Utilitarianism. If the ends don t justify the means well, what does?

Transcription

1 Utilitarianism If the ends don t justify the means well, what does? A Revolution In Ethics For our purposes, utilitarianism can be said to have been founded by Jeremy Bentham ( ); developed and refined by John Stuart Mill ( ) Philosophical Radicals : Both Bentham and Mill were active social and political reformers; both wrote and campaigned in aid of legislation (Bentham, penal reform; Mill, women s suffrage, contraception, Irish land reform) 1

2 this practical focus is not accidental. Bentham s major work: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). As its title implies, for Bentham, moral philosophy is and ought to be put to use in setting a practical political agenda. Mill, for his part, wrote numerous pamphlets on social and political questions and served as an MP. Of particular note, his The Subjection of Women (with Harriet Taylor Mill, 1869) one of the major documents of modern liberal feminism. Classical Utilitarianism (U) in a Nutshell a) Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences; nothing else matters (consequentialism) b) Consequences are to be assessed as good or bad solely in terms of the utility or disutility (pleasure or pain; happiness or unhappiness) created. c) Each person s utility counts and counts equally (egalitarianism) The fundamental normative principle: Maximize utility! (for everyone affected). A teleological view. 2

3 Why is this revolutionary? The core idea: An action is morally right (i.e., is a duty or is at least morally permissible) if it brings about more utility (more happiness, more pleasure) for everyone affected than any other alternative action. Its familiar (though potentially self-contradictory) slogan: The greatest happiness of the greatest number Implication: Our happiness matters; everyone s happiness matters. Morality is not given by God or inscribed in eternal abstract rules. It something we can do something about Objectivity The bold U claim: We can, in principle, get morals objectively right. In order to function as a practical guide to moral questions, the utilitarian reckons, a moral theory must be as objective as possible. Utility is understood to be the sort of thing that we ought to be able ascertain, at least in principle, by observation, measurements, scientific reasoning 3

4 Sidebar: Liberty / Paternalism Mill: Each sane adult is the best judge of what is in her best interests (i.e., what will maximize her utility). Even if that may sometimes seem to be false, how can we be sure that we know any better? Plus, deciding on other people s behalf has disutility of its own, e.g., creating dependency and impeding moral development both of individuals and the community. Implication: U is compatible with respect for libertry Sidebar: Liberty/Paternalism II But is it true that individuals are objectively the best judges of what is in their interests? Consider: Drug addiction, vaccination, personal finances, monetary policy Accordingly, for some contemporary utilitarians, the theory turns out to be compatible with a fairly high degree of paternalism. 4

5 Utility In general, the term utility stands for whatever is understood to be intrinsically valuable Intrinsically valuable: Valuable as an end, for its own sake Instrumentally valuable: Valuable as a means to obtain something else (e.g., money, possessions) Candidate intrinsically valuable things: Pleasure (Bentham), Happiness (Mill), Welfare, Preference satisfaction (some contemporary utilitarians). Equality & Impartiality On any version of utilitarian theory, we are to maximize utility (minimize disutility) for everyone affected in aggregate. Bentham: Each is to count for one, none to count for more than one. Mill: I must again repeat what the assailants of utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested benevolent spectator. ( Utilitarianism, 76) 5

6 The Case for Utilitarianism The U idea has been enormously influential over the last 200+ years, in philosophy, politics, economics and elsewhere. The attractiveness of the U idea, I d suggest, has a lot to do with precisely those features of the theory that we have already mentioned: Objectivity/Non-mysteriousness Equality/Impartiality At least some scope for human freedom Some Applications of U Euthanasia: If an individual is in pain (individual judgment), has no realistic prospect of recovery (expert judgment), then how, by U, could it not be morally acceptable for that person to end his life (or for someone else to end it for her)? Recreational Drugs: If a sane adult judges that drug use is, on balance, a positive source of utility, who are we to second guess her? Moreover, even if we were to adopt a paternalistic view, the question of drug use is, for U, simply a matter of harms and benefits, not intrinsic good or evil. And note: the harms created by making drugs illegal should also be counted in the U analysis. 6

7 Non-Human Animals: Who is everyone affected? At least on a hedonic U view, the relevant criterion would seem to be not can they reason? or can they talk? but Can they suffer? (Bentham, 108) So U is often understood, at a minimum, to forbid animal cruelty; possibly to mandate vegetarianism, restrictions on animal testing, etc. Act vs. Rule Mill: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Utilitarianism, 1863, Ch. 2) Note that this is ambiguous. Is it the case that (i) an action is right if this sort of action tends to promote happiness or (ii) an action is right if this particular action will promote happiness? Rule Utilitarianism (RU): Adopt the rule, the general type of action, that will maximize utility in the long run. Act Utilitarianism (AU): Maximize utility in each individual case (i.e., for each individual action) 7

8 Criticisms of U 1. Is Utility All That Matters? Rachels raises some objections (112-3) to the effect that hedonic U may be too narrow, excluding other things we value besides pleasure/the absence of pain. (the pianist s damaged hands; gossip of which the gossipee is unaware) Well, to some degree, classical U (Mill s at least) has already anticipated this issue Mill: We must broaden our conception of utility from simple pleasure to happiness (eudaemonia, thrivingness ) everything we desire becomes part of happiness. Happiness is a complex phenomenon. it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied ( Utilitarianism, 1863, 74) Contemporary preference satisfaction U, in some sense, takes this even a step further 8

9 2. Justice Considerations Retributive Justice: McCloskey s southern sheriff example (114) Distributive Justice: Candy bowl example 3. Rights Considerations Privacy Rights: Why should the pleasure of a peeping tom count at all? Security Rights: Why should the pleasure of the rapist count at all? In fact, classical Us are typically skeptical about the very idea of rights (Bentham: Nonsense on stilts ). We ve already seen this /w/r/t judicial rights 9

10 4. Backward-Looking Reasons Personal Relationships: The benevolent, disinterested spectator would count strangers on an equal basis with friends and family. This seems bizarre or too demanding (But is it really? Consider Peter Singer on people in less developed societies.) Desert Island Promises: If lying/breaking a promise will yield more utility than the truth, and will not create any disutility of its own (but is that ever the case?), then, by AU, these things seem to be morally permissible. 10