Transcript The Ethics of Utility

The Ethics of Utility
The Utilitarian Theory :
First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in
virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right
actions are, simply, those that have the best
consequences.
Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that
matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is
caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus right actions
are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness
over unhappiness.
The Ethics of Utility
Third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that
will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as
more important than anyone else’s. Each person ‘s
welfare is equally important. As Mill wrote in his short
work entitled,Utilitarianism,
”the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of
what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness,
but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness
and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as
strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent
spectator.”
The Ethics of Utility
Utilitarians have different conceptions of intrinsic good:
For most utilitarians, maximizing intrinsic good means
maximizing happiness. We should always do what we
can to maximize the overall happiness in the world. This
is called hedonistic utilitarianism.
Some utilitarians maintain that other things such as
knowledge and integrity are intrinsically good. This is
called ideal utilitarianism.
The Ethics of Utility
Utilitarian views on animals and euthanasia are much
different for utilitarians than they were for Christians, for
example. Why?
Bentham’s Calculus of Pleasure
Scale 1 - 10
INTENSITY
DURATION
CERTAINTY
PROPINQUITY or REMOTENESS
FECUNDITY (if pleasure, more
pleasure will follow, same for pain)
PURITY (if pleasure, what are the
odds that it will not turn to pain)
Add pleasure column and subtract
pain column
Pleasure
(+)
Pain
(-)
Calculating Probabilities
Case 1 : A husband, a wife and Alice. The husband and
Alice has an affair. The utilitarian maintains that if the
pleasure chart outweighs the pain chart, then the affair is
good. We have to take in account probability. For
example, what is the probability that the wife will find
out. How should that impact the decision whether the
husband should embark on the affair?
Case 2: There are two groups of people stranded. We can
only save one group, How can you be sure that we should
save 10 people instead of 4? What if the group of 10
were murderers?
Calculating Probabilities
Case 3: Paul Gauguin. What if Gauguin had been a
“flash in the pan?” How could he determine maximum
utility before he brought the world happiness with his
paintings? Also, isn’t he violating a rule that says a
person should not abandon his wife and child?
Case 4: “Sometimes I think that I really want to do is kill
people and drink their blood.” The person hasn’t done it
and does not want to be committed. What is the greatest
good? How can we know beforehand?
Does the end justify the means?
How do we determine if the ends justify the means?
Think of certain revolutions. What if the end never
happens?
Utilitarianism and Moral Rules
Does the Utilitarian put a high value on moral rules? Is it
ok to break a moral rule?
Are Consequences all that matter? James Rachels gives this example:
In October, 1958, appellant [Ms. Angelynn York] went to the police department of Chino for the purpose
of filing charges in connection with an assault upon her. Appellee Ron Story, an officer of that police
department, then acting under color of his authority as such, advised appellant that it was necessary to
take photographs of her. Story then took appellant to a room in the police station, locked the door, and
directed her to undress, which she did. Story then directed appellant to assume various indecent
positions, and photographed her in those positions. These photographs were not made for any lawful
purpose.
Appellant objected to undressing. She stated to Story that there was no need to take photographs of her
in the nude, or in the positions she was directed to take, because the bruises would not show in any
photograph. ...
Later that month, Story advised appellant that the pictures did not come out and that he had destroyed
them. Instead, Story circulated these photographs among the personnel of the Chino police department.
In April, 1960, two other officers of that police department, appellee Louis Moreno and defendant Henry
Grote, acting under color of their authority as such, and using police photographic equipment located at
the police station made additional prints of the photographs taken by Story. Moreno and Grote then
circulated these prints among the personnel of the Chino police department. ...
Ms. York brought suit against these officers and won. Her legal rights had clearly been violated. But
what of the morality of the officers’ behavior?
Rachels Continued:
Utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if they produce a
favorable balance of happiness over unhappiness. This suggests that
we consider the amount of unhappiness caused to Ms. York and
compare it with the amount of pleasure taken in the photographs by
Officer Story and his cohorts. It is at least possible that more
happiness than unhappiness was caused? In that case, the utilitarian
conclusion apparently would be that their actions were morally all
right. But this seems to be a perverse way to approach the case. Why
should the pleasure afforded Story and his cohorts matter at all? Why
should it even count? They had no right to treat Ms. York in that way,
and the fact that they enjoyed doing so hardly seems a relevant
defense. ( This raises a question of happiness and individual desert.)
Other Objections to Utilitarianism
Impartiality.
Personal relationships.
Supererogation.
Willing evil for others.
Acts that are “Bad in Themselves.”
Happiness and Individual Desert.
Unchosen Duties.
Impartiality
•Would we have to give away almost everything to the
poor? According to Utilitarianism, we would have to
give up a lot until we were pretty much equal with the
most needy.
Thus there would be no supererogatory actions: above
and beyond the call of moral duty. Instead giving
everything to the poor would be morally required.
People are project pursuers. If I want to be an artist,
should I instead devote myself to helping the poor?
Is there a difference between voluntary and compulsory?
Would it make any significant difference to the
utilitarian?
Personal Relationships
•Personal relationships are about partiality.
•Utilitarians are impartial.
•Thus there would be no personal relationships in a
classical utilitarian society.
•Hospers explains the problem of impartiality. If
someone asked, “Why should you try to save the lifer of
your daughter rather than that of a stranger?” and you
replied, “Because she is my daughter” then people will
generally be satisfied with your answer. What if you
said, “Giving it to my daughter increases maximum total
utility. If your father said, “I love you, but I love utility
more,” how would that hit you?
Willing Evil for Others
•What if you have a choice between
•1. Doing nothing.
•2. Giving – 10 to Smith and + 40 to Jones?
•What if Jones needed a liver and Smith was the right
match. You are not involved at all. This liver transplant
has a relatively high risk of not working, but it the only
chance that Jones has. Do you have a right to take part of
Smith’s liver and give it to Jones? Do you have a right to
cause Smith pain regardless of overall utility?
Acts that are bad in themselves
•Is malice ok if it increases overall happiness?
Happiness and Just Desert
•Is malice ok if it increases overall happiness?
Unchosen Duties
•Are you responsible for all of the pain and suffering in
the world? Should you morally have to try to assist those
that are just plain lazy or those that have bad lives to to
unscrupulous and power hungry leaders?
•Should a person have unchosen duties?
Common Sense
•J.J.C. Smart tries to defend utilitarianism against the charge that it
goes against common sense. Smart said,
•“Admittedly utilitarianism does have consequences which are
incompatible with the common moral consciousness, but I tended to
take the view “so much the worse for common moral
consciousness.” That is, I was inclined to reject the common
methodology of testing general ethical principles by seeing how they
square with our feelings in particular instances.
•James Rachels points out that a lot of common sense “facts” cannot
be trusted. For instance, whites are superior to blacks and men are
superior to women. These “common sense facts” were completely
wrong. Rachels asks, “Could it be, for example, that future
generations will look back in disgust at the way affluent people in the
21st century enjoyed their comfortable lives while third-world
children died of easily preventable diseases? Or at the way we
slaughtered and ate helpless animals? If so, they might note that
utilitarian philosophers of the day were criticized as simple-minded
for advancing a moral thoery that straightforwardly condemned such
things.
Ethical Egoism
• Ethical egoism proper states that all people should
do what is in their own interest.
• Formulations of ethical egoism:
– We should do what we believe with good reason will benefit
us the most,
– We should do what is in our own interest.
– We should do what gives us the most pleasure or happiness.
– We should do whatever we prefer the most.
Ethical egoism continued
• Virtue of Selfishness. –Ayn Rand
• Objections to ethical egoism
–
–
–
–
Everyone would be at war
Inconsistent advice
Inconsistency of belief
Interpersonal disputes
Rule Egoism
• According to rule egoism, it may not be in
your interest as an individual to do certain
things, but it might be in your overall
interest for everyone to follow the same
rule.
Ethical Egoism
• Hereditary diseases and the ethical egoist.
Would the ethical egoist support research
for a disease that they don’t have?
• Why should I treat myself better than I treat
other people?
– Should my needs be met by me?
Egoism - Overview
• Psychological egoism is a psychological theory of human
motivation, not at ethical theory at all.
• It asserts that everything anyone does is motivated by selfinterest, which may be power, honors, knowledge, aesthetic
experience, pleasure, or some combination.
• Yet if psychological egoism is true, ethical egoism is also true.
Ethical egoism says that the only thing you ought to seek is
your self-interest. If that is the only thing you can seek, it is the
only thing you ought to seek.
• “Cannot” implies “ought not.” You ought not beat your head
against stone wall trying to be selfless if the only thing you can
do is be selfish in your actions.
Egoism - Overview
• Ethical egoism usually distinguishes between the
end in view of your action and the standard for
evaluating action.
• The standard is always self-interest, but by the very
standard of self-interest you ought often not think of
self-interest as your end in view. (See egoism vs.
egotism, p. 62.)
• If you are a social animal (Aristotle) you achieve
happiness by forgetting about happiness and losing
yourself in charitable and other-regarding activities.
Egoism - Overview
• A standard of action is a state of affairs with which you
compare the actual situation, acting insofar as possible to
reduced any perceived gap between the two.
• We discover your standards by observing your behavior,
not by listening to what you say is your standard. Do you
take opportunities to reduce the gaps?
• Self-interest is always the standard if self-interest is
whatever one wants, since one always wants something.