Transcript Pwrpt - People Server at UNCW

Utilitarianism
Dr. Schmid, Ph.D.
Philosophy and Religion, UNCW
The Queen vs.
Dudley and Stevens
• In 1884, the small ship
Mignonette set sail
from England for the
Americas. It ran into a
terrible storm, and sunk
at sea. Four men
survived in an open
boat. What followed led
to one of the most
famous cases in English
legal history.
Four men in a boat
• The four men—captain
Dudley, first mate
Stevens, sailor Brooks,
and cabin boy William
Parker, 17, were adrift for
many days. They had just
two small tins of turnips.
After 6 days, they ran out
of food. After 19 days,
they discussed whether to
draw lots, that one should
be killed for the others.
Brooks refused.
Cabin boy Willy Parker
• William (“Willy”) Parker
was 17. He had left home
in a spurt of youthful
ambition, “to test his
courage at sea, and make
a man of himself.”
• Unwisely, he drank sea
water, and lay sick and
seemingly near death in
the boat, as the other three
men pondered their fate.
A terrible decision
• On the 20th day, Dudley,
after discussing the
matter with Stevens, and
with the concurrence of
Brooks, told Parker his
time was up. He killed
him with a penknife,
and the three made use
of him for survival.
Rescue at sea
• Four days later, as Dudley
noted in his diary (read in
court): “On the 24th day,
shortly after breakfast, we
were rescued at sea.”
• The men were taken back
to England, where Brooks
turned states’ evidence,
and Dudley and Stevens
were put on trial.
Moral Reasoning – Type 1
• Consequentialist: • Bentham & Mill:
what determines
“Do
that
which
the morality of
conduces to the
actions are the
greatest utility
consequences it
has for those
for all.”
affected.
Utility = balance of pleasure,
happiness, benefit over pain,
misery, harm. Bentham I.1-14
What Impacts the Morality of
Their Action?
• UTILITARIAN
– Necessity – survival/happiness at stake
– Parker’s condition vs. others
– Other men had families, Parker an orphan
– Set an example for others?
– What is the “greater good in the long run”?
• NON-UTILITARIAN
– Cannibalism intrinsically wrong?
– Killing intrinsically wrong?
– Consent – Parker did not consent
Utilitarianism’s Strengths
Offers a universal
moral theory for a
pluralistic society—
without relying on
religious doctrines
“Hedonic calculus”
--Who affected/how much
--What =possible actions?
--Probable outcomes?
--Multiply = “greatest
good for greatest number”
Universal Scope
• How to act in particular
situations
• How to determine laws and
policies based on “common
will” and “common good”
• What moral traits and habits
to cultivate
Claims to explain or refute other
theories
• Refutes selfish theories,
dogmatic or custom theories
• Explains alternative theories
(Kant/theories of “intrinsic”
rights/duties, Virtue Ethics)
UTILITARIAN DILEMMAS
• LEGACY, what are the ethics of truth and
agreement, compared to the “greater good”?
• HEINZ DILEMMA, property and legal rights
vs. humane rights, predictability of outcomes,
care for loved ones = special obligations?
• PATROL, military necessity vs. nondiscrimination, rights of soldiers vs. civilians
• CHEROKEE VALLEY, right of eminent
domain
Objections to Utilitarianism
• Violates individual rights
• Relies too much on predicting
future benefits and harms
• Assumes there is a “common
measure” of value
Objection #1 to Utilitarianism:
It justifies violating rights
• Man on the bridge, “Transplant” and Lifeboat
situation—Willy Parker
• “Legacy”
• “Heinz Dilemma”
• “Cherokee Valley”—respect for group values. Rights
• “Patrol”*
• Eminent domain—individual rights vs. common good
*Objection #2: Depends too much on
predicting the future
Ethical dilemma
• Flooding and building a dam in
“Cherokee Valley” would  $1B
in business and skilled jobs and
provide electricity to 2M people.
• A traditional community of 300
Cherokee have lived there, under
treaty, for 150 years.
• The state can abrogate the treaty,
by appeal to eminent domain, and
purchase their property at fair
value, but they object.
• Should the state build the dam?
Objection #3 to Utilitarianism:
Is there a common basis of value?
– Cherokee Valley: how
important is tribal memory?
– Patrol: how important is the
mission?
– Pinto, Philip Morris studies
– Thorndike study
Ethical dilemma:
Singer’s Argument
1.
If we are able to prevent
great harm* without
comparable cost, we have a
moral duty to do it.
2. We in the developed world
can prevent great suffering
in poor countries without
comparable cost.
3. Therefore we have a duty to
do it.
*Whether someone is nearby or
distant makes no difference in a
global world.
Singer’s Argument: Criticisms
1.
We have no duty to aid the
poor, though we may wish to
out of charity: Singer
collapses this distinction.
2. Singer’s argument ignores
the option of giving a
reasonable amount of aid,
while preserving our own
happiness and well-being.
3. Singer’s claim that distance
or personal feelings we have
for the victims is irrelevant is
contrary to human nature.
What, if anything, does the Thorndike
study prove?
• That it is possible to
fix a common
measure, even if the
results are somewhat
surprising, and
different people
might measure things
differently.
• That the whole project
is absurd, and there are
very great qualitative
differences among
pleasures and pains,
though we may all
agree on a ‘bottom line’
of misery (hunger,
disease, slavery, etc.)
Ethical dilemma:
Are there “higher” and “lower” pleasures?
• Mill: “I would rather be
Socrates dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied. There are
qualitatively higher and
lower pleasures, not just
quantitatively greater and
lesser; those who experience
both, know better.”
• Bentham: “If numerically
equal, pinball is as
desirable as poetry.”