Lecture 7 and 8: Utilitarianism

Transcription

1 Lecture 7 and 8: Utilitarianism TEXT: Mill, John Stuart Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett. I. Introduction A. John Stuart Mill ( ) British philosopher and economist. He was given an extremely rigorous, some would say harsh, upbringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings. His father wanted to create a genius capable of carrying on the utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham. B. Timeline 1. Learned Greek at age 3 2. Learned Latin at age 8 3. Nervous Breakdown at age 21: strenuous study required him to repress any feelings and any social development. 4. Pioneer in Inductive Logic 5. Advocate of Women s Rights II. Chapter I: General Remarks (1-5) A. Foundation of Morality Search for a Moral Standard 1. Like Kant, searching for the first principle B. All actions are for some purpose 1. Actions evaluated on the basis of the end we seek 2. Develop our axiology and then the method to approximation it. a. First, we want a conception of what exactly it is we are pursuing. i. This would allow us to better accomplish this end. b. Second, we want a conception of how to attain the goal. 3. Example a. Baseball Example C. Objections to Tradition 1. Against Moral Instinct and Popular Morality a. Moral instinct gives us only a general guide b. Don t give us concrete rules that we need i. Refrain from harm ii. Be good 2. We want a rule for exactly what to do. A clear end and a means to get it. 3. Against a priori determined ethics a. No list of a priori principles, just the categorical imperative b. Both are incapable of resolving conflict on the concrete level D. Categorical Imperative Stated (4) 1. So act that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings 1

2 2. Objection: Fails to show how conflicting duties are resolved a. Do not lie b. Be benevolent c. Example: Mother asks you if she looks nice. d. Example: Murderous individual at your door. 3. Objection: Fails to show that we couldn t universal the most grotesque actions 4. Summary E. Two Important Points in the History of Ethics 1. Need for a First Principle of Ethics 2. One of these is the Principle of Utility a. Any Moral Theory must deal with Happiness b. Kant dealt with it III. Chapter II: What Utilitarianism Is (6-26) A. Introduction 1. Utilitarianism is described by going through a number of objections and misapprehensions of it. 2. Omnis determinatio est negation (All determination is negation) B. Description 1. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. (7) 2. What is desirable as an end to our action is pleasure (7) 3. Axiology: State of Happiness 4. Evaluative Criteria for Action: Does it increase happiness? C. Objections 1. Objection #1: Pleasure and Utility (6 7) a. Objection Stated: Too simplistic of a theory, everything is about pleasure, pleasure, pleasure; there is more to the good than this. b. Rebuttal: Not mere pleasure, but pleasure exempt from pain c. Not mere rhapsody or frivolousness, but useful actions that involve pleasure d. Not only short-term e. Cultivated pleasure too: Things of Beauty f. Happiness Defined (7) i. Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure 2. Objection #2: Doctrine of the Swine (7) a. Objection: Reduction of the human being to that of a swine 2

3 b. Reply i. The concept of happiness and that for a swine are much different ii. Elevated sense of happiness: Pleasure of the Intellect, Aesthetic Taste, Goodness iii. Happiness is not merely about quantity iv. Quality and Quantity go into the equation c. Mill s Ladder: A Non-reversibility Thesis i. Once we have obtained a level of intelligence, and have cultivated a sense of higher happiness, we won t go back down the ladder 1. Test 1: Happy and Stupid or Intelligent and Unhappy 2. Test 2: Decrease your intelligence for some more happiness 3. Test 3: Become less than a human being for more happiness, become a pig. ii. What causes this is a sense of dignity. The greater dignity we have the greater our capacity for pain and happiness. Sense of happiness and worth from dignity. iii. Unhappiness increases as we become more intelligent because it requires more to make us happy and we are capable of more acute suffering 1. Quality of happiness becomes more important iv. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied (10) 1. Objection: Often People postpone the quality for immediate quantity. a. We often pursue the immediate pleasure and not the one of higher quality. 2. Rebuttal: We really want the higher happiness, but don t think we can get it. 3. Important: Axiology of Utilitarianism is a state of happiness, taking account of quality and quantity 4. Objection #3: Unattainable Happiness (12) a. Objection: Happiness is too high of a goal i. We can t maintain a continual happiness b. Reply: Utilitarianism involves not only the pursuit of happiness but the prevention of unhappiness. i. The happy life isn t complete and continual rapture, but an admixture of pleasure of pain, with the former being greater than the latter. ii. The happy life isn t free from all pain, but one were it is minimal. c. Two Constituents of a Happy Life i. Tranquility Increase tranquility and you can do without a lot of pleasure. 3

4 1. Example: Stoic approach: if someone hits you, you don t take it personally. You don t wallow over the bad things that do happen to you. ii. Excitement Increase excitement and you can do with a high quantity of pain. 1. Example: A child that is having a good time, falls, but is ok. 2. If you are having a good time, you won t let the pain get to you. d. Two Constituents of an Unhappy Life i. Selfishness Our desires and wants are naturally tied up with the desires and wants of other people. One source of unhappiness is not being able to share in the happiness of others. 1. Loneliness, Lack of identity. ii. Stupidity If we are free from disease and other physical ailments, we need something to do with our time; discontent emerges from lack of interest in things worth inquiry. 1. Boredom e. External Things that Keep us from Happiness i. Social (Political) Arrangements ii. Education iii. Disease, Physical Ailments, Poverty 5. Objection #4: Living Without Happiness The Good is Virtue (15 16) a. Objection (15 16) i. We ought to learn to do without happiness ii. True virtue is found in the renunciation of happiness, heroic deeds iii. Example: Hero/heroine engaging in a supererogatory act of sacrificing his/her life for someone else. iv. Example: Starving person giving away his/her food away to someone else. b. Rebuttal i. Heroic Deed is done for some purpose ii. Done to increase happiness for others, renunciation is only done for one s self. iii. Sacrifice is good only insofar as it increases the sum total of happiness c. Principal Reiteration i. Happiness that we are concerned with is the not one s own happiness, but the happiness of all concerned (17). ii. Requires that we be impartial, disinterested, not an egoist, and benevolent and heroic if so demanded. d. Golden Rule i. Do that which you would do unto others ii. Treat people equally under the utilitarian moral standard. e. Summary 4

5 i. Actions done for some purpose: our aim should be to increase the total sum of happiness; this aim requires us often to sacrifice our own happiness. 6. Objection #5: Too High a Standard for Humanity (18) a. Objection: Too much to require from people that they should act for the greater good, to be impartial and not consider themselves. What about our motive for acting? We have good motives. b. Rebuttal: i. MOTIVE plays no role in the evaluation of an action (anti-kant). ii. When evaluating a moral action, what determines whether it is right or wrong hinges on whether it produced the best overall consequences. iii. Better we live in a world of good consequences and do the wrong thing, then live in a world of right action and have bad consequences iv. Motive doesn t help us approximate or get closer to the end result. 7. Objection #6: Elimination of Moral Sentiment (20 21) a. Objection: Utilitarianism, when making a moral evaluation, does not take into account the character of the person who performed the act, only the action. Moral sentiment plays no role, everyone should be cold calculators. i. Example: Your arch-enemy wants to hit you in the head with a rock, but as he throws it lands on the ground and you find a dollar on the ground. ii. Example: Good doctor operating on a patient, accidentally ends up killing him/her. b. Rebuttal: Yes, right action doesn t necessarily indicate a virtuous character i. Evil people do good things (accident, guilty conscience, etc.) ii. Good people do evil things (accident, slip of judgment, etc.) c. Utilitarianism is a Consequence-based Ethics i. An action is right or wrong if it produces good consequences ii. We judge the actions and not the individual iii. Utilitarianism contends that the right maximizes the good. 8. Objection #7: Anti-religious (22) a. Objection: Godless doctrine, only thing we are after is our own happiness, and not to serve god b. Rebuttal i. It is right to do what God wants, and part of what he wants is a doctrine of ethics. ii. God desires the happiness of his creatures iii. Utilitarianism is an interpretation of the will of God 9. Expediency over Principled Decisions (22 23) 5

6 a. Objection: Utilitarianism is that which is best for the particular individual making the decision. b. Rebuttal 10. Objection #8: Lack of Time (23 24) a. Objection: There is no time for calculating whether our actions will produce the most happiness. i. Example: We have a gun to our head and need to decide whether to shoot this man or give him an apple 1. We don t have time to decide. b. Rebuttal i. There is no time to consult the Old and New Testament ii. We have had time to consider what actions are right and which ones are wrong. 1. We know that murder causes harm in most cases iii. No need to test each individual action, just adopt basic rules that we have learned over time. iv. Navigation based on our use of maps, but we don t take the time to calculate whether these maps are correct, we extend a certain amount of trust. c. Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism i. Act (Direct) Utilitarianism the principle is applied directly to the selection of particular actions under particular circumstances ii. Rule (Indirect) Utilitarianism the principle is applied to the selection of a set of rules, which are in turn used to determine what to do in particular situations. 1. Example: Man walks into a gas station, and thinks Should I rob it? a. Act: Yes if in this particular situation, it would produce the most amount of happiness b. Rule: No, you should operate on the general rule that robbing people at gunpoint is wrong iii. Rule utilitarianists look for the best rules to apply over the long haul. This will get us at our goal of Happiness. iv. Act utilitarianists look for the best action in a particular situation. This will get us as at our goal of Happiness. v. Example: Someone goes to the doctor. The person is ill, experiences pain and dysfunction. The doctor performs a series of test and examinations. The person returns to the doctor's office to learn of the results, the diagnosis and prognosis. The doctor is aware that the tests all show that the person has a disease that is incurable and life threatening. In fact even under the most aggressive treatment option there is a survival rate of less than 15% for two years. The doctor is considering what would be GOOD to tell the person. Should the person know the truth or should the person be told something other than the truth? Which is better? Which is the right thing to do? What would be GOOD to do? The act utilitarian might calculate that in telling the truth there will be a great deal of pain and hardly any pleasure at all The person will be upset, their family will be upset, the doctor will be upset in informing the ill person that there is nothing that the doctor can do to alter their condition. The doctor's staff will be upset seeing the person 6

7 come in for whatever treatment there may be. On the other hand if the doctor makes up a story concerning the diagnosis and prognosis that is not true but that gives the ill person more time to enjoy life before the illness makes it obvious that the end is near, well then the results are different. The doctor is not so upset in seeing the person, the doctor's staff is not upset. The family and friends of the person have some more time with that person to enjoy things instead of being morose and depressed. So the ACT utilitarian might calculate that the GOOD is to lie. The rule utilitarian would need to consider what would the long term consequences be if doctors were to lie to those who come to them and have life threatening, incurable illnesses. The rule utilitarian might calculate that people would no longer be able to trust their doctors and this would break down the confidence they need for their therapies to be effective. The RULE utilitarian might calculate that there is far more harm in lying and so the GOOD is to tell the truth. (From : htm) 11. Objection #9: Permits rationalization of Wrongdoing (25 26) a. Objection: People will make exceptions for themselves under the utilitarian system. i. Example: Self-deception: Do what you think that this is best for humanity, but it is just a rationalization. ii. Example: It is best for me to cheat on my taxes because I would do a better job with it than the government would. iii. Example: It is best for me to lie in this situation because x, y, z. b. Rebuttal: i. This is true in any system of ethics ii. The utilitarian creed doesn t allow for exceptions or exemptions. iii. An ethical rule can t force you to obey it. D. Summary 1. Happiness as the moral standard 2. Happiness is pleasure with the absence of pain. 3. Action is done for some purpose a. Action is judged good or bad on whether it accomplishes it purpose b. Motive is not an issue 4. Quality and Quantity 5. Impartiality 6. Judging the action has nothing to do with the character of the actor IV. Chapter III: Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility (27-34) a. Mill Wants to Know what Sanctions the Principle of Utility (Justification) 1. What gives the principle of utility its authority? Why should we aim to increase the total amount of happiness? a. Subjective Feeling Dictates to us a command, gives us a feeling of duty. 2. The Conscientious Feeling that we Have 3. Our Conscience Tells Us what is Right and Wrong a. How Do We Come to Have Moral Feelings? i. Innate 1. Born with a conscience 2. We have an intuitive understanding of right and wrong from birth 3. If it is innate, it seems like it could be geared toward happiness. 7

8 4. Our moral intuition (or commonsense) tells us that the good is to increase happiness, which also involves a consideration of the interests of others. ii. Implanted (Not Innate but Acquired) 1. Something we acquire through our moral upbringing 2. Moral Conscience is something we learn to have through our family, church, from being engaged in a society. b. Whether or not our Conscience is Innate or Implanted, what matters is its foundation. i. The foundation of our conscience is the subjective social feeling to want to be in harmony with society. 1. Unpleasantness when we are out of harmony a. Feeling of wrongdoing i. Feeling of guilt we feel when we do something illegal ii. Feeling of guilt we feel when we break a rule we feel to be wrong. iii. We feel bad because we are not taking into account the interests of others. b. Feeling of disappointment with our role as a human being. c. Something fundamental to how we look at life. 2. Look at society, our lives have become more and more intertwined (e.g. internet, fewer languages, travel, etc.) ii. This foundation of wanting to be unified with others demands that we recognize that the interests of people are equal to our own. 1. Not a master and slave mentality, but regarding others as an equal in the struggle for harmony. 2. There is nothing to dictate that your interest is worth more or should be valued more than mine. 3. Principle of Equal Treatment: We should treat people in the same way unless there is a relevant difference between them. iii. The more we connect ourselves with society, the more we become a part of the overall purpose and project of society, the more we learn to connect our feelings with the welfare of others. 1. Become part of a community outreach group 2. Help the homeless 3. Question: Do we become more empathetic and more willing to regard the interests of all being equal? 4. Question: Should or do we demand or teach people to become more socially involved from an early age, and do you think this will make for a better society, one where we see the interests of others equally? 8

9 iv. When we are young we are primarily concerned with our own interests, unable to be sympathetic 1. As we grow older, we begin to be sympathetic with everyone else, because we see that they are struggling to attain happiness just like we are. 2. We are sympathetic with this struggle, and our binding our own feelings with that of society, causes us to say let my happiness be bound up with the happiness of society, let us be impartial. v. Some people lack a conscience altogether 1. Lack of the ability to appreciate or feel the harmony or disharmony. 2. Involves the inability to recognize the interests and moral worth of another human being. b. Key Point: Mill s initial question was: What gives the principle of utility its authority? 1. The subjective feeling tells us that we ought to regard our own personal interests as bound up with the interests of others. 2. That when we consider right and wrong, we are keeping in mind that what we ultimately want is to live in harmony with others. 3. This demands that we treat others equally; recognize that they suffer and are happy the same way we are. 4. The notion of self is created with this recognition of the other that is much like our own self. V. Chapter IV: Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible (35-41) a. How do we prove that Happiness is really what we are all after? 1. We prove that something exists by touching or feeling it. 2. We prove something is audible by hearing it 3. We prove that happiness is what we are really after by examining whether we are all after it. a. Requires self-observation of our aim for acting. b. What is the sole aim of all our action? b. Other Desires we have 1. If we have another aim in mind, then utilitarianism doesn t work. If our sole aim is happiness, then utilitarianism is partially proved. 2. Another aim: Riches a. We only really desire these for the happiness it allows us to gain. b. But sometimes people desire possessing money more than they do using it. c. Well, in this case, the end is the possession of money, but it is possessed for the sake of producing happiness. d. Having money is part of what it means for the individual to be happy. 9

10 c. Happiness has parts 1. Part of it might be to have a family 2. Part of it might be to have riches 3. Part of it might be to be a virtuous individual. d. The ultimate thing that we really desire is happiness. 1. Riches, family, being virtue, all are desired for the purpose of giving us pleasure. 2. Happiness is the sole end of action. VI. VII. Concise Formulation of Utilitarianism 1. Consequence-based: Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences; nothing else matters 2. Moral Standard is Happiness: In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created 3. Equality: Each person s happiness counts as the same. Objections a. Are the Consequences the only thing that Matter? 1. Incompatible with the Ideal of Justice a. Example: Bearing false witness against the innocent to stop unhappiness b. Illustration shows that our standard notion of justice and the happiness principle are incompatible. The Innocent suffer. 2. Incompatible with Individual Rights a. Example: Organ Harvesting i. Illustration shows that our individual rights are violated for the sake of greater happiness. ii. Violation of our right to life. b. Example: Peeping Tom i. Violation of our right to privacy 3. Focuses Entirely on Future Consequences with no Consideration for the Past a. Example: Violating a Promise to a Friend i. A promise puts you in some sort of obligation to your friend, why shouldn t this matter b. Is Happiness or Pleasure the Only thing that Makes Something Good? 1. Hedonism: The idea that pleasure is the one ultimate good (and pain the one ultimate evil) is known as Hedonism (Rachels 101). 2. Refined Hedonism: Quality and Quantity a. Objection 1: Happiness is not the Only thing that Matters in Evaluating the Good i. Example: Piano player breaking her hands in a car accident. 10

11 1. We cannot eliminate the tragedy just by getting her to cheer up and enjoy something else. ii. Example: Friend talking behind your back. 1. Something bad seems to be going on, whether we know it or not. b. Objection 2: Happiness is not what is sought; it is merely a byproduct of good things. i. Do we have friends because friendship will make us happy or because we think that friendship is a good thing? ii. Are we seeking the happiness that friendship brings us, or is the happiness just a byproduct of something we are seeking. c. Should we be concerned for everyone equally? 1. One of the basic tenets of Utilitarianism is: Equality: Each person s happiness counts as the same, even our own. 2. But does this really square with our moral intuition and is this requirement too demanding 3. Objection 1: Elimination of our Personal Relationships a. Abandon any special preference we have to our family or friends when making a moral decision b. Eradication of the institution of marriage and any local loyalties we might have to people. 4. Objection 2: Elimination of Supererogatory Actions a. It would be wrong to sacrifice our own happiness for the sake of someone else s. We must be impartial even with our own self. b. We must forgo any extra luxuries we work and make our happiness equal to the neediest person in the world. VIII. Concise Formulation of Utilitarianism and Objections 1. Consequence-based: Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences; nothing else matters a. Objection 1: Incompatible with the Ideal of Justice b. Objection 2: Incompatible with the Idea of Rights 2. Moral Standard is Happiness: In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is created. a. Objection 1: Happiness is not the Only thing that Matters in Evaluating the Good b. Objection 2: Happiness is not what is sought; it is merely a byproduct of good things. 3. Equality: Each person s happiness counts as the same. a. Objection 1: Elimination of our Personal Relationships b. Objection 2: Elimination of Supererogatory Actions 11