Utilitarianism
A Consequentialist Theory
•Answer to the fundamental
philosophical question
: What is the
right-making or wrong-right-making characteristic
of acts and other morally relevant things?
What constitutes moral good?
•
The morally good things generate some
Such theories are
differentiated from one
another by their answers to
four questions having to do
with elements of the
definition:
“things”
‘benefits’
‘distribution’
‘entities’
Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed
to be morally good, bad etc ?
Q2: Which benefits are considered important in
picking out the good things. What do the “things”
in Q1 aim to generate?
Q3: Which possible distribution is proper?
Q4: Which entities are morally relevant?
Such theories are
differentiated from one
another by their answers to
four questions having to do
with elements of the
definition:
“things”
‘benefits’
‘distribution’
‘entities’
Q1: What exactly are the things that are deemed
to be morally good, bad etc ?
Possible answers: Acts, Rules, Standard
Operating Procedures, Practices, Character traits,
Ideals
Q2: Which benefits are considered important in
picking out the good things? What do the “things”
in Q1 aim to generate?
Possible answers: pleasures, preference
satisfactions, human flourishing, material wealth,
happiness,..
Q3: Which possible distribution is proper?
Possible answers: the greatest overall amount to
self, society, the highest average over a group or
over an individual’s lifetime, the greatest amount
to the greatest number.
Q4: Which entities are morally relevant?
Possible answers: self, all humans, all sentient
creatures (capable of experiencing pains and
pleasures)
Consequentialist Theories
Benefits that
count (the basic
units of the
theory!)
Self
Society
Pleasures
Aspects of
Human
Flourishing
Ayn
Rand’s
Ethical
Egoism
(REE) (Objectivism)
Mill’s
Utilitarianism
(MU)
Hedonistic
Ethical
Egoism
(HEE)
Bentham’s
Hedonistic
Utilitarianism
(HU)
Entity thatneed
Ethical Egoism
Ethical Egoism: the morally correct
acts, practices or character traits for
any given individual are those that
generate the valued benefits according
to the favored distribution for that
individual.
Nutshell: The morally correct course of
action is always to act in the interest
of your own happiness
HEE
REE
HU MU
Consequentialist Theories
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts,
practices or character traits for any given
individual are those that generate the
valued benefits (whatever they may be)
according to the favored distribution for
society as a whole.
Nutshell: The morally correct course of
action is always to act in the interest of
society’s general happiness.
HEE REE
HU
MU
Consequentialist Theories
Jeremy Bentham in a Box The basic thing that distinguishes
utilitarianism from other forms of
consequentialism is its focus on society as a whole: A general statement of the utilitarian position is this: The morally correct courses of action, rules or character traits, from among all the alternatives, are those that generate the greatest net benefit for the greatest number of individuals in society.
Different versions of utilitarian thought focus on
the social impact of individual acts, rules or
practices, even character traits and ideals (such
as that of liberty). John Stuart Mill concerns
himself with each of these and combines them,
creating a powerful utilitarian theory which
revolves around the notion of human flourishing
or happiness (Greek term:
εὐδαιμονία
, which we
will run into again later in the course). For
purposes of discussion, it is useful to differentiate
two forms of Utilitarianism. We do this keeping in
mind that they actually are two aspects of
utilitarian theory.
“Approval” or
“Conventionalist” Theories of Ethical Properties
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: the morally correct acts,
practices or character traits for any given
individual are those that generate the
valued benefits (whatever they may be)
according to the favored distribution for
society as a whole.
To do this, it is necessary to tell
a story..
Utilitarianism
Five friends are spelunking in a newly discovered cave. It
happens to be located on the Eastern Seaboard, and has been created over many years by the actions of the tides. As the five explore inside, the entrance they used, adjacent to the beach, is inundated by the incoming high tide. This is one of those areas where the low tide will travel over a half mile out, but high tide comes rushing in with a vengeance.
They see there is no way to escape via the entrance. They
scramble around looking for options. There is an opening at the top of the cave. They find a way up, as the waters furiously rise. They are racing the incoming tide. They make it to the top, a sort of natural ledge allows them to make their way to the opening in the roof of the cave. Hastily, they begin to make their way out. Fred is closest, so he goes to lift himself up, and out. As he lifts his body up through the hole, he becomes very securely lodged. He tries to move. The others push on him, hoping to move him completely through. He doesn’t budge. In the panic, he had not noticed he had his backpack on. It is the root of the problem. The others try to pull it out. They cannot cut it away, for Fred has
Utilitarianism
Fred can hear what is going on, and yells at Barney to calm down. Barney calms himself. “Look, if we dynamite our way outa’ here, we can go to the topside of the cave, and pull Fred out.” Fred yells approval.
Wilma likes the idea. “Good. But, we need the dynamite and the detonator.” She usually carried the detonator, having designed it herself from an old car entry remote. She riffles quickly through her pockets, “Got it!”
“Great. I have the dynamite,” Barney says as he quickly takes off his backpack and unzips it. He looks, fumbles around and digs furiously through it, to no avail. “Damn it. We’re screwed.”
Fred meanwhile has realized he has the dynamite in his
backpack. As the thought hits him, he stops struggling against the grip of the exit.
At the same time, an eerie quiet descends upon the group still in the cave.
He knows. They know. They know he knows. He knows they know. Finally, he hears Wilma: “Fred? Fred? Can you hear me? We can save ourselves, but..” She cannot bring herself to say it.
And the vote says..
Utilitarianism
Fred feels the moral pull, but is afraid for his life. He is ashamed but he simply says “Please, for God’s sake don’t. Forgive me.” The group look at each other, look at Fred’s suspended lower half, and down at the furious waters. They have no more than another minute.
What should they do?
Let’s take a vote on the case. You have two, and only two options.
1.Use the detonator, blow Fred up. This will allow the four to escape. Obviously, Fred will not be so lucky.
And have you all vote!
Utilitarianism
YES
NO
And have you all vote!
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Vote Results?
YES
If you primarily focus
on:
How individual acts or
options impact overall
social happiness you
are an “Act Utilitarian”
Act Utilitarianism Simply Stated:
Your moral obligation in any given
situation is to take the action open to you
that will bring about the greatest net
balance of happiness for the greatest
number.
This is the “utilitarian intuition” that
seems to drive the vote results in the Cave
Case.
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its
course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses
of action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of
action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
Utilitarianism
Be sure to take account of all individuals affected by the option, and count
each person’s harms and benefits equally. Give no individual’s benefits or
harms greater weight (including your own.) Why? Intuitively, we feel moral
deliberation should be impartial. We blame folks for unduly considering
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of
action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one
possible way to do this:
Utilitarianism
A. Do your best to assign positive values for benefits you have determined. In this case, preservation of life, a vital benefit, is obviously paramount. But important too are various benefits that accrue because the individuals involved survive. You should count all these. B. Do your best to assign negative values for harms you have determined.In this case, death is obviously the paramount harm. But important too, are the various harms that accrue due to the loss of the individuals involved.You should count all these.
Act Utilitarian Decision Procedure. [Applied to choice
between blowing up Fred or letting nature take its course.]
1. Determine your options. Ask: What possible courses of
action do I have?
2. Determine consequences (harms and benefits)
For each of the identified options ask:
What are the benefits generated by this course of action?
What are the harms generated by this course of action?
3. Assign values to the harms and benefits. Here is one
possible way to do this:
4. Carry out a summation for each option’s array of harms
and benefits, making sure to multiply results by the
number of people that will be affected by your choices.
Notice here that blowing up Fred will prevent a several
people from dying.
Utilitarianism
Assuming all else as being equal, the utilitarian calculus shows
that the class vote is in fact the correct course of action by Act
Utilitarian standards. According to utilitarians, we are
OBLIGATED to act in those ways that maximize utility. So, we
must blow up Fred, and would be blameworthy if we didn’t.
Blow up Fred
Save four lives +150 x 4 = +600
Lose one life -150 x 1 = -150
Calculus Result = +450
Let Nature take its course
Lose four lives -150 x 4 = -600
Save one life +150 x 1 = +150
Utilitarianism
As with any philosophical theory, plausibility often varies with the
example used. In this case, we have been presented with an
example that highlights one aspect of utilitarian theory, and lends
credibility to that aspect, something we have abstracted from the
whole and called “Act Utilitarianism.”
But, is that the whole story? As you might suspect, the answer is
“no.” There are other examples that throw doubt upon Act
Utilitarianism, and according to some, upon Utilitarianism as a
whole. They seem to show it leads to immoral results.
Others claim these examples are not fatal to Utilitarianism, but
rather emphasize another aspect of the theory; one which must be
fully incorporated in a successful and robust final theory.
It is necessary to tell another
story, and have you vote..
It is necessary to tell another
story..
Utilitarianism
Sheriff Justice has a real
problem on his hands. He
lives in a remote town of the
Wild West. A brutal shooting
of the Burt family occurred a
month ago. A great deal of
circumstantial evidence point
to Reed, a local everyone
knows. His bloody boot prints
were found at the scene. A
weapon was found on his
farmland, hidden in the
hollow of a tree. There is a
ballistic match between the
rounds and the weapon. He
did not get along with the
head of the family, Gleason.
They had heated arguments,
and have gone to court
several times, suing each
other over land rights. In
general, Reed is not liked,
while his victims were
It is necessary to tell another
story..
Utilitarianism
Sheriff Justice knows that Reed did not
commit the crime. He knows this
because Reed, an alcoholic, was home
that afternoon, evening and night,
passed out. The sheriff made a regular
habit of checking up on Reed, who had a
habit of getting drunk, and wandering
around town, falling asleep in odd
places. Justice would take him home if
he found him. On this particular night, at
the time the crime occurred, Reed was
at home, and in fact never left home for
town. The Sheriff has surmised that
someone passing through town and
aware of the animosity between Reed
and Burt snuck into Reed's house, used
one of his rifles, and wore his boots to
kill and rob the family, while
Utilitarianism
The townsfolk are aware of the
circumstantial evidence against
Reed. The Sheriff has attempted to
tell them what he knows, and what
he has surmised. They are angry,
and refuse to listen. They do not
believe the Sheriff, and have
promised to take Reed themselves,
and generally riot in town, killing
and destroying property as they go,
if he doesn't do what he is
‘supposed’ to do.
The Sheriff knows he can arrest
Reed, and that will dissolve the
crisis. But, he also knows that to
arrest him, and later release him
with or without a trial will bring on
the rioting, only later.
He also knows he runs no risk of
the truth finally coming out about
this case, if he does arrest try and
either jail or execute Reed.
And have you all vote!
Utilitarianism
Blow Up Fred
YES
NO
Arrest, try, convict
And have you all vote!
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Vote Results?
YES
If you primarily focus
on:
How rules or practices
impact overall social
happiness you are a
“Rule Utilitarian”
Rule Utilitarianism Simply Stated:
Your moral obligation in any given
situation is to act in accordance with the
rule (or set of rules) that, if followed by all
or most people in like circumstances,
would bring about the greatest net
balance of happiness for the greatest
number.
This is a utilitarian intuition that may drive
the vote in the Sheriff Justice Case. (This is
not to say that there are not other
intuitions that may be driving this vote.
More on that later!)
A Rule Utilitarian Decision Procedure.
When faced with a moral choice ask:
1. What are the rules in society that cover
this situation?
Once you have determined this, ask:
2. What is the one rule that most closely
covers my situation? Which rule captures
more significant features of my case than
any other rule?
3. Review the content of that rule, and do
what it says.
Utilitarianism
Problems with Act Utilitarianism
Too personally demanding:
•Obliges us to implement the options that optimize benefits. (Think about what this requires of you in the Sheriff Justice case. What sort of impact will this have on the remainder of your life?)
•Requires that we give no special
consideration to our own happiness. (Are you ever ‘given permission’ by utilitarian reasoning, to enjoy yourself?)
•If true, there is no such thing as going above and beyond the call of duty
(supererogation). You are meeting your minimal moral obligation by giving at least half your income to Oxfam, according to Peter Singer.
•Assigns equal levels of moral responsibility for actively doing a wrong thing as for
allowing a wrong thing to happen. If it is within a person’s power to prevent a harm, and he doesn’t he is responsible for the harm.
Too morally permissive: Allows, indeed requires, actions we would normally consider wrong.
•Acting unjustly (E.g., Sheriff Justice case is one in point. Also the “transplant case.”) •Acting secretly or deceptively (Sheriff would obviously be deceiving)
•Using people as mere means (Doctor can find a healthy homeless man who won’t be missed, kill him, take his organs, save 4 others.)
Utilitarianism
Rights and Rule Utilitarianism
Rights
A right is a claim a person has upon others. For each claim there is a
corresponding obligation as to what actions other persons should or should not undertake with reference to that person.
What sorts of rights are there?
Negative rights / Rights of non-interference
Life – we each are obligated to respect the lives of others. They too, must respect our individual right to life.
Liberty – we are obligated to give all persons as much liberty of action, thought, speech etc. as is consistent with equal liberty for all. This does not require that we give free reign to everybody. We can limit liberties only if it is necessary to ensure the most
extensive set of liberties possible, given the competing needs, wants, and desires of the individuals that make up society. Property – We are obliged to respect the holdings of others.
Expression – We are obliged to refrain from interfering with the speech of others.
Positive rights / Rights of Recipience
Utilitarianism
In comparing Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism, we can “score” them according to how successfully they deal with certain objections that have been leveled at the theory Now, a final area of concern, briefly mentioned earlier. How does Rule Utilitarianism score here?
Rights have a derivative status in utilitarian thought, and are never ‘inalienable.’
•They are ultimately justified on a rule utilitarian basis by Mill:
“To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him no other reason than general utility.”
•A utilitarian can justify ignoring individual rights in certain circumstances like the Sheriff and transplant cases. Rights are considered to be useful conventions, not as independent constraints upon utilitarian calculations.
•Rule Utilitarianism does not fully address the ‘too permissive’ objection.
Suppose you can break a rule, and do so without risk of public detection, and in so doing, generate greater amounts of benefits than you could by following the rule. You should do so, if you are a utilitarian. Consider the doctor with the plan to use a homeless man as an organ bank. Secretly breaking the rule against murder does nothing to jeopardize public trust, nor the utilitarian strength of the rule, but it does increase net benefits.
•Any statement of rights is a statement that looks like a rule, requiring or forbidding certain lines of action toward individuals. As a rule, its ultimate justification, and a possible ground for override, is utility expectation.
