Transcript File - Applied Ethics

In this lecture…
 Evaluating actions
 The principle of utility
 Strengths
 Criticisms
 Rule utilitarianism
A dilemma
 You are a lawyer. You have a client who is
an old lady who owns a big house. She
tells you that she wants her dog to
inherit the house after she dies. You
promise her you will see to it that her
dog will be the only future owner of the
house. However, you also notice that
there are not enough schools for
children in the district.
A dilemma
 What would you do when the old lady
dies – keep your promise and honor her
wish, or break the promise and convert
the house into a school for poor children?
Evaluating actions
 A theory can be defined as a framework
of related ideas and concepts that can be
used to understand, analyze and deal
with a problem.
 In the study of ethics, we make use of
moral theories to evaluate actions and
decisions.
Evaluating actions
 When we make moral judgments or
decisions, we need to evaluate actions to
determine whether they are right or
wrong.
 Moral theories provide justifications for
our moral beliefs and judgments by
giving us an idea why certain actions are
right or wrong.
Evaluating actions
 Broadly speaking, there are 2 main
theoretical approaches to ethics: [1]
deontological theories evaluate actions
in terms of duty or moral rules, and [2]
consequentialist theories evaluate
actions in terms of consequences.
Evaluating actions
 Deontology, or ‘duty-based ethics,’ is the
view that we have a duty to do what is
right (and avoid doing what is wrong) by
following some moral rules or principles.
Evaluating actions
 For example, if everyone accepts the
principle ‘You should be nice to those
people who are nice to you’, we have a
duty to follow it.
 From a deontological point of view, an
action that accords with the principle is
intrinsically right, i.e. the action is right
in itself.
Evaluating actions
 On the other hand, an action that goes
against the principle is intrinsically
wrong (i.e. wrong in itself ), and we have
a duty not to do it.
 An example of deontological ethics is
the ten commandments of the Bible.
Evaluating actions
 In stark contrast with deontology is
consequentialism, the view that actions
should be evaluated in term of their
consequences.
 Consequentialism is the view that an
action is right if it brings good
consequence; an action is wrong if it
brings bad consequence.
Evaluating actions
 From a consequentialist point of view,
actions are not right or wrong in
themselves.
 For example, an act of lying is not
intrinsically wrong; it is wrong only if it
leads to bad consequences.
The principle of utility
 Utilitarianism, as a form of
consequentialism, evaluates actions in
terms of their consequences.
 The classical formulation of
utilitarianism can be found in the
writing of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
The principle of utility
For Bentham and his
followers, morality is
concerned with
maximizing
happiness or utility.
The principle of utility
 As a social reformer, Bentham believed
that morality, as well as law and social
policy, should all have the same goal: to
serve for the good of all persons.
 The purpose of morality, as he saw it,
was to make the world a better place for
everyone.
The principle of utility
 Bentham and his followers saw their
ethical theory as providing the basis for
legal and social reforms.
 They wanted to reduce suffering and
promote happiness. They wanted to
make law serve human needs and
interests. They wanted social policy to
work for the good of all persons.
The principle of utility
 For Bentham, happiness is the only
thing that has intrinsic value, i.e. the
only thing that is good in itself.
 Other things such as money or freedom
may be good too, but only to the extent
that they produce happiness; what they
have is instrumental value, not intrinsic
value.
The principle of utility
 Money, for example, is just a means to an
end. It has no intrinsic value; it is not
good or valuable in itself. Its value is
instrumental. Sometimes you can use
money to buy happiness; sometimes you
cannot. Money has value only when you
can use it buy happiness.
The principle of utility
 From a utilitarian point of view, actions
are not right or wrong in themselves.
 An action is right if it brings more
happiness (pleasure) than unhappiness
(pain or suffering), and wrong if it
causes more unhappiness than
happiness.
The principle of utility
 The 3 main propositions of classical
utilitarianism:
 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.
The principle of utility
 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 principle of utility
 Third, in calculating the happiness or
unhappiness caused by an action, no
one’s happiness is to be counted as more
important than anyone else’s. Each
person’s welfare or well-being is equally
important. In short, everyone counts,
and everyone counts equally.
The principle of utility
 To put it all together, the most
fundamental principle of utilitarianism
is ‘the principle of utility’ (also known as
‘the greatest happiness principle’): We
ought to perform the action that
produces the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of
people.
The principle of utility
 The ‘utility’ of an action is the net
amount of pleasure (over pain) that it
causes when everyone affected by it is
taken into consideration.
 The best action, in other words, is the
one that maximizes utility.
The principle of utility
 When we evaluate actions, there is no
need to consider the motives or
intentions for which people do what
they do; it is the result or consequence
of one’s action that matters morally.
The principle of utility
 What we need to do is to measure,
calculate and compare the consequences
produced by various alternative actions.
 The morally right or best action is the
one that produces the greatest overall
positive consequences for everyone
affected by the action.
Strengths
 An attractive feature of utilitarianism is
that it has given morality a clear
purpose: to promote general well-being
or maximize overall happiness.
 The right action is the one that brings
the greatest amount of happiness to the
greatest number of people.
Strengths
 In addition, utilitarianism offers a
logical and reasonable solution to moral
decision making.
 In our daily lives we use utilitarian
reasoning all the time: We give money to
charity when seeing that it would do
more good for needy people than it
would for ourselves.
Strengths
 Utilitarianism provides a universal
standard of morality according to which
everyone’s interest and well-being must
be taken into consideration and given
equal weight.
 As such, utilitarianism embodies the
ideal of equal concern for all persons.
Strengths
 For example, from a utilitarian point of
view, policymakers are expected to make
decisions based on calculation of the
effects of policies on society as a whole.
They should not choose policies that
favor themselves or their families and
friends.
Strengths
 Utilitarianism also encourages us to
show more concern for animals.
 Because animals, like humans, can
experience pleasure and pain,
utilitarian reasoning requires that we
take animal welfare into consideration
when we decide what is the right thing to
do.
Criticisms
 One criticism of utilitarianism is that
measuring and calculating utility is by
no means an easy task.
 Is it possible or meaningful to compare,
in quantitative terms, the pleasure we
get from eating an ice-cream and the
pleasure we get from helping a friend?
Criticisms
 Different people may have different
ideas of ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure.’
 John Stuart Mill, for example, suggested
that we have to distinguish between
lower, bodily pleasures (e.g. eating,
drinking, and sexual activity) and higher
pleasures (i.e. intellectual, creative and
spiritual pleasures).
Criticisms
 Mill thought that the higher pleasures
are superior to, and thus more valuable
than, the lower ones.
 In his view, it is not the quantity
(amount), but the quality (type) of
pleasure that matters.
Criticisms
 Another objection is that it is usually
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
predict the precise results or
consequences of actions.
Criticisms
 Consider the following example:
 A child asked Alice for money to get
home. Alice bought a train ticket for the
child. Unfortunately, the train was
involved in an accident and the child was
injured. Was it morally wrong for Alice to
buy the ticket for the child?
Criticisms
 It is usually very difficult to predict the
long-term consequences of actions.
 Even if we agree with utilitarianism on
principle, the best we can do is to
perform the action that is most likely to
have the best overall results.
Criticisms
 Utilitarianism has been criticized for
only looking at the results of actions,
without taking into account the motives
of people’s actions.
 In the previous example, Alice’s action is
not wrong if intention, rather than
consequence, is seen as the most
relevant factor in evaluating her action.
Criticisms
 Some people argue that utilitarianism is
too demanding because it often requires
us to consider the interests of others.
For example, when I am about to go to
the cinema, I should ask myself if
helping the homeless in my community
would promote greater happiness for all.
Criticisms
 According to utilitarian reasoning, you
should sell your smartphone (or you
should not have bought it in the first
place) and donate the money to the Save
the Children Fund. Why? Because the
starving children in Africa need the
money to buy food more than you need
your smartphone.
Criticisms
 The implication of the principle of
utility is that in order to maximize
utility and promote the well-being of
everyone, continual self-sacrifice is
necessary, for example, by giving up
one’s time and money to help the needy.
Criticisms
 Most of us are aware that spending $1000
on food for some unknown person in
Africa would create more happiness
than spending it on entertainment for
ourselves. But most of us would not
make the utilitarian choice because we
think that our own happiness is more
important.
Criticisms
 Utilitarian reasoning often implies that
it would be right to sacrifice someone’s
rights or interest if it would maximize
happiness for everyone else.
 A good example is the invasion of
privacy of a celebrity (e.g. by placing a
hidden camera in her bathroom) for the
entertainment of the public.
Criticisms
 A friend of yours installed a hidden
camera in your bathroom without you
noticing it. He enjoys watching you take
showers but you are not aware of it.
From the utilitarian point of view, it
seems there is nothing wrong with your
friend’s actions.
Criticisms
 Now, suppose your friend goes further by
sharing the nude photos taken of you
over the internet. Do you think his
actions can be morally justified in terms
of the principle of utility?
Criticisms
 A common objection to utilitarian
reasoning is that it can be used to justify
any action that might bring happiness
for many people.
 Cheating, stealing, lying, and even
killing may all seem to be justified,
depending on whether they maximize
utility in some particular situation.
Criticisms
 If it could be shown, for example, that
publicly hanging someone who is
innocent would have the direct
beneficial effect of reducing violent
crime by acting as a deterrent, then a
utilitarian would say that hanging the
innocent person is the morally right
thing to do.
Criticisms
 As shown in the above examples, the
utilitarian justification for immoral
actions is misguided and unacceptable.
 Few of us would agree that an
individual’s rights can be violated or
sacrificed no matter how much
happiness it might bring to others.
Rule utilitarianism
 The apparent weaknesses of
utilitarianism have led some
philosophers to modify the theory.
 They suggest that not only can we apply
the principle of utility to actions, but we
can also apply the principle to moral
rules.
Rule utilitarianism
 It was John Stuart Mill who first
proposed that happiness is generally
“more successfully pursued by acting on
general rules than by measuring the
consequences of each act.”
Rule utilitarianism
 ‘Rule utilitarianism’ applies the
principle of utility to moral rules.
 The best way to promote general welfare,
according to rule utilitarianism, is to
adhere to those rules that are chosen to
maximize utility.
Rule utilitarianism
 As a general rule, punishing innocent
people produces more unhappiness
than happiness.
 Thus, in the previous example, we
should adopt the rule ‘never punish the
innocent’ because the adoption of this
rule is likely to produce the best
consequence for society as a whole.
Rule utilitarianism
 Actions that violate the rule can never be
morally justified, although there might
be particular instances in which
punishing an innocent person would
produce more happiness than
unhappiness.
Rule utilitarianism
 ‘Act utilitarianism’ argues that we should
consider the expected consequences of
various actions and choose the one that
maximizes utility.
 ‘Rule utilitarianism’ asks us to compare
the expected outcomes of following
various rules, and then select the best
rule to follow.
Rule utilitarianism
 Act utilitarianism: An act is right insofar
as it maximizes happiness in a particular
situation.
 Rule utilitarianism: An act is right
insofar as it conforms to a moral rule the
application of which will promote
general welfare.
Rule utilitarianism
 A doctor has five patients under his care.
One of the patients needs to have a heart
transplant, one needs two lungs, one
needs a liver, and the last two need
kidneys. Now into his office comes a
young healthy man who just wants to
have a flu shot.
Rule utilitarianism
 Doing a utility calculus, there is no
doubt in the doctor’s mind that he could
do more good by injecting the healthy
man with a sleep-inducing drug and
using his organs to save the patients. Is
there anything wrong with this line of
thinking?
Rule utilitarianism
 In the above example, there are at least
three reasons to oppose classical (act)
utilitarian reasoning: First, it is unjust
to sacrifice the life of an innocent
person who does not deserve to die.
Second, killing the healthy young man
clearly violates his right to life, a
universal human right.
Rule utilitarianism
 Finally, the general public will lose trust
in the medical profession if they are
aware that unsuspecting patients have
been murdered in hospitals and their
organs harvested for transplant.
Rule utilitarianism
 Given these objections, a rule utilitarian
would argue that the act of ‘killing one
to save five’ can never be morally
justified.
 Certain actions must be forbidden, even
if they might sometimes achieve good
results.
Rule utilitarianism
 All doctors, as the argument goes, must
abide by the rules laid down in the
medical code of ethics which strictly
prohibit the removal or transplant of
organs without patients’ consent.
Rule utilitarianism
 Broadly speaking, a ‘rule’ can be a law, a
social norm, a custom or convention, a
regulation, or a professional code of
ethics.
 The medical code of ethics is a good
example of applying rule utilitarian
reasoning to practical issues.
Rule utilitarianism
 For rule utilitarianism to work, the rule
that has been chosen must be a clearly
defined rule of action that can be
followed consistently by all members of
a society, group or profession.
 If following the rule has the best overall
consequence for everyone, it is a rule
that must be followed at all times.
Rule utilitarianism
 In August 1945, the US Air Force made
history by dropping atomic bombs on
the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. These two bombs killed nearly
200,000 civilians and reduced both cities
to rubble. Japan surrendered
immediately on seeing the incredible
devastation caused by those bombs.
Rule utilitarianism
 Can we say, in hindsight, that sacrificing
civilian lives can be justified on
utilitarian grounds? Does the end
(stopping the world war) justify the
means (murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians)?
Rule utilitarianism
 Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki can be justified from the
standpoint of rule utilitarianism? Why
or why not?
Rule utilitarianism
 What is the most heavily bombed
country in all of human history?
 Let’s watch this video to find out!