U T I L I T A R I A N I S M
The Greatest
Happiness Principle: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness” –John Stuart Mill Happiness = pleasure, and the absence of pain Unhappiness = pain, and the absence of pleasure Happiness is the
only thing that has intrinsic value “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things
desirable as ends...all desirable things are desirable either for
the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and
the prevention of pain.”
The Basic Idea of
Utilitarianism
Background on
Utilitarianism English philosophers
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) were the leading proponents
of what is now called “classic utilitarianism”. They supported suffrage for women and those without property,
and the abolition of slavery. Utilitarians argued that criminals ought to be reformed and not merely punished (although Mill did
support capital punishment as a
deterrent). Bentham spoke out against cruelty to animals. Mill was a strong supporter of meritocracy.
The Utilitarians were social reformers
Proponents emphasized that utilitarianism was
an egalitarian doctrine.
Everyone’s happiness counts equally.
The science of the
Enlightenment featured theories with a very small number of general laws and vast explanatory
power. Newton’s laws, for example, seemed able to account for all of the
motion in the universe.
Utilitarianism fit right in: it was an ethical theory compatible with science and
featuring a single law of morality with great
explanatory power. It was a sort of
science of morality.
Utilitarianism
and the Enlightenment
Utilitarianism
is a form of consequentialism Consequentialism: Whether
an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its
consequences. An action is right if
it brings about the best outcome of the
choices available. Otherwise it is
wrong. The Good: Things
(goals, states of affairs) that are worth pursuing and promoting. The Right: the
moral rightness (or wrongness) of actions and policies. Consequentialists say
that actions are Right when they maximize
the Good. Rhetorical
argument: How could it be wrong to
do what produces the most good?
Wouldn’t it be irrational to insist that we ought to choose the
lesser good in any situation? Utilitarianism
defines the Good as pleasure without pain. So, according to Utilitarianism, our one moral
duty is to
Maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Utilitarianism
= Hedonism? Objection: There is more to life
than pleasure; knowledge, virtue and other things are important too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only
of swine. Reply: Utilitarianism
requires that we consider everyone’s pleasure, not just our
own. Also, says Mill, there is more to life than physical
pleasure. Pleasures of the
“higher faculties” (including intellectual pleasures inaccessible to lower
animals) are of higher quality than physical pleasures (and thus count for
more). Mill: "It is
better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if
the fool, or the pig, are of adifferent opinion, it is only because they only know
their own side of the question".
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
Is Utilitarianism
too Demanding? Objection: Utilitarianism
implies that we should always act in order to maximize
happiness; this is too strict a requirement. It is asking too much of people to
be always motivated to promote the general happiness. Mill’s
Reply: “...no system of
ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a
feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are
done from other motives, and rightly so...the motive has nothing to do with
the morality of the action...the great majority of good actions are intended
not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of
the world is made up.” Many people have questioned
whether this reply is adequate.
Regardless of motivation,
Utilitarianism does require that people always act to maximize overall happiness.
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
Not enough time? Objection: In the real world, we
don’t have the time to calculate the effects of our actions on the general
happiness. Therefore,
utilitarianism is useless. Mill’s
Reply: “There has been
ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human
species. during all that time,
mankind have been learning by experience
...the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have
thus come down are the rules of morality...” In other
words, we don’t need to do direct utility calculations in most cases; we can
apply subordinate rules, which are rules of thumb for maximizing happiness.
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
Subordinate Rules Examples: Keep your
promises Don’t cheat Don’t steal Subordinate rules are
what we would normally call “commonsense morality”. According to Mill,
these are rules that tend to promote happiness, so we should internalize
them as good rules to follow. They have been
learned through the experience of many generations. But subordinate rules
are just that: subordinate. If it
is clear that breaking a subordinate rule
would result in much more happiness than following it, then you should break it.
Obey the
law
In some cases it may be
necessary to do a direct utility calculation: When
you are in an unusual situation that the rules don’t cover. When the subordinate rules
conflict. When you are deciding which
rules to adopt or teach. Euthanasia
or “mercy killing” (the killing of an innocent in order to end pointless
suffering) is a good example of something that violates a subordinate
rule (Don’t
kill innocents)
but can be justified on utilitarian grounds
in unusual circumstances.
Breaking Subordinate Rules
Predicting the
Future Objection: Utilitarianism requires that we know what the
consequences of our actions will be, but this is
impossible. We can’t predict the
future. Reply: It’s true that we can’t predict the future
with certainty. So, we should perform the action that we have most reason to
believe will bring about the best consequences of the alternatives available. Example: You
need $2000 to pay some medical bills.
To get the extra $, you can either (a) borrow
some money now, and pay it back later by working extra hours, or (b) spend
all of your money on lottery tickets and hope that you win big. It’s possible that you will win the
lottery, but this isn’t likely.
Given the probabilities, it is
more reasonable to believe that borrowing money will bring more happiness.
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
Individual Rights Objection: Just because something makes people happy doesn’t make it
right. Specifically, it is wrong to harm
certain individuals in order to make other
people happy. Suppose that Jack is
in the hospital for routine tests, and there are people there who need vital organs
right away. A doctor has the
opportunity to kill Jack and make his
death look natural. It would
maximize happiness to cut Jack up and give his
heart to one patient, his liver to another, his kidneys to still others, and so
on. (We are supposing that the
organs are good matches, and the other
patients will die if they don’t get them).
Utilitarianism seems to imply that the doctor should kill Jack for his
organs. But that would be morally wrong.
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
A Thought experiment: The Case
of the Inhospitable Hospital
Thought Experiments Scientific
Experimentation. Scientists create situations in
laboratories in order to test
their theories. They want to find
out what would happen when certain conditions
hold—if what actually happens under those conditions agrees with what
their theory predicts will happen, then the theory is confirmed. Otherwise, the
theory is falsified. A thought experiment is a hypothetical situation that we
create in our minds in order to
test a philosophical theory. The
hypothetical situation should be something
that could actually happen (and in many cases, it is something that has actually happened, or will happen in
the future). So that we can test
the theory,
the theory must have an implication about what would be true if the hypothetical
situation were real. We can then
compare this implication to our own
beliefs about the thought experiment.
If the implication of the theory agrees with our
own beliefs, then the theory is confirmed (to some extent). If it does not, then
we must ask ourselves, “Which is wrong:
the theory or my beliefs?” It is
reasonable to stick with our beliefs until the evidence is against them. Important
Note: It doesn’t matter whether the
hypothetical situation is likely to happen. If a theory has a false
implication about something that could happen, then the
theory is wrong (on that point, at least).
More examples
involving Individual Rights Exploitation: The ancient
Romans used slaves as gladiators, forcing them to fight to the death
for entertainment. Is it right to
force a small number of people to be
gladiators if it gives millions of people pleasure? Would it be morally acceptable to
pay people to fight to the death? Ruthlessness:
President Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, knowing that many thousands of non-combatants would be killed, in
order to save more lives by ending the war. Assume that the
decision did result in fewer lives lost.
Was it morally right? Paternalism: Suppose
that banning certain kinds of fast food and snack foods would result in
millions of people living longer, healthier lives. Would such a ban be
morally justified?
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
Utilitarian
Responses Denial: Examples like The Inhospitable Hospital
often involve some error of calculation, or some failure to take all the consequences into
account. For example, what would happen to the ability of that hospital to
deliver adequate health care should word get out that a healthy person has been cut up for his or her organs? But: The examples
don’t always involve mistakes. “Biting the Bullet”: If there is no error in
calculation and all of the consequences have been taken
into account, but there is still a discrepancy between what utilitarianism
implies and what commonsense morality tells us, then so much the worse for
commonsense morality. Commonsense morality gives
us good rules of thumb, but they are subordinate to the Greatest
Happiness Principle.
OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARINISM
The Doctrine of Negative Responsibility 1. We are responsible for the
foreseeable consequences of the choices we make. 2. Sometimes we choose to act, and sometimes
we choose not to. Either way, we are making a choice that has
consequences. __________________________________________________________ 3. Therefore, we
are just as responsible for the foreseeable consequences that we fail to
prevent as for those that we bring about directly. This means that “I didn’t do it” is
not necessarily a good defense. The best defense is “I couldn’t
have prevented it.”
Negative Responsibility? Hostage Dilemma Thought Experiment: Terrorists are
holding you and fifty other people as hostages inside a building. The only exit has
been blocked and three of the hostages have been strapped to the door, attached to
explosives. The terrorist leader
offers you a choice. Either (i) you can activate a detonator that will blow up the exit, killing
the three hostages strapped to it but
allowing the others to escape, or (ii) you can decline and the terrorists will kill everyone. You believe (and have
good reason to believe) that the terrorist leader is sincere. What should you do? Some people would
argue that: “It is
terrible that everyone will be killed, but I have no right to kill anyone myself.
I am responsible for my own actions, the terrorist is responsible
for his.
If he kills everyone, then that is his evil, not mine. But if I activate the detonator, then I will have committed an
act of evil. Therefore, I am
morally obligated to take option (ii).” Rule Utilitarianism Rule
Utilitarianism is an option
for those who believe that there are absolute prohibitions on certain types of actions but do not want to
give up on utilitarianism
completely. According to RU, the
principle of utility is a guide for choosing rules,
not individual acts. Rule
Utilitarianism: An action or policy is morally right if
and only if it is consistent with the
set of rules (moral code) that would maximize happiness, if generally followed. At first, RU seems to be a good
response to make in the face of the involuntary organ donor case and other
similar cases. It seems less
plausible, though, when we consider cases where
there is an action that would result in dramatically greater utility than would
result from following the rule. For example, imagine a case involving a
million hostages instead of fifty.
In cases like this, RU strikes many as irrational
rule worship. It requires us to
follow the rules even when doing so defeats the
purpose of having them.
What does utilitarianism imply?
What do you think?
Group Exercise Get
into groups of three members.
Each group will be responsible for coming up with a
situation (either real or imagined) in which utilitarianism has an
implication that
goes against commonsense morality.
You may not use any of the situations already
discussed, although you may come up with a situation that is similar. The
situation must involve a person who has to make a choice between two main alternatives,
each of which has very different consequences. After
coming up with your example and discussing it as a group, assign each member
to one of the following tasks: A. Describe the situation in writing and
state the two alternatives that must be chosen
between. State which
alternative utilitarianism seems to favor and why. B. State the commonsense moral principle that
utilitarianism appears to conflict with. Write a response on behalf of
utilitarianism, using the Denial strategy. (Here you are trying to convince someone
that utilitarianism actually agrees with commonsense
morality, despite appearances to the contrary). C. Write another response on behalf of
utilitarianism using the “biting the bullet” strategy. (Here you are trying to convince someone that utilitarianism
really does give us the right answer, and that
commonsense morality is wrong on this point). Each
member will present their portion of the assignment to the class, and then turn what they wrote for credit.