THE UTILITITARIAN APPROACH

The Revolution in Ethics

• Away from tradition-based religious conception
• dictated by multiculturalism of modern civilization
• different religious traditions claiming authority
• Protestant v. Catholic
• Christian v. Nonchristian
• if disputes were not to be resolved by force
• killing those who disagree
• seems an odd sort of way to establish the moral superiority
• same forces giving rise to the secular state
• governments of culturally & religiously diverse states
• must make collective decisions on raising moral issues
• need for a morality that is somehow independent of or neutral between traditions
• Towards a more universal conception, based on reason -- and sensibility (except for Kantians) -- rather than religion, tradition & authority
• peoples differ widely in their acceptance of tradtions, authority, & religion
• all share alike the basic human capacities of rational animals
• reasoning abilities: capacity for rational thought & intellectual apprehension
• sensibility: capacity for sensations . . . especially for
• pleasant desirable sensations, e.g., pleasure
• unpleasant undesirable sensations, e.g., pain
• Bentham's Principle of Utility (literally, usefulness)
• Hume
• moral reasoning begins from premises expressing preferences which reason itself cannot supply
• human "moral sentiments" supply these premises
• Bentham
• Principle of Utility: Act so as to produce the greatest "happiness" for the greatest number.
• A course of action that results in more overall "happiness" than the available alternatives
• is right or morally good
• what ought to be done or morally obligatory
• Courses of action that don't produce less overall "happiness" than available alternatives
• is wrong or morally bad
• what ought not to be done or morally forbidden.
• Different conceptions of happiness (cf. chap. 8.2)
• Classical Hedonistic Utilitarianism: (Bentham):  happiness = pleasure
• pleasure is the one intrinsically good thing
• pain is the one intrinsically bad thing
• pleasures & pains differ only in
• duration
• intensity
• pushpin is as good as Pushkin: no inherent differences in worth (have to be grounded in something else) between
• edifying sophistaced uplifting pleasures: e.g., reading Pushkin (the Russian poet)
• unedifying unsophisticated vulgar pleasures: e.g., playing pushpin (tiddleywinks)
• Preference Satisfaction Utilitarianism interest maximization (e.g., Singer)
• identifies happiness with preference, or interest, or desire satisfaction
• "Economic balance sheet model of ethical reasoning (morality as a kind of higher economics)
• in place of the traditional legalistic model (morality as a kind of higher law)
• with God as lawgiver
• commandments as law
• moral reasoning consists in application of rules (+ precedents) to cases
• Thou shalt not kill
• capital punishment: yes (the Pope now says)
• self defense: yes (always)
• suicide: no (never)
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• sexual contact short of intercourse (heavy petting)?
• Nazi experiments
• Set up a balance sheet
• set up a spreadsheet for each available course of action
• for each individual who will be affected by the action
• enter negative & positive consequences outcomes
• pleasure or preference satisfactions = assests or plusses
• pain or dissatisfactions = debits or minuses
• weighted, e.g., for intensity & duration
• stubbed toe = 1 (slight intensity & short duration)
• stomach cancer = 1000 (high intensity & long duration)
• discounted for (im)probability
• distant effects generally forseen with less accuracy
• than immediately forseeable effects
• Clinton's choice
• go all the way: have Sexual Relations (i.e., intercourse) with her
• Monica
• pleasure (100) * likelihood (100%) = 100
• pain {guilt-feelings?} (-5) * likelihood (100%) = 95
• Bill
• pleasure (100) * likelihood (100%) = 100
• pain (-10) * likelihood (100%) = -10
• Hillary
• pain (-200) * likelihood of discovery (5%) = -10
• Chelsea
• pain (-50) * likelihood of discovery (2%) = -1
• U.S. citizenry (-10 * 2million) = -20mil. * likelihood of exposure (1%) = -2mil.
• total: -1,999,836
• no way, Jose!
• Monica
• pleasure = 1
• pain (of rejection) = -5
• Bill
• pleasure (righteous pride) = 2
• pain (regret) = -15
• Chelsea = 0
• U.S. = 0
• total = -17
• half way, Jose: have "inappropropriate physical contact" short of intercourse
• Monica
• pleasure = 50
• pain = -10
• Bill
• pleasure = 80
• pain = -5
• Hillary
• pain (-100) * likelihood of discovery (1%) = -1
• Chelsea
• pain (-40) * likelihood of discovery (.5%) = -2
• U.S. citizenry (-5 * 2million) = -10mil. * likelihood of exposure (.1%) = -10,000
• total: -9888
• Overview
• what's right or good depends on available alternatives
• which among these alternatives
• produces the best outcome: the best balance of happiness over unhappines
• for everyone concerned: "Each counts one: none counts more than one."
• a common misunderstanding
• doesn't say whatever produces more happiness than unhappiness is good & more unhappiness than unhappiness is bad
• sometimes the right thing to do might result in more unhappiness than happiness
• no win situations as illustrated above
• the best option -- the right thing to do -- still produces a negative balance
• just less negative than the alternatives
• illustrated by the abstinence option above
• sometimes something that resulted in a positive balance might still be wrong
• no lose situations
• worse options -- wrong things do to -- might still be positive on balance
• just less positive than the alternatives
• illustration: giving away a million dollars
• give all to Bill Gates v. give to the poor
• it's be wrong to give it to Bill Gates (produce less happiness)
• diminishing returns:
• the more you have of something
• he less useful additional quantities are
• the money wouldn't do as much (happiness-wise) for Bill Gates
• prima facie case for
• applications in many cases produce results that accord with our moral intuitions: e.g., Clinton's choice.
• rooted in intuitively relevant moral considerations & practices
• outcome or results of actions matter -- not just their formal (legalistic) character
• a truth that's told with forseeable bad results beats all the lies you can invent
• compare
• a lie that spares someone's feelings
• a true confession that devastates someone's feelings
• we do "weigh the pros & cons" in deciding what to do
• utilitarianism an attempt to develop and refine this extant species of practical moral deliberation
• specifying what pros & cons are due moral consideration
• pleasures & pains
• preferece satisfactions or dissatisfactions
• and how to weight them
• impartially: equally for all affected (vs. Egoism)
• unequally: according to seriousness & likelihood
• especially useful for institutional decision-making
• institutions have a weightier obligation to impartiality
• and a greater need to take calculated decisions
• improvisational sort of decision making -- flying by the seat of your pants -- (somewhat) suitable for (some) individuals
• highly unsuitable for institutions
• first blush reservations
• lack of rigor as compared to financial calculations on which the utilitarian moral reasoning is based
• comparing incommensurables
• e.g. knowledge v. pleasure & pleasure
• special case -- priceless things: life v. pain
• estimating probabilities
• Philistine or materialistic tendencies
• "The ethics of English shopkeepers." (Marx)
• money is the comparative measure of incommensurable values we actually have
• "apples v. oranges" no problem!
• apples are $1 dozen
• oranges are $ 2 dozen
• applicability to individual decision making
• crucial moral decisions often have to be made on the spur of the moment
• no time for elaborate utilitarian calculation
• impartiality seems less desirable for individuals than for institutions

Example: Euthanasia

• Traditionally forbidden
• The intentional killing of innocent persons is always wrong.
• Thou shalt not kill!
• as distilled by traditional precedents formed with an idea to the thought that
• life is a God given gift
• only God should decide to take away
• Euthanasia deliberately kills an innocent person.
• So, euthanasia is wrong. (Likewise suicide -- for much the same reasons)
• Utilitarian emphasis: quality of life
• life itself neither good or bad
• if continuing a life would on balance result in more pain than pleasure ending it may be morally justified
• even morally obligatory with patient's consent since
• each is best judge of their own pleasure v. pain or their own preferences
• plus involuntary euthanasia would have bad social consequences
• invites abuse as a smokescreen for nonmerciful killing: just plain murder
• would make people fearful of being involuntarily euthanized (a considerable minus for a considerable number)
• Mill's Harm Principle: John Stuart Mill from On Liberty:
• "The only reason for which power can be exercised over a member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
• "His own good, physical or moral, would not be a sufficient warrant."
• prevention of offense to others is not a sufficient warrant
• Utilitarian basis
• not that liberty or individual autonomy is an intrinsic good (a la Kant)
• it's that allowing individuals liberty to pursue pursue happiness as they see fit
• is the most effective way to promote the general welfare
• is apt to result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Example: Nonhuman Animals

• Traditional lack of moral concern for animals: animals count zero
• animals lack souls
• therefore animals, morally speaking, count zero
• if it's wrong to be cruel to animals
• as in "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox as it treads out the grain."
• it's not because we have any direct moral duties to animals
• it's an indirect duty
• it's lest we grow habitually cruel and thus more likely to be cruel to people (to whom we do have direct duties).
• Kantian denial of moral concern for animals
• animals are not autonomous rational agents
• animals are not moral agents -- having moral duties
• so animals are not moral patients -- having rights to moral treatment -- either
• moral patiency: having rights to moral treatment or moral consideration
• again, morally, animals don't count
• Utilitarian conception
• moral patiency: the right to moral treatment or moral consideration hinges on sentience
• not rationality
• not possession of an immortal soul
• Bentham: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?
• Animals as well as humans are owed moral treatment & moral consideration
• might not count equally to humans -- difference in our capacities for enjoyment & suffering
• rational beings can suffer & enjoy more exquisitely than nonrational
• subject to fears & hopes & regrets as lower animals are not
• power of foresight
• and hindsight
• but their suffering and enjoyment -- such as it is -- does count
• not for nothing
• but as much as the comparable human suffering (Singer)