Transcript utilitarianism

UTILITARIANISM
Some influential utilitarians






Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900)
G. E. Moore (1873-1958)
J. J. C. Smart (1920-2012)
Peter Singer (1946- )
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is the view that the moral quality
of an act depends on the consequences of that act.
By the “moral quality of an action” I mean the
degree/extent to which it is morally right or wrong.
Consequentialism
Consequentialists begin with an account of what’s
good—a theory of value—and then use that account
to define what’s right.
Value is definitionally prior to moral rules/principles:
the principles/rules that determine right and wrong
are defined by reference to goodness.
Roughly: acts are right to the extent that they have
good consequences.
Act vs. Rule Consequentialism
Act consequentialism states that the rightness of an
act is determined by the consequences of that action.
Rule consequentialism states that the rightness of an
act is determined by its conformity (or lack thereof) to
a set of rules which are justified in virtue of their
consequences.
Note that Smart uses different terminology. He
distinguishes extreme vs. restricted forms of
consequentialism.
Maximization
In its most common form, consequentialism defines
right action in terms of best consequences.
Standard rule consequentialism: the right action is
the action which conforms to the optimific rules (i.e. the
rules which have the best consequences overall).
Standard act consequentialism: the right action is
that action (among available options) which is itself
optimific (has the best consequences overall).
Best consequences = highest net value.
Assessment vs. decision procedure
Consequentialism, as we understand it here, is a theory
about what makes an act right or wrong and about
the proper form of moral argument/reasoning.
It is not a view about how we should go about deciding
how to act.
Assessment vs. decision procedure
Some consequentialists explicitly reject the idea that
we ought always to reflect on consequences in
deciding what to do. E.g. sustained deliberation
about consequences seems out of place
—in emergencies
—in trivial matters (e.g. which glass to put in the
dishwasher first)
—in cases where the answer is crystal clear (e.g.
whether to remove a harmful spider from my wife’s
chair).
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism according
to which goodness is understood in terms of happiness.
Utilitarians tend to adopt one of the first two theories
of happiness listed below:
(1) hedonism (classic utilitarianism)
(2) desire-satisfaction theory (preference
utilitarianism)
(3) objective-list theory (ideal utilitarianism)
Egalitarianism and impartiality
The consequentialist criterion of moral correctness is
egalitarian and impartial.
*How so?
Egalitarianism and impartiality
The best consequences are determined by how the
act/rule affects those with interests. Each creature
with interests* matters equally (egalitarianism), and
favoritism/bias has no place in measuring the moral
worth of an action (impartiality).
*Some versions of utilitarianism have the striking
consequence that non-human animals have the same
moral standing as humans.
A standard objection to rule
consequentialism
Suppose conformity to a rule R leads to optimific results 99%
of the time, but in circumstances C it leads to suboptimific
results. Is it the right thing to conform to R in C? Two ways to
go:
Yes, conform to R. But then we face Smart’s objection: “Is it not
to erect R into a sort of idol if we keep it when breaking it will
prevent, say, some avoidable misery? Is not this a form of
superstitious rule-worship (easily explicable psychologically)
and not the rational thought of a philosopher?”
Yes, conform to R but R has built-in exceptions for such cases.
But then we worry that the view has just collapsed into act
consequentialism, and isn’t a rival theory at all.
Pop quiz on utilitarianism
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Why might punishment (understood as imposing harm)
sometimes be morally justified?
Will the correct action always have a positive net result?
Do utilitarians recognize a ‘right to life’?
Which beings have a moral standing?
Why do most utilitarians prefer act over rule utilitarianism?
Could an action be wrong even if no one is harmed as a
result?
Should you always attempt to calculate potential
consequences before acting?
Smart quotes
“…as a philosopher I conceive of ethics as the study of
how it would be most rational to act. If my opponent
wishes to restrict the word “morality” to a narrower use he
can have the word. The fundamental question is the
question of rationality of action in general.”
“The [act] utilitarian does not appeal to artificial feelings,
but only to our feelings of benevolence, and what better
feelings can there be to appeal to? Admittedly, we can
have a pro-attitude to anything, even to rules, but such
artificially begotten pro-attitudes smack of superstition.
Let us get down to realities, human happiness and misery,
and make these the objects of our pro-attitudes and antiattitudes.”
Morality as benevolence made rational
The utilitarian can offer a compelling, naturalistic
picture of what morality is all about.
 Morality has its ultimate source in benevolence, our
pro-attitude towards happiness.
 Rational reflection reveals that well-being matters
equally in all cases. No rational basis for limiting
one’s concern. (egalitarianism and impartiality)
 Rational reflection reveals that more happiness is
better than less. (maximization)
Assessing act consequentialism
Sometimes we (as a society) think like consequentialists
in deciding what is right or wrong. For example, we
think an act is morally required precisely because it
will lead to an increase in overall welfare even though
it involves a genuine disadvantage to the few.
*Examples?
Assessing act consequentialism
In other cases consequentialism seems—at least on
first glance—to be in tension with our everyday moral
thinking. Come up with specific examples that present
hard cases for the consequentialist to deal with, and
ask yourself how the consequentialist might best
respond to these cases.
Hard cases for consequentialists
1. Think of cases where maximizing overall welfare would seem to involve the
violation of what we take to be human rights or the demands of justice.
2. Think of cases where maximizing overall welfare would require us to breach
what seem to be binding moral obligations and rules (e.g., to break promises,
to fail to repay loans, etc.).
3. Think of actions done with bad intentions (and so seemingly morally
reprehensible) that happen to lead to the greatest amount of well-being (for
reasons which are unforeseen).
4. Think of actions done with good intentions (and so seemingly morally
permissible) that happen to lead to suboptimific results (for reasons
unforeseen).
5. Think of cases where consequentialism has too high a standard of
impartiality, cases where it doesn’t leave much room for what seems to be
morally permissible partiality towards loved ones, close associates, etc.
6. Consequentialism seems to imply that it is wrong not to be an individual
martyr. Think of cases where consequentialism seems too demanding in this
respect.