, would bring
about the greatest net balance of happiness for the greatest
number.
This is a utilitarian intuition that may drive the vote in the
Sheriff Justice Case. (This is not to say that there are not
other intuitions that may be driving this vote. More on that
later!)
Utilitarianism
A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure.
When faced with a moral choice ask:
1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?
Once you have determined this, ask:
2. What is the one rule that most closely covers my
situation? Which rule captures more significant features
of my case than any other rule?
3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says.
Note: You can follow this procedure because the rules it presupposes each have strong
utilitarian justification. The rules the procedure has us refer to are such that society
(and obviously the individuals within society) derive much more benefit from having them in
place than they would from either having no rules, easily overridden rules, or some other
set of rules in place. Simple example: Hard rules against theft, if followed by all or most
folks, generate great long-term social and personal benefit. Societies that do not rule out
theft suffer from massive insecurity, violence, etc. and dissolve, taking along with them
all the fruits of social cooperation. Human societies noticed this at some point, and
instituted such rules. Some such rules are almost universally respected (examples: rules
against murder). So, as utilitarians, we are justified in using these rules and relying on
them when morally deliberating. Usually, we can apply them in a straightforward way.
Utilitarianism
A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure.
When faced with a moral choice ask:
1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?
Once you have determined this, ask:
2. What is the rule that most closely covers my
situation? Which rule captures more significant
features of my case than any other rule?
3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says.
4. If several rules require the same course of action,
there is no problem, do what they say.
5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule
that is more basic, that is, the rule that guarantees or
safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits, or
prevents the more grievous harm to society.
But, what if there are multiple rules covering the case? Then what do you do? Suppose they
recommend or require opposed actions. Then what?
Utilitarianism
A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure.
When faced with a moral choice ask:
1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?
Once you have determined this, ask:
2. What is the rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures more
significant features of my case than any other rule?
3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says.
4. If several rules require the same course of action, there is no problem, do what they
say.
5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule that is more basic, that is, the
rule that guarantees or safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits, or prevents
the more grievous harm to society.
6. If the rules are equally basic, do an act utilitarian analysis of your options (focus on
the features of your particular situation).
7. Choose the option that passes the act utilitarian analysis.
Alright, not wanting to be picky here, but, suppose the “several" applicable rules are
equally basic? Then what do you do?
Utilitarianism
A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure.
1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?
Once you have determined this, ask:
2. What is the rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures
more significant features of my case than any other rule?
3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says.
4. If several rules require the same course of action, there is no problem, do
what they say.
5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule that is more basic, that
is, the rule that guarantees or safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits,
or prevents the more grievous harm to society.
6. If the rules are equally basic, do an act utilitarian analysis of your options
(focus on the features of your particular situation).
7. Choose the option that passes the act utilitarian analysis.
8. Formulate a universal rule for each option you have (describing the
essentials of the situation, and the course of action involved. It should be a rule
that all would have to follow in similar circumstances).
9. Do your best to determine which rule would be the best for overall social
happiness, and follow it.
What do you do if there are no covering rules for your situation? This is an unlikely
scenario, but certainly possible. This is what you can do.
Utilitarianism
In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to
how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory:
Too personally demanding:
•Obliges us to implement the options that optimize
benefits. (Think about what this requires of you in the
Sheriff Justice case. What sort of impact will this have on
the remainder of your life?)
•Requires that we give no special consideration to our own
happiness. (Are you ever ‘given permission’ by utilitarian
reasoning, to enjoy yourself?)
•If true, there is no such thing as going above and beyond
the call of duty (supererogation). You are meeting your
minimal moral obligation by giving at least half your
income to Oxfam, according to Peter Singer.
•Assigns equal levels of moral responsibility for actively
doing a wrong thing as for allowing a wrong thing to
happen. (Pedro and the Botanist case). If it is within a
person’s power to prevent a harm, and he doesn’t he is
responsible for the harm.
Too morally permissive: Allows, indeed requires, actions
we would normally consider wrong.
•Acting unjustly (E.g., Sheriff Justice case is one in point.
Also the “transplant case.”)
•Acting secretly or deceptively (Sheriff would obviously be
deceiving)
•Using people as mere means (Doctor can find a healthy
homeless man who won’t be missed, kill him, take his
organs, save 4 others.)
(These objections indicate we believe there are some
things that should not be done, regardless of utility
generated. More on this moral intuition, and its
theoretical development later when we take up Kant’s
philosophy, and rights based ethical thought. For now,
though, ask yourself if utilitarian theory leaves room for,
fully accounts for and answers these objections.)
Utilitarianism
In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to
how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory. Do
this by giving a “checkmark” to the theory that seems better able to deal with the
objections:
Act U.
Too Personally
Rule U.
Now, scoring Act U. and Rule U., which deals
more satisfactorily with these issues?
Demanding
Too Morally
Permissive
By simply sticking to, and following pre-existing rules, many of which have
an “absolutist” formulation, we actually are taking the course of action
that would best generate utility for society. We do not need to ‘jump into
the breach’ either by taking on extraordinary individual responsibility,
nor by breaking those ‘absolutist’ rules. For, if it was a standard
practice to do so, when the situation presented itself, society, and all
its benefits would crumble. People cannot physically or psychologically
handle the “demands" of pure Act Utilitarianism. The ‘Permissivity’of
pure Act Utilitarianism would dissolve trust in professions such as lawenforcement. To prevent widespread social discord and suffering, we should
abide by general moral rules. This is a UTILITARIAN line of reasoning, more
specifically, RULE UTILITARIAN. Hence, the checkmarks.
Utilitarianism
In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to
how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory
Now, a final area of concern, briefly mentioned earlier. How does Rule Utilitarianism score
here?
Rights
A right is a claim a person has upon others. For each claim there is a
corresponding obligation as to what actions other persons should or
should not undertake with reference to that person.
What sorts of rights are there?
Negative rights / Rights of non-interference
Life – we each are obligated to respect the lives of others.
They too, must respect our individual right to life.
Liberty – we are obligated to give all persons as much
liberty of action, thought, speech etc. as is consistent with
equal liberty for all. This does not require that we give free
reign to everybody. We can limit liberties only if it is
necessary to ensure the most extensive set of liberties
possible, given the competing needs, wants, and desires of
the individuals that make up society.
Property – We are obliged to respect the holdings of others.
Expression – We are obliged to refrain from interfering
with the speech of others.
Positive rights / Rights of Recipience
Basic needs
Nurture
Utilitarianism
In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to
how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory
Now, a final area of concern, briefly mentioned earlier. How does Rule Utilitarianism score
here?
Rights have a derivative status in utilitarian thought, and are never ‘inalienable.’
Can Rule
Utilitarianism fully
handle our intuitions
concerning Rights?
•They are ultimately justified on a rule utilitarian basis by Mill:
“To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to
defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can
give him no other reason than general utility.”
•A utilitarian justification of ignoring individual rights in certain circumstances like
the Sheriff and transplant cases, can be made. Rights are considered to be useful
conventions, not as independent constraints upon utilitarian calculations.
•Rule Utilitarianism does not fully address the ‘too permissive’ objection. Suppose
you can break a rule, and do so without risk of public detection, and in so doing,
generate greater amounts of benefits than you could by following the rule. You
should do so, if you are a utilitarian. Consider the doctor with the plan to use a
homeless man as an organ bank. Secretly breaking the rule against murder does
nothing to jeopardize public trust, nor the utilitarian strength of the rule, but it
does increase net benefits.
•Any statement of rights is a statement that looks like a rule, requiring or
forbidding certain lines of action toward individuals. As such a rule, its ultimate
justification, and a possible ground for override, is utility expectation.