The Debate Over Utilitarianism

The Resiliance of the Theory

Classical Utilitarianism

Actions are judged right or wrong solely on the basis of their consequences (not by whether it accords or fails to accord with rules).
in assessing consequences the only thing that counts is happiness

Truly Classic: hedonistic: happiness = pleasure minus pain (Bentham)

in calculating the happiness vs unhappiness that will result all affected parites count equally:

"Each counts one
none counts more than one."

Widespread Acceptance

Faced with serious difficulties
Tendency has been to try to modify the theory to meet these difficulties rather than to entirely give up on it: to accept in on the basis of an inference to the best justification:

A theory is needed.
No theory is perfect.
Despite its problems Utilitarianism is still the best theory going.

Competing theories are all less useful
and no less problematic.

What is Happiness? (Is Pleasure the Only Thing that Matters?)

Happiness & Hedonism

"The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end." (J. S. Mill: quoted by Rachels, p. 103)
Bentham identified happiness with pleasure and unhappiness with pain.

Bentham was a hedonist: held the only intrinsically good thing is pleasure (n.b. contra Rachels)

Rachels says "The view that happiness is the one ultimate good . . . is know as Hedonism"

Not in this class!
The view that happiness is the one ultimate good is eudaemonism.

Bentham is both.

Mill not so hedonistic

hedonism vulnerable to accusations of vulgarity

overvaluation of the beastly pleasures of sex and breeding due to their intensity
undervaluation of more refined satisfactions due to their subtlety

that job well done feeling
civilized satisfactions of artistic creation & appreciation

Mill: recognized qualitative differences between pleasures besides the quantitative differences of intensity & duration as morally important.

Pushkin-pleasure is inherently better than pushpin pleasure.
The civilized satisfactions of tennis (e.g.) really are superior to the primitive tingles of sex.

Mill's view: Happiness a kind of la-la-la-la-feeling-groovy feeling?

Aristotle: Is happiness a feeling?

eu-daemonia (good spirited): blessed/fortunate v. cheery-n-upbeat
which comes first?

was the outcome of my accident happy because it put me in good spirits?
or am I in good spirits because my accident had a happy (fortunate) outcome?

happiness in the first place is a kind of comprehensive overall goodness of life . . . the quality of the life itself (not some kind of feeling).
also contrary to Mill: Happiness is not the only intrinsic good -- though it is the highest good.

many intrinsically good things: desirable in and of themselves

artistry,
knowledge,
love
& pleasure

but also desirable for the sake of happiness: a happy life including all of the above & more in due proportion.

No one kind of feeling = the one and only intrinsic good

nor 2, nor 3, for that matter
two reasons

doesn't do justice to the variety of human aims and satisfactions

many pleasing or satisfying things have very refined feelings attached.
Perhaps none at all

I was pleased that my overheads were still in my briefcase when I opened it.

Was there a distinct pleasurable feeling I had?
I'm dubious.

gets the satisfaction desire relation backwards

It's because we desire friends, knowledge, beauty, and things

that getting these things makes us feel happy

not vice versa: as if there is some quantity (that obscure tingle of satisfaction) that we really desire in desiring all good things

Any view that identifies the intrinsic good with some kind of feeling is guilty on these two counts.

Hedonism: the view that happiness = pleasure.
Millian Eudaemonism: the view that happiness = feeling-groovy

Contemporary Utilitiarism

Speaks of preference or "interest" (Singer) satisfaction: putting the horse before the cart.
What's best is what maximizes preference satisfaction among all affected

preferences just pro-attitudes or inclinations of whatever sort

not just desires for sex food, etc. whose satisfaction brings sensual pleasure
but also more refined inclinations -- carrying their own, nonsensual, satisfactions
or whatever: just plain wierdness: my desire for an autographed photo of Elvis

each counts one, none more than one, and each decides their own preferences

Nice ain't it?

Are Consequences All That Matter?

What of Justice?

Scenario 1: A black man is reported to have raped & murdered white woman.

Moral crossroads:

Plan A: We prevent lynching & rioting by picking out some innocent black man and framing him.
Plan B: We don't do this knowing that there will very probably be a race riot.

with lynchings, beatings, burnings
with the loss of many lives and much property

Plausible upshot of utilitarian calculation:

Plan A: the answer is obvious: one life vs. many
We're morally obliged -- it'd be wrong not to -- frame this innocent man.

This seems strongly contrary to our moral intuitions: It's unjust!

What about Rights?

Scenario 2: An actual case in Chino, C

under false pretenses officer Ron Story induced a woman, Angelynne York, to be photographed while naked, assuming various indecent poses
photos were passed around among the guys down at the station.
she found out & sued & won.

Did officer Story do wrong?

Utilitarian answer: only if the woman's mortification outweighed the pleasure the officers got from ogling the photos: possibly it did.

If so Utilitarianism gives the right answer.
But there's something amiss with their reasoning.

Consider Scenario 2a: The woman never finds out.

there's the mirth and enjoyment of the guys down at the precinct, on the one hand
no countervailing consternation, shame & chagrin on the other (Ms. York wouldn't know)
So it seems on balance -- according to a Utilitarian calculation -- that the police were right to do this.

an obligation even!
and in the real case . . . perhaps they just should've been more careful

Consider Scenario 2b: What they really should have done!

put up the pictures on the internet
so that millions of men can ogle them
no doubt that Ms. York will find this even more mortifying . . . but how mortified can one person get?
it's millions to one!

This seems strongly contrary to our moral intuitions: It violates the woman's rights!

Diagnosis of the Source of these difficulties

Utilitarianism is forward looking: only consequences matter
But often the past matters at well, it seems

it's relevant in the first case that the guy didn't do it
relevant in the second case that the pictures were deceitfully obtained and distributed without the womans knowledge or consent

that is was without he knowledge not a mitigating factor!
quite the contrary

Raising seperate issues?

the ill-gotten enjoyment of the guys down at the station house not a mitigating factor.
more inadvertantly ill-gotten would-be enjoyment of guys on the internet not mitigating either
quite the contrary!

The Defense of Utilitarianism

First line: point up the flaws in the calculations in the examples

Scenario 1: forgot to figure in considerable probability people would find out we'd framed an innocent man

trust in the law would be undermined
with worse overall consequences, in the long run, than the envisaged riots & lynchings

Scenario 2: in reality the woman did find out

and was mortified
with the lawsuit & attendant publicity
actually resulting in loss of respect for law enforcement

Second line: Rule Utilitarianism

Problem with the first line

though plausible that in most cases like these the truth will out & bad consequences follow
surely not always
in these exceptional cases, utilitarianism still delivers the wrong verdicts

Modification of the theory: do what as a rule would have the most desirable and the least undersirable consequences. Solves the exceptional case problem.

Third line: "So what?" (biting the bullet)

Sometimes utilitarism tells us things contrary to our moral intuitions
So does chemistry tell us things contrary to our observational intuitions

that rusting is a form of combustion
that glass is a liquid

That's what theories do

in the process or systematizing our observations/intuitions
they run counter to certain recalcitrant observations/intuitions
in which case the most reasonable thing to do

is sometimes to modify (or reject) the theory
and sometimes to reeducate or even reject the recalcitrant intuitions.

What is Correct and Incorrect in Utilitarianism

What's Correct

Consequences matter: the happiness or unhappiness that result from our actions is a morally relevant consideration
The emphasis on impartiality must be central to any viable morality
Moral intutions about cases are not infallible

What's Incorrect

Consequences are not all that matter
Considerations of rights and justice matter in ways the utilitarian can't account for

question of individual desert & responsibility
the man an woman in our counterexamples didn't deserve the treatment they got.

Even if Rule-Utilitarian gets the right results it gets them for the wrong reasons

not just because -- as a rule -- such acts have bad consequences
it's because they're unfair -- the victims didn't deserve their mistreatment
because of "backward-looking" considerations RU still leaves out