Utilitarianism Notes (PHI1102)

January 8^th^ notes Utilitarianism [Utilitarianism's Place in Moral Philosophy]\ -"During much of modern moral philosophy the predominant systematic theory has been some form of utilitarianism \...Most likely we finally settle upon a variant of the utility principle circumscribed and restricted in...

January 8^th^ notes Utilitarianism [Utilitarianism's Place in Moral Philosophy]\ -"During much of modern moral philosophy the predominant systematic theory has been some form of utilitarianism \...Most likely we finally settle upon a variant of the utility principle circumscribed and restricted in certain ad hoc ways by intuitionistic constraints." (John Rawls, 1971) -"Rawls believes, rightly I think, that in our society utilitarianism operates as a kind of tacit background assumption against which other theories have to assert\ and defend themselves." (W. Kymlicka, 2002) [Basic Insight]\ - The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all, or what makes an action right or wrong: -- The purpose of morality is to guide people's actions in such a way as to produce a better world (minimize suffering and pain and maximize happiness /pleasure) \- Therefore, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on producing consequences, not having good intentions or acting for the sake of duty, or out of reverence for the moral law (the Categorical Imperative) duty or focusing on action itself. [The Principle of Utility]\ -The fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is: -One should always act in such a way as to bring about (maximize) the greatest good and\ the least harm for the greatest number of people. \- The right thing to do, in any situation, is whatever would produce the best overall outcome for all those who will be affected by your action (animals, environment, etc.). [The Nature of the Good]\ - The Principle of Utility does not specify the nature of the good. As a result:\ 1) Hedonistic Utilitarianism\ 2) Eudaemonistic Utilitarianism\ 3) Ideal Utilitarianism (we will not discuss)\ 4) Preference Utilitarianism (we will not discuss) [Hedonistic Utilitarianism]\ Hedonism: Hedonism is the idea that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we must seek. -Bentham's utilitarianism is hedonistic because it assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent. -Note that Bentham describes not only the good as pleasure, but also as happiness, benefit, advantage, etc. He treats these concepts as more or less synonymous,\ and seems to think of them as reducible to pleasure. [Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus] \- But how do we determine that our actions will produce the greatest pleasure (good/ happiness)? -If our central obligation is to act so as to produce the most good (pleasure), then we need a way to calculate which alternative action open to us at a given time is best (productive of the most good, pleasure). -Thus, he suggested that the qualities of pleasure must be quantified. \- Bentham identified seven different criteria to measure the greatest good. [The Seven Criteria]\ 1. Intensity: How strong/intense/powerful is the pleasure?\ 2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?\ 3. Certainty/Uncertainty: What is the probability that the pleasure will occur? How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?\ How certain will pleasure be?\ 4. Propinquity (Remoteness/Nearness): How far off in the future is the pleasure? How soon will the pleasure occur?\ 5. Fecundity (fruitfulness): What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures? How much more pleasure will grow\ out from this pleasure?\ 6. Purity: How free from pain is this pleasure? (The chances of the act being followed by opposite sensation)\ 7. Extent: How many more people will receive pleasure from this action or activity? How many people are affected by the pleasure? [An Example] [Problems with Bentham's Account] 1\) How do you quantify the qualities of pleasure?\ -How many units of pleasure has a glass of beer?\ 2) How do you identify the greatest number? Does it\ include other beings and nature as well?\ - How do we How do we determine, exactly how will be affected by our\ actions?\ - We have to take into account all people, and all creatures that may suffer,\ nature, etc.\ 3) Pleasure is too shallow a measure of morality\ (hedonism). [Mill's Qualitative Utilitarianism]\ Mill agreed with the utility principle but had an issue with the quantitative element. He advocated qualitative hedonism in contrast to Bentham's quantitative hedonism. To justify his position, he developed a system of higher and lower pleasures. To pursue pleasures of the intellect were 'higher' than, say, the pursuits of pleasures of the body. -Higher and Lower Pleasure: Mill emphasizes the importance of intellectual pleasure (higher) rather than physical pleasure (lower). He thinks that higher pleasure is more fundamental. -"it is better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they know only their side of the question." ( J. S. Mill) [Key Elements]\ 1) According to Mill, individual happiness should be \"in harmony with\" societal happiness. This harmony is cultivated by educating people about the connection between their own happiness and the greater good.\ 2) The utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted.\ 3) "As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be\ done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." [Act and Rule Utilitarianism]\ *Act*\ Each moral situation is unique.\ Applied the Utility Principle to each act.\ Acts are right if they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.\ Most associated with Bentham. *Rule*\ Draws up general rules from the Utility Principle.\ Rules are right if they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.\ Most associated with Mill. [An Example]\ Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin's bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a\ homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the\ hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do? [Act]\ For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant. [Rule ] For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a general rule that lets\ hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are going to die anyway. The\ consequences of adopting such a general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in the medical establishment [Advantages]\ 1) Capacity to resolve moral conflict: Capacity to resolve moral conflict: SingleSingle\ principle yields potential answer for every principle yields potential answer for every\ situation:\ - It is more applicable; it is more applicable; it resolves moral conflicts resolves moral conflicts. 2\) It is Concrete: It is Concrete: Substantive rather than Substantive rather than\ merely formal doctrine: merely formal doctrine:\ -Unlike Kant's deontology that provides some broad Unlike Kant's deontology that provides some broad and universal guidelines, it gives concrete material and universal guidelines, it gives concrete material solution; it promotes human flourishing and minimize solution; it promotes human flourishing and minimize\ suffering. [Disadvantages]\ 1) No-rest objection No-rest objection::\ - How can I rest or enjoy life if by sacrificing I can make How can I rest or enjoy life if by sacrificing I can make others happier? Should I donate 50% of poor? 2\) Absurd-implications objection (W. D. Ross)Absurd-implications objection (W. D. Ross):\ - Utilitarianism can lead to morally counterintuitive Utilitarianism can lead to morally counterintuitive conclusions (e.g., acts A, lying, & B, telling the truth, conclusions (e.g., acts A, lying, & B, telling the truth, result in 100 hedons) 3\) Integrity objection (Bernard Williams): -It can require us to violate our most deeply held It can require us to violate our most deeply held principles. [Cont.]\ 4) Justice objection: Justice objection:\ - Utilitarianism can require unjust actions (e.g., Utilitarianism can require unjust actions (e.g., sacrificing one healthy patient to save five patients sacrificing one healthy patient to save five patients who are waiting for organ transplantation; the trolley who are waiting for organ transplantation; the trolley dilemma; torture). 5\) Publicity objection: Publicity objection:\ - It is not prudent to recommend that everyone act as aIt is not prudent to recommend that everyone act as a utilitarian. DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS\ E. Kant [E. Kant]\ Immanuel Kant Kant was born 1724 in Königsberg (renamed Kaliningrad and is part of Russia today, but during Kant's lifetime Königsberg was the capital of East Prussia). Kant is a towering figure in modern philosophy. He is considered to be the most significant philosopher of the Enlightenment, a period famous for its optimism regarding the power of human rationality. His work heavily influenced philosophers from his\ own time forward---from German and British idealists such as Hegel and F. H. Bradley to contemporary liberal theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. He is the most prominent advocate of what is called deontological ethics. Central to Kant's deontological ethics is the claim that moral laws and principles are categorical and not contingent on our desires, feelings, and consequences. They are necessary and\ objective laws (universal laws) that hold for all rational beings. The Categorical Imperative is said to be such a law. [Deontological Ethics]\ - The term deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, "duty,"meaning that which is binding, in particular a binding duty. So, you arebound to your duty. That is, we should choose our actions based on their inherent, intrinsic worth rather than its ends or consequences. \- Deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist theories (e.g., utilitarianism) and virtue ethics (Aristotelian ethics). Kant holds that an act cannot be judged by its consequences, rather intention is more important. \- In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what action we ought to take in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (virtue theories), and those that focus on what kind of consequence our actions should or ought to produce (consequentialist ethics).\ 1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil intention but ends up\ bringing good consequences to society.\ 2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good intention but ends\ up bringing about bad consequences.\ 3. The consequences of an action are not under our control. (we can only control\ our motives when acting as a moral agent). \- So, there should be no attention paid to consequences because they are fartoo difficult to predict and don't take into account your motivations/ intentions. Thus, deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions in-themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions [Basic Assumptions]\ - No matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden in themselves. What makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral law. The Right is said to have priority over the Good (happiness and consequences). \- Reason (or freedom) is not only the judge, but also the source, of right and wrong. Rationality is what allows humans to be moral beings. Moral laws are objective\ and can be discerned through reason. Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid for everyone (this law is called Categorical Imperative). [The Good Will]\ The Good Will:\ -- "It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good which\ has to make use of these gifts of nature, and which for this reason has the term 'character' applied to its peculiar quality." (G 1: 393). -- "Power, wealth, honour, even health and that complete well- being and contentment with one's state which goes by the name of 'happiness' produce boldness, and as a consequence often over- boldness as well, unless a good will is present by which their\ influence on the mind \... may be created and adjusted to universal ends." (G 1: 393) [Cont.]\ To be good without qualification or restriction is to be good in-itself, in all circumstances, is absolute and unconditional; it is good in all context. The good will is the only thing to which we attribute \"unconditional worth,\" that is, the only thing that is good unconditionally and in itself, no matter what it accomplishes, or what other attributes (such as wealth or skill) accompany it. Only actions done from a good will have "moral\ worth," that is, reflect the intrinsic, unconditional value of a good will. That is to say, a good will alone is good in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute or unconditional good. We may also describe it as the only thing that is good independently of its relation to other good things. Certainly, there are other goods which are goods in many respects (like wealth, power, honor, happiness, etc.), but they are not good in all and every circumstances; they may turn out to be bad when they are used\ in a bad will. They are only conditional goods; not good absolutely or in themselves. -- "The goodness of a good will is not derived from the goodness of the results which it produces. The conditional goodness of its products cannot be the source of the unconditioned goodness which belongs to a good will alone. Besides, a good will continues to have its own unique goodness even where, by some misfortune, it is unable to produce the results at which it aims." H. Paton [The Source of the Good Will]\ -The moral agent does a particular action not because of what it produces (its consequences or happiness), but because he or she recognized by reasoning that it is morally the right thing to do and thus regards herself as having a good will (or moral duty or obligation) to do that action. \- But what is the source (or justification) for the claim that one has a good will? Is Kant's assertion due merely to the personal prejudice of a moralist? The answer lies in his account of human nature, according to which he considers men as inherently good. In this his influenced by J. J Rousseau: \- "There was a time when \... I despised the masses, who know nothing. Rousseau\ has put me right. This blind prejudice disappears; I learn to honour men." (Kant) \- "the honour which Kant thus learned to pay to men is, I think, honour for their\ good will." (H. J. Paton) \- In the Critique of Practical Reason, he says that "his spirit bows before a man, however humble and ordinary, in whom he finds integrity of character in a measure which he is not conscious of finding in himself. This feeling of reverence, as distinct from admiration, is felt for the good man, and for no other." (H. J. Paton) Cont.\ Thus, Kant does not take his moral philosophy to involve inventing a new moral principle. Rather, he sees his mission as that of rendering explicit and free of extraneous, misleading\ associations, a principle already fundamental and implicit in ordinary moral thought (common sense morality) (G 4:403-404). This principle is contained in the good will and one's motive of duty (or obligation). -- The Groundwork is for the general reader who possesses common sense knowledge of morality, but lacks a philosophical theory of it. In most cases, the ordinary person knows very well what he or she should do, but is not able to give a philosophical defense of\ this knowledge. -- "Who would want to introduce a new principle of morality and, as it were, be its inventor, as if the world had hitherto been ignorant of what duty is, or had been thoroughly wrong about it?" Critique of Practical Reason, Preface, n. 5 [Duty]\ Under human conditions, where we have to struggle against unruly impulses and desires, a good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty. Hence if we want to understand human goodness, we must examine the concept of duty and motive. A motive can be out of either:\ -- self-interest,\ -- sympathy (natural inclination and feelings), or\ -- a sense of duty (the voice of conscience). "A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate inclination---still less because it is done from self-interest---but because it is done for the sake of duty." Examples:\ 1) The Merchant: The first one involves a merchant who refrains from overcharging gullible customers, because this gives him a good reputation which helps his business. He is doing what is right, but only as a means to some further end---it does accord with duty, but it is not for the sake of duty or from duty. The difference between doing the right thing from duty and doing it to promote some other end is obvious, for someone who does the right thing\ from duty does it for its own sake, and not for any ulterior motive or self- interests or inclinations. [The Categorical Imperative]\ -The Categorical Imperatives: \- It is an absolute and unconditional command; it commands to act only on the maxims that could also be universal laws. Thus, rational agents seeking to act upon a universally and necessarily valid law would have to act in accordance with the principle of acting only on universalizable maxims. \- "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Universality is the essential characteristic of law as such (a law holds for all cases and admit of no exceptions). For example, the law of nature---every event has a cause---has no exception; similarly, the law of freedom or moral law should not allow any exception. Universality is the form of the law. Whatever a law may be about---that is, whatever may be its matter---it must have the form of universality; for unless it is universal, it is not a law at all. Laws of freedom and laws of nature share the same common form of universality. If there is such thing as morality, there must be an objective moral standard; for an objective\ standard is a universal standard, one valid for all rational agents independently of their desires and interests for particular ends: morality must have the form of a universal law valid for rational agents as such. Now, the moral law appears to us under human conditions as a command or imperative. "But what kind of law can this be the thought of which, even without regard to the results expected from it, has to determine the will if this is to be called good absolutely and without qualification? [The Principle of the End in Itself]\ [Second Formulation]\ -Practical Imperative (the formula of the end itself): "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." \- This principle enjoins respect for personality; it forbids discriminating arbitrarily and unfairly between persons. The essential human characteristic of possessing reason (freedom), and in particular of possessing a rational will. It is in virtue of this\ characteristic that we are bound to treat ourselves and others, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as ends. \- It should be added that by 'using persons merely as means' Kant has in mind the using of them as means to the satisfaction of inclination or to the attainment of ends based on inclinations. \- The formula applies to the agent's treatment of herself as well as of others (Kant usually says that one has duty towards himself, others or society, and God). [The Principle of Autonomy]\ [Third Formulation]\ The Principle of Autonomy (respect for person): For Kant this is the most important formulation of the supreme principle of morality (the CI). So, act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxim. \- Although this formula seems a repetition of the Formula of Universal Law, it is different in the sense that it does not merely says that we follow universal law, but that a free/rational will makes, or gives itself, the laws which it obeys; we are subject to the moral law only because it is the necessary expression of our own nature as free (rational) agents. This imperative is based on the doctrine that a rational agent (will) must be regarded as autonomous, or free person, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds him/her. The fundamental principle of morality --- the CI --- is none other than the law of an autonomous will. \- This formula, like the categorical imperative, suggests that a rational will is its own law-maker or law-giver, but the difference is that in the latter emphasis is on the objectivity of the moral law. [The Unity of Formulas]\ Kant claimed that all of these CI formulas were equivalent. Unfortunately, he does not say in what sense. What he says is that these "are basically only so many formulations of precisely he same law, each one of them by itself uniting the other two within it," and that the differences between them are "more subjectively than objectively practical" in the sense that each aims "to bring an Idea of reason closer to intuition (by means of a certain analogy) and thus nearer to feeling" (G 4:435). He also says that one formula "follows from" another (G 4:431), and that the concept foundational to one formula "leads to a closely connected" concept at the basis of another formula (G 4:433). Thus, his claim that the formulations are equivalent could be interpreted in a number of ways. [Pluralistic Deontology]\ 1) Principle of Autonomy and Respect for Person\ - Every one has a right to self-determination\ 2) Principle of Impossibility\ -- No one has a duty to impossible things.\ 3) Principle of Fidelity or Best Action\ - Everyone has an obligation to give the greatest care possible.\ 4) Principle of Equality and Justice\ -Rights must preserve or promotes justice.\ 5) Principle of Beneficence\ - Everyone has a duty to maximize the good.\ 6) Principle of Non-Malfeasance\ -Everyone has a duty to minimize harm. [Advantages]\ Not consequentialist: Kant realised a bad action can have good consequences. Not ends based, avoids criticisms of consequentialist theories.\ Universal: Provides moral laws that hold universally, avoids cultural relativism.\ Ends in themselves: Kant respects human life as ends rather than means, however this is contested by modern medical ethics.\ Clarity: Kant's theory is argued as simple. "Would you like it if someone did that to you?" "No?" "Then don't do it to someone else" (the Golden Rule).\ Autonomy: Kant recognizes the importance of human autonomy.\ Rationality: Kant is not swayed by emotion. His theory does not allow favoritism. It is a purely rational theory; so not relativistic.\ Human Rights: Provides a basis for Human Rights.\ Equality and Justice: Provides a basis for modern conceptions of equality and justice.\ Objectivity: Objective standards, rather than subjective in situations.\ Reliability: A system of rules works, and everyone knows their obligations. [Disadvantages]\ Counter-intuitive: It is always wrong to lie, even to a murderer.\ Consequences: Sometimes consequences can be so severe that rule breaking may be necessary (i.e., the trolley case).\ Inflexible: It should be acceptable to break an unhelpful rule if the situation warrants it.\ Conflicting duty: Looking after your mother vs. looking after your father. Which one do I follow?\ Moral Law: Some philosophers question the existence of the moral law. Why should we believe that there is objective morality? (i.e., moral sentimentalism, moral egoism, etc.)\ Every situation is unique: Universal rules aren't much use in a world where every situation is different. If no situation are the same, morality should be relativist not absolutist. [Cont.]\ Teleological/deontological: Kant seems confused about whether his ethics are deontological or teleological. The basic idea is deontological but there is a future goal of the kingdom of ends.\ Humans are egoist: People rarely act purely out of pure duty or altruism as they always have some expectation of what they\'ll get in return.\ Religious: Kant\'s view depends on some idea of God to explain the rationally ordered world, meaning that atheists cannot accept this theory (i.e., human dignity).\ The limits to rationality: Not everyone is capable of making rational moral decisions (i.e., rationally incompetent people).\ Anthropocentric: Kant sees non-human animals as having no intrinsic value. The Legal Evolution of LGBTQ+ Rights