Transcript Hedonistic consequentialism

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
PHIL 102, UBC
Summer 2015
Christina Hendricks
Except parts noted otherwise, this presentation is licensed CC-BY 4.0
John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873, England)
Mill “had a lifelong
goal of reforming the
world in the interest
of human wellbeing”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill
/
When asking what is right/wrong
morally, what to evaluate?
Person
• Intention
• Motive
• Habitual
disposition
to act in
some ways
Action
• What kind of
act is it?
• What was
actually
done?
Consequences
• What results
from the
action?
Consequentialism
“whether an act is morally right
depends only on consequences (as
opposed to the …intrinsic nature of the
act or anything that happens before the
act).”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on consequentialism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti
Hedonistic consequentialism
• Value hedonism: “all and only pleasure is
intrinsically valuable and all and only pain
is intrinsically disvaluable.”
-- Internet Encycl. of Philo:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/#SH1b
• Hedonistic consequentialism:
determine the moral value of
consequences, and therefore of acts, by
how much pleasure/pain produced
Some moral scenarios
A few different moral scenarios, to
encourage you to think about what might be
needed to say an action is morally right or
wrong…
http://is.gd/PHIL102Mill
Utilitarianism, Chpt 1
“There ought either to be some one
fundamental principle or law, at the root of
all morality, or if there be several, there
should be a determinate order of
precedence among them…” (1).
What is that principle, for Mill?
Simplified overview of Mill’s
Utilitarianism
We can judge the
moral value of
actions by the
degree of
happiness they
tend to produce
for the sentient
creatures involved
Greatest Happiness Principle
“actions are [morally] right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness, [morally]
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness” (2).
• “happiness” is defined in terms of
pleasure and reduction or absence of
pain
Support for GHP
(more in Chpt. IV)
• “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are
the only things desirable as ends” (2)
• Mill on the highest good (5)
• The “end of human action is necessarily
also the standard of morality” (5)
Pleasure,
reduction
of pain
(self & others)
Pleasure as only intrinsic value (p. 2, & Chpt 4)
Use happiness, defined in terms of pleasure, to
evaluate consequences of acts
Judge acts with Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
Actual
consequences
the act had?
What was
intended as
consequence?
Usual
consequences
for this kind of
act?
Consequences for whom?
• Sentient beings (5)
• Not the whole world for all actions
(6)
• Impartiality
(5)
Different kinds of pleasures
Mill distinguishes between different
kinds of pleasures: what kinds, and
why does he make this distinction?
How do we know pleasures differ in
kind, not just quantity? (3-4)
Even if you could get the sensual pleasures
nearly or fully satisfied, a life with the capacity
for intellectual pleasures but with less of them
would still be preferable.
Sensual only (pig and fool)
Sensual & intellectual
(human & Socrates)
Role of motive
Motive doesn’t matter to the morality of
actions (6)
Still, we should try
to get people to
want to promote
general happiness
(5-6)
Do we have to calculate
consequences each time we act?
• No; we can use “subordinate
principles” from the “fundamental
principle” (GHP) (9)
• These are drawn from human
experience of which kinds of actions
tend to promote more/less pleasure &
pain (8)
Pleasure as only intrinsic value
Use happiness, defined in terms of
pleasure, to evaluate conseq. of acts
Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
GHP used to determine subordinate
rules, decide between them if they
conflict re: an action
Subordinate principles (moral rules) (8-9)
Act R/W?
Act R/W?
Act R/W?
Act R/W?
Chpt V: Utilitarianism & Justice
Two questions addressed here:
1. What differentiates justice from the rest
of morality?
2. Would utilitarianism
allow people to act
unjustly if that would
promote more
happiness in a
group overall?
Question 1: Moral categories
Morally
obligatory/required
What must be done
Morally
prohibited
What must not be done
Morally
permissible/optional
What can be done
Supererogatory
praiseworthy but
optional
Morality/duty
• What promotes
general happiness,
and
• What people
should be
compelled to do or
avoid (19)
o How decide what
actions should be
compelled?
Prudence/expedienc
e
• What promotes
happiness, but
people should not
be compelled to do
or avoid (19)
o Though we can try
to persuade
• Examples?
Morality
Justice
• Duties of perfect
obligation (20)
• Connected to one or
more rights
o How determine what
Rest of morality
• Duties of imperfect
obligation (20)
• Not connected to
rights
counts as a right?
• Justice/rights focus
on security: “the most
vital of all interests”
(21)
• Example: generosity
Must we maximize happiness?
For Mill, is it morally required to produce as
much happiness as possible, in all actions?
No, according
to other writings
See also p. 20
Refined way of defining acts as
morally right/wrong
What produces
general happiness
(GHP)
What we should
compel people to
do or avoid
MORALITY
Question 2:
Would utilitarianism allow people to act
unjustly if that would promote more
happiness in a group overall?
Still…
Are there exceptions to rules of justice?
• Yes and no… (22)