Utilitarianism

1. Utilitarianism A Consequentialist Theory Answer to the fundamental philosophical question: What is the right-making or wrong-making characteristic of acts and other morally relevant things? What constitutes moral good? The morally good things generate some important set of benefits for relevant entities according to a distribution scheme which is deemed proper.

2. Utilitarianism Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed to be morally good, bad etc ? Q2: Which benefits are considered important in picking out the good things. What do the “things” in Q1 aim to generate? Q3: Which possible distribution is proper? Q4: Which entities are morally relevant? Such theories are differentiated from one another by their answers to four questions having to do with elements of the definition: “things” ‘benefits’ ‘distribution’ ‘entities’

3. Utilitarianism Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed to be morally good, bad etc ? Possible answers: Acts, Rules, Standard Operating Procedures, Practices, Character traits, Ideals Q2: Which benefits are considered important in picking out the good things? What do the “things” in Q1 aim to generate? Possible answers: pleasures, preference satisfactions, human flourishing, material wealth, happiness,.. Q3: Which possible distribution is proper? Possible answers: the greatest overall amount to self, society, the highest average over a group or over an individual’s lifetime, the greatest amount to the greatest number. Q4: Which entities are morally relevant? Possible answers: self, all humans, all sentient creatures (capable of experiencing pains and pleasures) Such theories are differentiated from one another by their answers to four questions having to do with elements of the definition: “things” ‘benefits’ ‘distribution’ ‘entities’

4. Benefits that count (the basic units of the theory!) Aspects of Human Flourishing Pleasures Ayn Rand’s Ethical Egoism (REE) (Objectivism) Hedonistic Ethical Egoism (HEE) Consequentialist Theories Self Bentham’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism (HU) Mill’s Utilitarianism (MU) Society Entity that need considering

5. Consequentialist Theories Ethical Egoism Ethical Egoism: the morally correct acts, practices or character traits for any given individual are those that generate the valued benefits (whatever they may be) according to the favored distribution (highest overall amount, or average amount over a lifetime, for example) for that individual. Nutshell: The morally correct course of action is always to act in the interest of your own happiness HEE REE Ayn Rand HU MU

6. Consequentialist Theories Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham in a Box Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts, practices or character traits for any given individual are those that generate the valued benefits (whatever they may be) according to the favored distribution (highest overall amount or average amount, for example) for society as a whole. Nutshell: The morally correct course of action is always to act in the interest of society’s general happiness. J.S. Mill Caricature The basic thing that distinguishes utilitarianism from other forms of consequentialism is its focus on society as a whole: A general statement of the utilitarian position is this: The morally correct courses of action, rules, standard operating procedures or character traits, from among all the alternatives, are those that generate the greatest net benefit for the greatest number of individuals in society. HEE REE HU MU

7. “Approval” or “Conventionalist” Theories of Ethical Properties Utilitarianism Different versions of utilitarian thought focus on the social impact of individual acts, rules or practices, even character traits and ideals (such as that of liberty). John Stuart Mill concerns himself with each of these and combines them, creating a powerful utilitarian theory which revolves around the notion of human flourishing or happiness (Greek term: εὐδαιμονία, which we will run into again later in the course). For purposes of discussion, it is useful to differentiate two forms of Utilitarianism. We do this keeping in mind that they actually are two aspects of utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts, practices or character traits for any given individual are those that generate the valued benefits (whatever they may be) according to the favored distribution (highest overall amount or average amount, for example) for society as a whole. Nutshell: The morally correct course of action is always to act in the interest of society’s general happiness.

8. Utilitarianism To do this, it is necessary to tell a story..

9. Utilitarianism Five friends are spelunking in a newly discovered cave. It happens to be located on the Eastern Seaboard, and has been created over many years by the actions of the tides. As the five explore inside, the entrance they used, adjacent to the beach, is inundated by the incoming high tide. This is one of those areas where the low tide will travel over a half mile out, but high tide comes rushing in with a vengeance. They see there is no way to escape via the entrance. They scramble around looking for options. There is an opening at the top of the cave. They find a way up, as the waters furiously rise. They are racing the incoming tide. They make it to the top, a sort of natural ledge allows them to make their way to the opening in the roof of the cave. Hastily, they begin to make their way out. Fred is closest, so he goes to lift himself up, and out. As he lifts his body up through the hole, he becomes very securely lodged. He tries to move. The others push on him, hoping to move him completely through. He doesn’t budge. In the panic, he had not noticed he had his backpack on. It is the root of the problem. The others try to pull it out. They cannot cut it away, for Fred has most of the tools in his backpack. Panic sets in. Barney yells “what d’ we do now?” The water is upon them.

10. Utilitarianism Fred can hear what is going on, and yells at Barney to calm down. Barney calms himself. “Look, if we dynamite our way outa’ here, we can go to the topside of the cave, and pull Fred out.” Fred yells approval. Wilma likes the idea. “Good. But, we need the dynamite and the detonator.” She usually carried the detonator, having designed it herself from an old car entry remote. She riffles quickly through her pockets, “Got it!” “Great. I have the dynamite,” Barney says as he quickly takes off his backpack and unzips it. He looks, fumbles around and digs furiously through it, to no avail. “Damn it. We’re screwed.” Fred meanwhile has realized he has the dynamite in his backpack. As the thought hits him, he stops struggling against the grip of the exit. At the same time, an eerie quiet descends upon the group still in the cave. He knows. They know. They know he knows. He knows they know. Finally, he hears Wilma: “Fred? Fred? Can you hear me? We can save ourselves, but..” She cannot bring herself to say it. Barney plaintively adds “We won’t do it unless you say so. Only if you say so Fred. Please..hurry. We’re running out of time.

11. Utilitarianism • Fred feels the moral pull, but is afraid for his life. He is ashamed but he simply says “Please, for God’s sake don’t. Forgive me.” • The group look at each other, look at Fred’s suspended lower half, and down at the furious waters. They have no more than another minute. • What should they do? • Let’s take a vote on the case. You have two, and only two options. • Use the detonator, blow Fred up. This will allow the four to escape. Obviously, Fred will not be so lucky. • Let Nature take its course. Fred will survive, will eventually be able to wriggle free of the exit. Wilma, Barney and the others will perish. And the vote says..

12. Utilitarianism YES NO Blow Up Fred Let Nature take its course And have you all vote!

13. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism YES NO And have you all vote! Vote Results?

14. Utilitarianism If you primarily focus on: How individual acts or options impact overall social happiness you are an “Act Utilitarian” Act Utilitarianism Simply Stated: Your moral obligation in any given situation is to take the action open to you that will bring about the greatest net balance of happiness for the greatest number. This is the “utilitarian intuition” that seems to drive the vote results in the Cave Case.

15. Utilitarianism Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.] 1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of action do I have? 2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits) For each of the identified options ask: What are the benefits generated by this course of action? What are the harms generated by this course of action? Be sure to take account of all individuals affected by the option, and count each person’s harms and benefits equally. Give no individual’s benefits or harms greater weight (including your own.) Why? Intuitively, we feel moral deliberation should be impartial. We blame folks for unduly considering themselves. This equal weighting is the Utilitarian’s way to incorporate this common moral intuition.

16. Utilitarianism Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.] 1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of action do I have? 2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits) For each of the identified options ask: What are the benefits generated by this course of action? What are the harms generated by this course of action? 3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one possible way to do this: A. Do your best to assign positive values for benefits you have determined. In this case, preservation of life, a vital benefit, is obviously paramount. But important too are various benefits that accrue because the individuals involved survive. You should count all these. B. Do your best to assign negative values for harms you have determined.In this case, death is obviously the paramount harm. But important too, are the various harms that accrue due to the loss of the individuals involved.You should count all these. .

17. Utilitarianism Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.] 1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of action do I have? 2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits) For each of the identified options ask: What are the benefits generated by this course of action? What are the harms generated by this course of action? 3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one possible way to do this: 4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results by the number of people that will be affected by your choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will prevent a several people from dying.

18. Utilitarianism Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.] 1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of action do I have? 2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits) For each of the identified options ask: What are the benefits generated by this course of action? What are the harms generated by this course of action? 3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one possible way to do this: 4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results by the number of people that will be affected by your choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will prevent a several people from dying. Blow up Fred Save four lives +150 x 4 = +600 Lose one life -150 x 1 = -150 Calculus Result = +450 Let Nature take its course Lose four lives -150 x 4 = -600 Save one life +150 x 1 = +150 Calculus Result = -450 Assuming all else as being equal, the utilitarian calculus shows that the class vote is in fact the correct course of action by Act Utilitarian standards. According to utilitarians, we are OBLIGATED to act in those ways that maximize utility. So, we must blow up Fred, and would be blameworthy if we didn’t.

19. Utilitarianism Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.] 1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of action do I have? 2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits) For each of the identified options ask: What are the benefits generated by this course of action? What are the harms generated by this course of action? 3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one possible way to do this: 4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of harms and benefits, making sure to multiply results by the number of people that will be affected by your choices. Notice here that blowing up Fred will prevent a several people from dying. As with any philosophical theory, plausibility often varies with the example used. In this case, we have been presented with an example that highlights one aspect of utilitarian theory, and lends credibility to that aspect, something we have abstracted from the whole and called “Act Utilitarianism.” But, is that the whole story? As you might suspect, the answer is “no.” There are other examples that throw doubt upon Act Utilitarianism, and according to some, upon Utilitarianism as a whole. They seem to show it leads to immoral results. Others claim these examples are not fatal to Utilitarianism, but rather emphasize another aspect of the theory; one which must be fully incorporated in a successful and robust final theory. In order to flesh this out, it is necessary to tell another story..

20. Utilitarianism It is necessary to tell another story, and have you vote..

21. Utilitarianism Sheriff Justice has a real problem on his hands. He lives in a remote town of the Wild West. A brutal shooting of the Burt family occurred a month ago.  A great deal of circumstantial evidence point to Reed, a local everyone knows.  His bloody boot prints were found at the scene. A weapon was found on his farmland, hidden in the hollow of a tree. There is a ballistic match between the rounds and the weapon. He did not get along with the head of the family, Gleason. They had heated arguments, and have gone to court several times, suing each other over land rights. In general, Reed is not liked, while his victims were popular, and kindly. It is necessary to tell another story..

22. Utilitarianism Sheriff Justice knows that Reed did not commit the crime.  He knows this because Reed, an alcoholic, was home that afternoon, evening and night, passed out.  The sheriff made a regular habit of checking up on Reed, who had a habit of getting drunk, and wandering around town, falling asleep in odd places. Justice would take him home if he found him. On this particular night, at the time the crime occurred, Reed was at home, and in fact never left home for town.  The Sheriff has surmised that someone passing through town and aware of the animosity between Reed and Burt snuck into Reed's house, used one of his rifles, and wore his boots to kill and rob the family, while also framing Reed for the deed.  This man is long gone, and the Sheriff has good reason to believe he is in Morocco. It is necessary to tell another story..

23. Utilitarianism The townsfolk are aware of the circumstantial evidence against Reed. The Sheriff has attempted to tell them what he knows, and what he has surmised. They are angry, and refuse to listen. They do not believe the Sheriff, and have promised to take Reed themselves, and generally riot in town, killing and destroying property as they go, if he doesn't do what he is ‘supposed’ to do. The Sheriff knows he can arrest Reed, and that will dissolve the crisis.  But, he also knows that to arrest him, and later release him with or without a trial will bring on the rioting, only later. He also knows he runs no risk of the truth finally coming out about this case, if he does arrest try and either jail or execute Reed. Should he arrest, try and convict Reed or not?

24. Utilitarianism YES NO Blow Up Fred Arrest, try, convict Do not arrest And have you all vote!

25. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism YES NO And have you all vote! Vote Results?

26. Utilitarianism If you primarily focus on:How rules or practices impact overall social happiness you are a “Rule Utilitarian” Rule Utilitarianism Simply Stated: Your moral obligation in any given situation is to act in accordance with the rule (or set of rules) that, if followed by all or most people in like circumstances, would bring about the greatest net balance of happiness for the greatest number. This is a utilitarian intuition that may drive the vote in the Sheriff Justice Case. (This is not to say that there are not other intuitions that may be driving this vote. More on that later!)

27. Utilitarianism A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure. When faced with a moral choice ask:1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?Once you have determined this, ask: 2. What is the one rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures more significant features of my case than any other rule? 3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says. Note: You can follow this procedure because the rules it presupposes each have strong utilitarian justification. The rules the procedure has us refer to are such that society (and obviously the individuals within society) derive much more benefit from having them in place than they would from either having no rules, easily overridden rules, or some other set of rules in place. Simple example: Hard rules against theft, if followed by all or most folks, generate great long-term social and personal benefit. Societies that do not rule out theft suffer from massive insecurity, violence, etc. and dissolve, taking along with them all the fruits of social cooperation. Human societies noticed this at some point, and instituted such rules. Some such rules are almost universally respected (examples: rules against murder). So, as utilitarians, we are justified in using these rules and relying on them when morally deliberating. Usually, we can apply them in a straightforward way.

28. Utilitarianism A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure. When faced with a moral choice ask:1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?Once you have determined this, ask: 2. What is the rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures more significant features of my case than any other rule? 3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says. 4. If several rules require the same course of action, there is no problem, do what they say. 5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule that is more basic, that is, the rule that guarantees or safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits, or prevents the more grievous harm to society. But, what if there are multiple rules covering the case? Then what do you do? Suppose they recommend or require opposed actions. Then what?

29. Utilitarianism A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure. When faced with a moral choice ask:1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?Once you have determined this, ask: 2. What is the rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures more significant features of my case than any other rule? 3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says. 4. If several rules require the same course of action, there is no problem, do what they say. 5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule that is more basic, that is, the rule that guarantees or safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits, or prevents the more grievous harm to society. 6. If the rules are equally basic, do an act utilitarian analysis of your options (focus on the features of your particular situation). 7. Choose the option that passes the act utilitarian analysis. Alright, not wanting to be picky here, but, suppose the “several" applicable rules are equally basic? Then what do you do?

30. Utilitarianism A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure. 1. What are the rules in society that cover this situation?Once you have determined this, ask: 2. What is the rule that most closely covers my situation? Which rule captures more significant features of my case than any other rule? 3. Review the content of that rule, and do what it says. 4. If several rules require the same course of action, there is no problem, do what they say. 5. If the rules require opposing actions, follow the rule that is more basic, that is, the rule that guarantees or safeguards more fundamental or vital benefits, or prevents the more grievous harm to society. 6. If the rules are equally basic, do an act utilitarian analysis of your options (focus on the features of your particular situation). 7. Choose the option that passes the act utilitarian analysis. 8. Formulate a universal rule for each option you have (describing the essentials of the situation, and the course of action involved. It should be a rule that all would have to follow in similar circumstances). 9. Do your best to determine which rule would be the best for overall social happiness, and follow it. What do you do if there are no covering rules for your situation? This is an unlikely scenario, but certainly possible. This is what you can do.

31. Utilitarianism In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory: Too personally demanding: •Obliges us to implement the options that optimize benefits. (Think about what this requires of you in the Sheriff Justice case. What sort of impact will this have on the remainder of your life?) •Requires that we give no special consideration to our own happiness. (Are you ever ‘given permission’ by utilitarian reasoning, to enjoy yourself?) •If true, there is no such thing as going above and beyond the call of duty (supererogation). You are meeting your minimal moral obligation by giving at least half your income to Oxfam, according to Peter Singer. •Assigns equal levels of moral responsibility for actively doing a wrong thing as for allowing a wrong thing to happen. (Pedro and the Botanist case). If it is within a person’s power to prevent a harm, and he doesn’t he is responsible for the harm. Too morally permissive: Allows, indeed requires, actions we would normally consider wrong. •Acting unjustly (E.g., Sheriff Justice case is one in point. Also the “transplant case.”) •Acting secretly or deceptively (Sheriff would obviously be deceiving) •Using people as mere means (Doctor can find a healthy homeless man who won’t be missed, kill him, take his organs, save 4 others.) (These objections indicate we believe there are some things that should not be done, regardless of utility generated. More on this moral intuition, and its theoretical development later when we take up Kant’s philosophy, and rights based ethical thought. For now, though, ask yourself if utilitarian theory leaves room for, fully accounts for and answers these objections.)

32. Utilitarianism In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory. Do this by giving a “checkmark” to the theory that seems better able to deal with the objections: Act U. Rule U. Too Personally Demanding Too Morally Permissive Now, scoring Act U. and Rule U., which deals more satisfactorily with these issues? By simply sticking to, and following pre-existing rules, many of which have an “absolutist” formulation, we actually are taking the course of action that would best generate utility for society. We do not need to ‘jump into the breach’ either by taking on extraordinary individual responsibility, nor by breaking those ‘absolutist’ rules. For, if it was a standard practice to do so, when the situation presented itself, society, and all its benefits would crumble. People cannot physically or psychologically handle the “demands" of pure Act Utilitarianism. The ‘Permissivity’of pure Act Utilitarianism would dissolve trust in professions such as law-enforcement. To prevent widespread social discord and suffering, we should abide by general moral rules. This is a UTILITARIAN line of reasoning, more specifically, RULE UTILITARIAN. Hence, the checkmarks.

33. Utilitarianism In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory Now, a final area of concern, briefly mentioned earlier. How does Rule Utilitarianism score here? • Rights • A right is a claim a person has upon others. For each claim there is a corresponding obligation as to what actions other persons should or should not undertake with reference to that person. • What sorts of rights are there? • Negative rights / Rights of non-interference • Life – we each are obligated to respect the lives of others. They too, must respect our individual right to life. • Liberty – we are obligated to give all persons as much liberty of action, thought, speech etc. as is consistent with equal liberty for all. This does not require that we give free reign to everybody. We can limit liberties only if it is necessary to ensure the most extensive set of liberties possible, given the competing needs, wants, and desires of the individuals that make up society. • Property – We are obliged to respect the holdings of others. • Expression – We are obliged to refrain from interfering with the speech of others. • Positive rights / Rights of Recipience • Basic needs • Nurture

34. Utilitarianism In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory Now, a final area of concern, briefly mentioned earlier. How does Rule Utilitarianism score here? • Rights have a derivative status in utilitarian thought, and are never ‘inalienable.’ • •They are ultimately justified on a rule utilitarian basis by Mill: • “To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him no other reason than general utility.” • A utilitarian justification of ignoring individual rights in certain circumstances like the Sheriff and transplant cases, can be made. Rights are considered to be useful conventions, not as independent constraints upon utilitarian calculations. • Rule Utilitarianism does not fully address the ‘too permissive’ objection. Suppose you can break a rule, and do so without risk of public detection, and in so doing, generate greater amounts of benefits than you could by following the rule. You should do so, if you are a utilitarian. Consider the doctor with the plan to use a homeless man as an organ bank. Secretly breaking the rule against murder does nothing to jeopardize public trust, nor the utilitarian strength of the rule, but it does increase net benefits. • Any statement of rights is a statement that looks like a rule, requiring or forbidding certain lines of action toward individuals. As such a rule, its ultimate justification, and a possible ground for override, is utility expectation. Can Rule Utilitarianism fully handle our intuitions concerning Rights?