Utilitarianism+%28shortened_2023%29.pptx

Utilitarianism: An Introduction The Veracity of Surveys?  Preliminary Question: What is the right thing to do in certain kinds of situation? One can answer this question from a Traditional point of view…  Intrinsic Value  Many things have instrumental value, that is, th...

Utilitarianism: An Introduction The Veracity of Surveys?  Preliminary Question: What is the right thing to do in certain kinds of situation? One can answer this question from a Traditional point of view…  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 (4) principal candidates: 1.) Pleasure 3.) Ideals - Jeremy Bentham - George E. Moore 2.) Happiness 4.) Preferences - John Stuart Mill - Kenneth Arrow  Two (2) Major Types of Moral Theory: A.) Deontological Ethics  Etymologically, the word deontology comes from the Greek word: deon, which means duty or obligation.  A deontologist is merely concerned with the rightness of an act having intrinsic worth.  For Kant, duty is an act done out of one’s good will. For an act to have moral worth, it must be universalizable, must value human dignity, and must be autonomous. B.) Teleological Ethics or Consequentialist Ethics  Etymologically, “teleology” comes from the Greek word: Telos, which means ‘purpose’, having reached one’s end, or goal-directed.  An ethical system which holds that the ultimate criterion of morality lies in some non-moral value that results from actions.  The locus and weight of value is the outcome or consequences of the act. A Teleologist is a person whose ethical decision-making aims solely at maximizing non- moral goods, such as pleasure, happiness, welfare, and the improvement of suffering. The moral standard of rightness or wrongness of an action is the comparative consequences of the available actions. It means that an act is right if it produces the best consequences. For example, for the Teleologist,  Lying is morally right if it results or produces the best consequences.  If you can reasonably calculate that a lie will do even slightly more good than telling the truth, then you have an obligation to lie. Different Types of Teleological Ethics 1. Ethical Egoism – is a prescriptive or normative theory about how people ought to act. They ought to act according to their perceived best interests. 2. Utilitarianism ???  What is Utilitarianism? The theory that right action is one that maximizes utility. Sometimes utility is defined in terms of: - Pleasure (Jeremy Bentham), - Happiness (John Stuart Mill), - Ideals (George Edward Moore), or - Preferences (Kenneth Arrow) Its motto, which characterizes one version of utilitarianism, is… “The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.”  Two (2) Major Characteristics of Utilitarianism: 1.) Consequentialist Principle This principle states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it. It follows the maxim: “The end justifies the means.” 2.) Utility Principle - This principle states that the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state (pleasure, happiness, welfare). - This principle also conforms to ‘Hedonistic Utilitarianism’, which views pleasure as the one and only good and pain as the only evil. Therefore, an act is right if it brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain. An act is wrong if it either brings about more pain than pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring.  Two (2) Divisions of Utilitarianism: 1.) Act-Utilitarianism holds that the right act in a situation is one that results (or is most likely to result) in the best consequences.  Looks at the consequences of each individual act and calculate utility each time the act is performed.  Short-term 2.) Rule-Utilitarianism holds that the right act is one that conforms to the set of rules that in turn will result in the best consequences (as compared with other sets of rules).  Looks at the consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule and calculates the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule.  Long-term  Jeremy Bentham Born: Houndsditch, London – February 15, 1748 Died: London – June 6, 1832  A British gentleman, political activist, legal scholar, social philosopher, linguist.  He is best known as the founder of British “utilitarianism” or “philosophical radicalism.”  His writings include On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government, and The Subjection of Women.  He is an earlier defender of: - Economic Liberalization - Freedom of Expression - Women’s Rights - Animal Rights - Abolition of Slavery - the Right to Divorce - the Abolition of Capital Punishment - Decriminalization of Homosexual Acts What is Bentham’s Moral Philosophy?  His moral philosophy reflects what he calls “the greatest happiness principle” or “the principle of utility” – a term which he borrows from David Hume.  In adverting to this principle, however, he was not referring to just the (1) usefulness of things or actions, but to the extent to which these (2) things or actions promote the general pleasure.  What is morally obligatory is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, happiness being determined by reference to the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. He emphasizes that this applies to “every action whatsoever.”  That which does not maximize the greatest happiness (such as an act of pure ascetic sacrifice) is, therefore, morally wrong.  His moral philosophy reflects his psychological view that the primary motivators in human beings are pleasure and pain (Hedonism).  Compared to other moral theories, the principle of utility is clear because it allows for objective and disinterested public discussion, and enables decisions to be made where there seem to be conflicts of (prima facie) legitimate interests. Moreover, in calculating the pleasures and pains involved in carrying out a course of action (the “hedonic calculus”), there is a fundamental commitment to human equality. - He invented the Hedonic Calculus. - The quantitative score for any pleasure or pain experience is obtained by summing the seven (7) aspects of a pleasurable or painful experience. - Seven aspects: Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Nearness, Fruitfulness, Purity, and Extent. 1. Intensity (I)- How intense is the pleasure or pain? 2. Duration (D) - How long does the pleasure of pain last? 3. Certainty (C) - What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will occur? 4. Nearness (N) - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain? 5. Fruitfulness (F) - What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures? 6. Purity (P) - What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains? 7. Extent (E) - How many persons are affected by the pleasure?  The Utilitarian Calculus Math and ethics finally merge: all consequences must be measured and weighed. Units of measurement: – Hedons: positive – Dolors: 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 will they be affected Similar calculations for all available alternatives Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of utility (hedons minus dolors) The principle of utility presupposes that “one man is worth just the same as another man” and so there is a guarantee that in calculating the greatest happiness “each person is to count for one and no one for more than one.” For Bentham, then, there was no inconsistency between the greatest happiness principle and his psychological hedonism and egoism. Thus, moral philosophy or ethics can be simply described as… “the art of directing men's action to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness, on the part of those whose interest is in view.”  Pleasure  Definition:  Criticisms The enjoyable feeling, we  Came to be known as experience when a state of “the pig’s deprivation is replaced by philosophy” fulfillment.  Advantages  Ignores higher values  Easy to quantify  Short duration  Bodily  Could justify living on a pleasure machine (Y.O.L.O) Suppose a dying woman (under her bad condition) asked you to promise to send the P90,000 to her nephew in U.S.A. She dies without anyone else knowing of the money or of the promise that you made. Now, suppose that you know the nephew is a drunkard, and, when the money will be delivered to him, would just be wasted in a week of outrageous partying. On the other hand, a very fine orphanage in your barangay needs such money to improve its recreational facilities, something that would provide happiness to many children for years to come. What is your moral evaluation of the case?  John Stuart Mill Born: Pentonville, London, England – May 20, 1806 Died: Avignon, France – May 8, 1873 An English philosopher and political economist, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an advocate of utilitarianism, the great ethical theory that was systemized by his godfather Jeremy Bentham.  What is his Moral Philosophy? His version of Utilitarianism is Eudaimonistic in essence. It means that happiness is defined in terms of certain types of higher-order pleasures or satisfactions, such as, - Intellectual pleasure - Aesthetic pleasure, and - Social Enjoyments  Two (2) Types of Pleasure: A.) Lower or Elementary Type of Pleasure Example: Eating, Drinking, Sexuality, Resting, and Sensuous titillation This type of pleasure may seem more gratifying and satisfying, yet they may lead to a painful, agonizing, and distressing experience if one overindulged in it. B.) Higher Type of Pleasure Example: Intellectuality, Creativity, and Spirituality This type of pleasure is more extended, continuous, and gradual, since it is more refined and superior. It focuses more on the quality of pleasure than its quantity. Such idea is explicated in the proposition: “It is better to be a human or Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” “Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness – that the superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior – confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness, and content. It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. 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 a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”  It means that a person may chose to suffer or may tend to endure pain because of higher ideals or reason than merely satisfying oneself with senseless and capricious interest. Utility must be understood in terms of the good result/s towards the achievement of higher ideals or faculties of desire.  How does Mill respond to the charge that utilitarianism is a “godless” doctrine of “mere expediency”? - If God desires the happiness of his creatures, and this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other. A utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God, necessarily believes that whatever God has revealed on morality must fulfill the requirements of utility in a supreme degree.  Scratching Utilitarianism’s surface Lying might seem a good way out of tough situation, but if and when the people we deceive find out, not only will they be unhappy, but our reputation and relationship with them will be damaged. If I take my friend’s money (without his knowledge) , and buy lotto tickets with its there is a chance that we will end up millionaires ― happiness. - loss of money (most likely), and friendship, too THUS, gambling is not justified  Are Consequences all that matter? JUSTICE 1. Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was racial strife, and that during his visit, a Negro rapes a white woman, and that race riots occur as a result of the crime, white mobs, with the connivance of the police, bashing and killing negroes, etc. Suppose too that our utilitarian is in the area of the crime when it is committed such that his testimony would bring about the conviction of a particular Negro. If he knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and lynching, surely, as a utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty to bear false witness in order to bring about the punishment of an innocent person. What is your moral evaluation?  RIGHTS 2. In October 1958, appellant Ms. York went to the police dept. of Chino for the purpose of filling charges in connection with an assault upon her. Appellee Ron Story, a police officer, then acting his control of authority as such, advised appellant that it was necessary to take photographs of her. Story then took appellant to a room in the police station, locked the door, and directed her to undress, which she did. Story then directed appellant to assume various positions. These photographs were not made for any lawful purpose. Appellant objected to undressing. She stated to Story that there was no need to take photographs of her in nude, or in the positions she was directed to take, because the bruises would not show in any photograph. Late that month, Story advised appellant that the pictures did not come out and that he had destroyed them. Instead, Story circulated these photographs among the personnel of the Chino police department. In April 1960, two other officers of the police department, appellee Louis Moreno and defendant Henry Grote, acting under color of their authority as such, and using police photographic equipment located at the police station made additional prints of the photographs taken by Story. Moreno and Grote then circulated these prints among the personnel of the Chino police department.  Ms. York filed suit against these officers and won. Her legal rights had clearly been violated. But what of the morality of the officer’s behavior? Utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if they produce a favorable balance of happiness over unhappiness. 3. Matthew Donnely was a physicist who had worked with X- rays for 30 years. Perhaps as a result of too much exposure, he contracted cancer and lost a part of his jaw, his upper lip, his nose, and his left hand, as well as two fingers from his right hand. He was also left blind. Donnely’s physician told him that he had about a year to live, but he decided that he did not want to go on living in such a state. He was in constant pain. One writer said that, “at its worst, he could be seen lying in bed with teeth clinched and beads of perspiration standing out of his forehead.” Knowing that he was going to die eventually anyway, and wanting to escape this misery, Donnely begged his 3 brothers to kill him. Two refused, but one did not. The youngest brother, 36-year-old Harold, carried a.30-caliber pistol into the hospital and shot Matthew to death. What is your moral evaluation of the case? Do you think Harold’s action is morally justified?  William’s Critique of Utilitarianism 4. George, who has just taken his Ph.D. in chemistry, finds it difficult to get a job. He is not robust in health, which cuts down the number of jobs he might be able to do. His wife has to work, which causes a great deal of strain, since they have small children. The results of all this, especially on the children, are damaging. An older chemist says that he can get George a decently paid job in a laboratory which pursues research into chemical warfare. George says that he cannot accept this, since he is opposed to chemical warfare. The older man replies that he is not too keen on it himself, but George’s refusal is not going to make the job or the laboratory go away; what is more, if George refuses the job, it will certainly go to a contemporary of George’s who is not inhibited by such scruples and is likely to push the research with greater zeal than George would. What should George do? 5. Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified. A heavy man in a khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are about to be killed to remind other possible protesters 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 the other Indians will be let off. If Jim refuses, then Pedro will kill them all. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are begging him to accept. What should he do?