Utilitarianism PDF

NORMATIVE ETHICS ETHICAL THEORIES Theory a way of seeing Ethical Theories Attempts to see or view moral phenomena and hence understand morality. Good moral theories provide a compass and direct human conduct ETHICAL THEORIES Normative Ethics Studies what makes actions RIGHT or WRONG s...

NORMATIVE ETHICS ETHICAL THEORIES Theory a way of seeing Ethical Theories Attempts to see or view moral phenomena and hence understand morality. Good moral theories provide a compass and direct human conduct ETHICAL THEORIES Normative Ethics Studies what makes actions RIGHT or WRONG so that we can choose the RIGHT thing to do. Answers the questions, “What should I do?” “How ought I act?” UTILITARIANISM  John Stuart Mill Jeremy Bentham English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) were the leading proponents of what is now called “classic utilitarianism THE BASIC IDEA OF UTILITARIANISM 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 “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” – Jeremy Bentham Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure Happiness = pleasure, and the absence of pain Unhappiness = pain, and the absence of pleasure “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.”  FELICIFIC CALCULUS The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause and thus determine the moral status of any considered act 1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? 2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last? 3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur? 4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? 5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. 6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. 7. Extent: How many people will be affected? MEMORITER VERSES “Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure— Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure. Such pleasures seek if private be thy end: If it be public, wide let them extend Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view: If pains must come, let them extend to few.”  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. Utilitarianism defines the Good as pleasure without pain. So, according to Utilitarianism, our one moral duty is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. THE TROLLEY PROBLEM Conceptualized by philosopher Philippa Foot, the trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics, with the following formulation: You may perform an action that would benefit many people, but in doing so, one person would be unfairly harmed. Under what circumstances would it be ethically justifiable for you to violate that person’s rights in order to benefit the many? THE TROLLE Y PROBLE M  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs3rRDWQw5w FACTORS TO CONSIDER Number of Lives: The most straightforward factor is the number of people who will be saved or lost depending on your action. Moral Responsibility: Consider whether you have a greater responsibility to act (pull the lever) or to refrain from causing harm (not pulling the lever).Personal Connection: How does your relationship to the people on the tracks influence your decision? For instance, would it matter if the one person was a loved one? Long-Term Consequences: Consider the broader implications of your action. Would making this decision set a precedent for future behavior? Moral Rules or Duties: Reflect on whether there are certain moral principles you believe should never be violated, such as the duty not to intentionally harm another person VARIATIONS OF THE TROLLEY PROBLEM The fat man. What if pushing a fat man will save five people? VARIATIONS OF THE TROLLEY PROBLEM Indirect vs. Direct Action: In the original trolley problem, pulling the lever indirectly causes the death of one person, while in the fat man problem, you directly push someone to their death. This difference significantly impacts the moral reasoning involved. Proximity and Agency: The fat man problem involves closer physical proximity and a more direct action. In the original problem, you are somewhat removed from the immediate consequences, making the moral implications feel different. VARIATIONS OF THE TROLLEY PROBLEM Double Effect Principle Original Trolley Problem: The principle might apply because your action (pulling the lever) has two effects: a good effect (saving five people) and a bad effect (killing one person). However, the bad effect (the death of one) is not directly intended but is rather a side effect of saving the five. Fat Man Problem: Double effect is harder to justify here because the bad effect (killing the fat man) is not just a side effect but the means by which you achieve the good effect (saving five people). The direct intention is to cause harm to save others, which is morally more contentious. DO WE APPROACH THESE TWO PROBLEMS THE SAME WAY? No, we don't approach them the same way because of the differences in directness of action and moral agency: Original Trolley Problem: People are more likely to accept pulling the lever because it feels more like a tragic but necessary choice where harm is minimized. Fat Man Problem: People are generally more reluctant to push the fat man because it feels like a more direct violation of moral rules, such as the duty not to harm others. FACTORS TO CONSIDER Original Trolley Problem: Consequences: The number of lives saved versus lost. Moral Responsibility: Whether pulling the lever makes you directly responsible for the one person’s death. Indirect Action: The idea that you’re not directly causing harm, but rather making a choice that leads to a better overall outcome. Fat Man Problem: Direct Harm: The moral weight of directly causing someone’s death. Personal Agency: The discomfort with the idea of using someone’s body as a means to an end. Moral Intuition: The strong intuitive reaction against actively harming someone in such a direct and personal way. VARIATIONS ON THE TROLLEY PROBLEM The mother. What if the individual on the other track were your mother? Would your answer be the same? Relatives vs. significant other. How would your answer be different if the choice were between your relatives and your lover?  Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, mostly terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat- stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honored visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?” JIM AND THE INDIANS" DILEMMA Bernard Williams presents the "Jim and the Indians" dilemma as a critique of utilitarianism and its focus on outcomes over personal integrity and moral agency. Williams is concerned with the implications of utilitarian thinking, particularly how it can lead to morally troubling conclusions by justifying harmful actions as long as they result in a greater overall good. Williams argues that utilitarianism oversimplifies moral decision-making by reducing it to a calculation of outcomes. He is concerned that this approach neglects the importance of personal integrity and moral identity. For Williams, the idea that Jim should kill one person to save nineteen others reflects the utilitarian tendency to treat individuals as mere means to an end, rather than as moral agents with their own rights and dignity. IS IT MORE UNETHICAL TO LET 19 PEOPLE DIE? Williams' Counterargument Williams, however, questions whether the ethical decision can be reduced to just the consequences: Moral Integrity: Williams argues that Jim's moral integrity is at stake. If Jim chooses to kill one person, he would be compromising his own moral values, potentially leading to a loss of his moral identity. Williams believes that this violation of personal integrity might be worse than the consequences of allowing the 19 to die. Moral Agency: Williams is concerned that by focusing solely on outcomes, we ignore the importance of moral agency. Jim's choice to kill, even for a greater good, makes him complicit in an act of murder. The ethical dilemma here is not just about the consequences but also about what kind of person Jim wants to be and how he wants to act in accordance with his moral beliefs. AUTONOMOUS CARS An autonomous car is a vehicle that can guide itself without human conduction. This kind of vehicle has become a concrete reality and may pave the way for future systems where computers take over the art of driving. An autonomous car is also known as a driverless car, robot car, self-driving car or autonomous vehicle. OBJECTIONS TO U T I L I TA R I A N I S M 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, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question".  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 has 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...” SUBORDINATE RULES Examples: Keep your promises Don’t cheat Don’t steal Obey the law Subordinate rules are what we would normally call “common sense 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.  BREAKING SUBORDINATE RULES 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. WEAKNESS OF UTILITARIANISM It depends on the results of the action but one can never predict what the outcome will be. If actions are to depend only on results, wrong motives can still have right results Ignores the importance of duty: An act may be right or wrong regardless of the amount of good or evil it produces. It does not consider the right of individuals It can advocate injustice (framing an innocent few) How do we measure one’s pleasure against another?  PARTIALITY A ND THE “TOO DEMANDING” OBJECTION 1.Critics also attack utilitarianism’s commitment to impartiality and the equal consideration of interests. An implication of this commitment is that whenever people want to buy something for themselves or for a friend or family member, they must first determine whether they could create more well-being by donating their money to help unknown strangers who are seriously ill or impoverished. If more good can be done by helping strangers than by purchasing things for oneself or people one personally cares about, then act utilitarianism requires us to use the money to help strangers in need. Why? Because act utilitarianism requires impartiality and the equal consideration of all people’s needs and interests.  PARTIALITY A ND THE “TOO DEMANDING” OBJECTION 2.Critics claim that the argument for using our money to help impoverished strangers rather than benefiting ourselves and people we care about only proves one thing— that act utilitarianism is false. There are two reasons that show why it is false. First, it fails to recognize the moral legitimacy of giving special preferences to ourselves and people that we know and care about. Second, since pretty much everyone is strongly motivated to act on behalf of themselves and people they care about, a morality that forbids this and requires equal consideration of strangers is much too demanding. It asks more than can reasonably be expected of people ACT-UTILITARIANISM is the view that the rightness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, i.e. on the effect on the welfare of all human beings (or perhaps all sentient beings). Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness of an action is to be judged by the consequences, good or bad, of the action itself. Considers only the results or consequences of the single act Focus on the effects of individual actions RULE-UTILITARIANISM Is the view that the rightness of an action is to be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should perform the action in like circumstances. Considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct. Focus on the effects of types of actions. We cant have a rule such as that because it will not benefit us in the long run  ACT VS. RULE Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism The rightness of an act is fixed by the Rightness of an act is not fixed by its utility of its consequences. relative utility, but by the conformity with It is an atomistic theory: general rules. The value of the effects of a single act The correctness of these rules is fixed by on the world is decisive for its the utility of their general acceptance. rightness. It is an organic theory: The rightness of individual acts can be ascertained only by assessing a whole social policy CRITICISMS Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Difficulty in determining Difficulty in determining consequences for others consequences for others Impracticality of beginning anew Can a rule cover diversity? Difficulty of educating the young or Can a rule truly bring about the uninitiated greatest good for all concerned?  The stop sign is like the rule utilitarian approach. It tells drivers to stop and does not allow them to calculate whether it would be better to stop or not. The yield sign is like act utilitarianism. It permits drivers to decide whether there is a need to stop. Act utilitarians see the stop sign as too rigid because it requires drivers to stop even when nothing bad will be prevented  Rule utilitarians will reply that they would reject the stop sign method a) if people could be counted on to drive carefully and b) if traffic accidents only caused limited amounts of harm. But, they say, neither of these is true Overall then, rule utilitarian can allow departures from rules and will leave many choices up to individuals. The key point is that while rule utilitarianism permits partiality toward some people, it can also generate rules that limit the ways in which people may act partially and it might even support a positive duty. Rules can have value. For example, rules can provide a basis for acting when there is no time to deliberate. In addition, rules can define a default position, a justification for doing (or refraining from) a type of action. ROLE-PLAYING MISSIONS Imagine you are the captain of a submarine on a difficult mission deep in the ocean.Your primary goal is to ensure the survival of your crew while successfully completing your mission. However, along the way, you’ll face tough decisions where you’ll need to weigh the consequences of your actions for the greater good. ROLE-PLAYING MISSION 1 The submarine’s oxygen supply is running low.You have enough oxygen to last until you reach the research station, but only if you continue on the most direct route, which is through a dangerous minefield. Decision: Do you risk the lives of the crew by navigating through the minefield to ensure the mission’s success, or do you take a safer but longer route, knowing that some crew members may not survive the extended journey due to limited oxygen? ROLE-PLAYING MISSION 2 One of the submarine’s engines has failed, and the submarine is losing speed. The only way to repair it quickly enough to reach the research station on time is to send a crew member outside the submarine, knowing that they may not survive the repair due to the intense pressure and cold. Decision: Do you send someone out, sacrificing one for the success of the mission and the survival of many, or do you attempt to continue with the damaged engine, risking the entire crew’s lives? MISSION 3: ENEMY ENCOUNTER You detect an enemy submarine approaching.You can either engage in combat, risking the lives of your crew but potentially saving others by preventing the enemy from attacking a civilian vessel later, or you can evade and continue your mission, ensuring your crew’s safety but leaving the enemy free to cause harm elsewhere. Decision: Do you attack the enemy, risking your crew but potentially saving more lives, or do you avoid conflict to protect your crew? DEBRIEFING COMMITTEE After each mission, discuss the decisions made by the captain (players) and the reasoning behind them. Highlight how their choices align with utilitarian principles, where the focus is on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering.Explore any conflicts or discomfort the players felt in making decisions that required sacrificing a few for the greater good, emphasizing the ethical dilemmas inherent in utilitarianism.