PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral Issues Lec. 14 Recapping... 3 main points of Utilitarianism: Actions are judged right or wrong solely on the basis of.

PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral IssuesLec. 14

Recapping...3 main points of Utilitarianism: Actions are judged right or wrong solely on

the basis of their consequences

The only thing that counts is the amount of happiness or unhappiness produced by an action (all else is irrelevant)

Each person’s happiness counts the same

Jane Adams The height of

immorality is to make an exception of myself.

8.2 Is Pleasure All That Matters?

J. S. Mill:

“...happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end: all other things being desirable as a means to an end.”

But what is ‘happiness’?

But...what is happiness?

The classical answer....

Happiness is pleasure (mental states that feel good)

Hedonism: pleasure is the one ultimate good; pain the one ultimate evil


The classical answer....

Happiness is pleasure (mental states that feel good)

Hedonism: pleasure is the one ultimate good; pain the one ultimate evil


Bentham’s answer:

“Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.”

But...what is happiness? Bentham’s answer:









J. S. Mill’s correction:

He added the quality of pleasures to the quantity

He advocated civilized pleasures (better a Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied...)




He advocated civilized pleasures (better a Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied)




He advocated civilized pleasures (better a Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied)

But...what is happiness? Pleasure is a response

to outside stimuli Happiness is an overall

judgment about your situation

Abraham Lincoln: “Most folks are about ashappy as they make up their minds to be.”

Pleasure requires the outside world... Happiness is an inside job...

○ Is that true?

The Dream of Utilitarianism:Bringing Scientific Certainty to EthicsThe Dream of Utilitarianism:Bringing Scientific Certainty to Ethics

04/20/23 ©Lawrence M. Hinman 18

Part Two.

Standards of Utility: A History of

Utilitarianism

(after Lawrence Hinman)


Intrinsic Value Many things have instrumental value, that is, they have

value as means to an end. However, there must be some things which are not

merely instrumental, but have value in themselves. This is what we call intrinsic value.

What has intrinsic value? Four principal candidates: Pleasure

○ Jeremy Bentham Happiness

○ John Stuart Mill Ideals

○ G. E. Moore Preferences

○ Kenneth Arrow and Peter Singer


Jeremy Bentham1748-1832

Bentham believed that we should try to increase the overall amount of pleasure in the world.


Pleasure

Definition: The enjoyable feeling we experience when astate of deprivation is replaced by fulfillment. Advantages

Easy to quantifyShort durationBodily

CriticismsCame to be known as “the pig’s philosophy” Ignores higher valuesCould justify living on a pleasure machine


John Stuart Mill1806-1873

Bentham’s godson Believed that

happiness, not pleasure, should be the standard of utility.


Happiness Advantages

A higher standard, more specific to humansAbout realization of goals

DisadvantagesMore difficult to measureCompeting conceptions of

happiness


G. E. Moore 1873-1958

Moore suggested that we should strive to maximize ideal values such as freedom, knowledge, justice, and beauty.

Advantages:The world may not be a better place with more pleasure in

it, but it certainly will be a better place with more freedom, more knowledge, more justice, and more beauty.

Criticisms:Moore’s candidates for intrinsic good remain difficult to

quantify.

Kenneth Arrowand Peter Singer what has intrinsic value is

preference satisfaction.

Advantages:it lets people choose for

themselves what has intrinsic value. It simply defines intrinsic value as whatever satisfies an agent’s preferences.

It is elegant and pluralistic.


My view is that the preferences we should satisfy, other things being equal, are those that people would hold...

if they were fully informed, reflective, and vividly aware of the consequences of satisfying their preferences.


The Utilitarian Calculus Math and ethics

finally merge: all consequences must be measured and weighed.

Units of measurement:Hedons: positiveDolors: negative


What do we calculate? Hedons/dolors may be defined in terms of

Pleasure Happiness Ideals Preferences

For any given action, we must calculate: How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well as

positively (hedons) How intensely they will be affected Similar calculations for all available alternatives Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of

utility (hedons minus dolors)


Example: Debating the school lunch program

Utilitarians would have to calculate:Benefits○ Increased nutrition for x number of children○ Increased performance, greater long-range chances of success○ Incidental benefits to contractors, etc.

Costs○ Cost to each taxpayer○ Contrast with other programs that could have been funded and

with lower taxes (no program)Multiply each factor by ○ Number of individuals affected○ Intensity of effects


How much can we quantify? Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to

quantify than happiness or ideals Two distinct issues:

Can everything be quantified?○ Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life

(love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things (productivity, material goods) may get emphasized precisely because they are quantifiable.

○ The danger: if it can’t be counted, it doesn’t count. Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

○ Are a fine dinner and a good night’s sleep commensurable? Can one be traded or substituted for the other?


“…the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”

Utilitarianism doesn’t always have a cold and calculating face—we perform utilitarian calculations in everyday life.

8.3: Are Consequences all that Matter?

8.3: Are Consequences all that Matter?

Peeping Tom...

Are Consequences all that Matter?

Rachels says NO...there must be other considerations....

Justice Rights The Past

8.4: Should we be equally concerned for everyone?

Utilitarianism may be...

Too demanding...who among us would give up all of our ‘luxuries’ to

help the far-away poor?

Too disruptive of our personal relationships...who among us doesn’t put family first?

8.4: Should we be equally concerned for everyone? Maintenance of personal relations requires

partiality. Utilitarianism requires impartiality.

8.5: Defending Utilitarianism

1. Denying that the consequences would be good...



2. Substituting rule-utilitarianism for (old fashioned) act-utilitarianism...


Comparing Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianismLooks at the consequences of each individual act

and calculates utility each time the act is performed.

Rule utilitarianismLooks at the consequences of having everyone

follow a particular rule and calculates the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule.


Comparing Act and Rule Utilitarianism

But…

If you can change the rules, it’s no longer rule-utilitarianism.

If you can’t change the rules, it’s no longer utilitarianism.

A bit of a bind, no?



2. Substituting rule-utilitarianism for (old fashioned) act-utilitarianism...

3. So called “Common Sense” can be very wrong...

That Third Defence....Common sense is wrong – tough luck

1. All values have a utilitarian basis...

2. Our gut reactions can’t be trusted in exceptional cases...

3. We should focus on all the consequences...

Summing up: Utilitarian Values

The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place.

Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions

We should do whatever will bring the most benefit (i.e., intrinsic value) to all of humanity.

Summing up: What's significant Consequences matter: the happiness or

unhappiness that result from our actions is a morally relevant consideration.

The emphasis on impartiality must be central to any viable morality.

Moral intuitions about cases are not infallible.

Summing up: What might be wrong

Consequences are not all that matter.

Considerations of rights and justice matter in ways the Utilitarian can't account for.


The Dream of Utilitarianism:Scientific Certainty in Ethics

If we can agree that the purpose of morality is to make the world a better place…

and…..

If we can scientifically assess various possible courses of action to determine which will have the greatest positive effect on the world…

Then…

We can provide a ‘scientific’ answer to the question of what we ought to do.

Ursula K. LeGuin

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas….

What is the nature of the ethical problem here? How is it linked to the theories we have been looking at in class?

In what way do we share the dilemma of the people of Omelas in our current economic and political world?

Would it be worth the life of one innocent child to free the world from, say, AIDS?

What is a fair price to pay for Utopia?

"What shall we do and how shall we live? According to Plato and Tolstoy and other reliable observers, this is our most important question! We should not trust any philosophy that makes this question appear foolish."

[Peter Singer, The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory, 94 Yale L. J. 1, 3 (1984)]

Attendance question: Omelas What would you do?

PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral Issues Lec. 14 Recapping... 3 main points of Utilitarianism: Actions are judged right or wrong solely on the basis of.

Documents

persons happiness

equal value

outside stimuli happiness

instrumental value

benthams answer

game of push

sciences of music

civilized pleasures