Discussions

Video - Introduction to Utilitarianism

Introduction to Utilitarianism (Links to an external site.) Hello again, and welcome to the video lecture for utilitarianism! 

Definition of Utilitarianism 

So, what is utilitarianism? Most basically, 

Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected, and wrong if it does not do this. 

Applying Utilitarianism

So, let’s talk about what this definition means, and how we would apply utilitarianism to specific situations.

The core idea of utilitarianism is that, in any situation, there are various options, and an actions is right if it is the action that produces the greatest total amount of pleasure minus pain, counting the pleasure and pain of everyone affected.

In this calculation:

Pleasure is good, and pain is bad.

In utilitarianism, we are supposed to:

Count our own pleasure and pain, but also count equally the pleasure and pain of each individual affected by our actions.

In a given situation, then, the right action is the one that brings about the greatest total amount of pleasure for everyone, subtracting any pain that it causes.

To illustrate, let’s take a look at an example.

Imagine that my grandmother is sick and wants me to give her a call. There are a number of things I could do, but let’s focus on two options: (a) Call my grandmother, or (b) Go to the beach instead.

As I consider these options, I will use positive numbers for pleasure, and negative numbers for pain.

If I choose option (a), and call my grandmother, my experience will be +5, and my grandmother’s will be +20. I will have a generally pleasant time talking to her, but she is the one who will be really thrilled to hear from me, which is why her experience is such a high number. On the other hand, if I choose option (b) and go to the beach, let’s say that my experience will be +20, but my grandmother’s will be -10. She will have 10 units of pain, which is why the number is negative, since she will be sad and frustrated that I did not call. Of course, these numbers are just approximations, but you get the idea.

In this case, if we assume that no one else is affected by my choice, utilitarianism would say that I should call my grandmother. The numbers turn out like this:

Utilitarian calculation
(a) Call my grandmother	(b) Go to the beach
+5 Me	+20 Me
+20 My grandmother	-10 My grandmother
+25 Total	+10 Total

Option (a) is a total of +25, +5 for me and +20 for my grandmother. Option (b) is a total of +10, +20 for me and -10 for my grandmother.

Since option (a) is the higher number, that is the right action to perform! 

A Few More Details

At this point, let me mention a few more details about the idea of applying utilitarianism. 

If many individuals are affected by a decision, then we need to factor in the pleasure and pain of each equally, before knowing what is right.

Utilitarian calculation
(a) Call my grandmother	(b) Go to the beach
+5 Me	+20 Me
+20 My grandmother	-10 My grandmother
-5 First friend	+20 First friend
-5 Second friend	+20 Second friend
-5 Third friend	+20 Third friend
+10 Total	+70 Total

For example, if I am supposed to drive three friends to the beach, then their pleasure and pain is also relevant to the situation described previously, and needs to be added into the equation before determining what is right.

Each of them may be a +20 if I go to the beach, and a -5 if I do not. So, that would be an additional +60 on the beach side, and an additional -15 on the side of staying home to call my grandmother.

This would affect the total value of each action, and show that, in this scenario, going to the beach is the right choice.

Also, utilitarianism does not just say to choose any action that produces a positive balance of pleasure over pain, but to choose the action that produces the greatest balance. For this reason, it is important to consider all of the possible options in a given case.

In the situation under consideration, maybe there is some further option, besides (a) or (b), that actually produces the greatest amount of pleasure minus pain, such as (c) visiting my grandmother in person, or (d) staying home to study for an exam. If so, then that would be the right action to perform.

In some situations, every possible action will have a negative balance of pleasure over pain. In these cases, utilitarianism says to choose the action that is least bad.

For example, imagine that my dentist has two options: (a) Pull my tooth out, -50, or (b) Leave me in pain for six months, -200. Assuming that no other pleasure or pain is at stake for anyone, the right action would be to pull the tooth. 

Utilitarian calculation
(a) Pull my tooth	(b) Leave me in pain
-50 Me	-200 Me
-50 Total	-200 Total

We might ask whether utilitarianism also counts the pleasure and pain of animals. Most, but not all, utilitarians, have said to count this, since both animals and humans can experience pleasure and pain.

Finally, I should note that utilitarian’s do not say that we should literally stop and add up all the pleasures and pains produced by various options every time we need to make a decision. For one thing, this would take hour! In addition, it can be hard to calculate exactly which pleasures and pains will result from various actions. The procedures I have described show how, in theory, a utilitarian would identify the right action in various cases. In real life, utilitarians would probably tell us to try our best to perform actions that follow the theory, but that we should not typically stop to add up pleasures and pains as we go through the day.

Utilitarianism as an Ethical Theory

We can now see that utilitarianism is an ethical theory that can be considered alongside the other theories we have encountered in the course.

In an earlier slideshow, I defined an ethical theory as a general account of what makes any action right or wrong. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory since any action can be analyzed using the calculation methods that have just been described.

It is also worth noting that:

Utilitarianism differs from the ethical theories of cultural relativism and Kant’s categorical imperative.

Utilitarianism does not tell us to do whatever is socially accepted. Rather, it says to perform the action that produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone, whether this action is currently accepted in society.

In some cases, utilitarianism also differs from the categorical imperative. An example of this is the case of Aunt Bea, which Tom Regan discussed as part of his critique of utilitarianism.

Cultural relativism, the categorical imperative, and utilitarianism are three different ways of thinking about ethics and determining what is right. As we move on with the readings from Mill and Singer, I encourage you to reflect on which of these accounts is the correct ethical theory, or if maybe the right way to think about ethics combines various things from these views or is something entirely different.

Reading - John Stuart Mill (selection, not the whole chapter)

Read John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (Chapter 9 in the course text, from the beginning up to the paragraph that ends “by whom the principle itself is recognized”).

We are only reading part of the chapter. Stop where I indicate to focus on the section we are studying.

Video - Main Ideas in Mill

Main Ideas in Mill (Links to an external site.) Hello, and welcome back for the video on main ideas in Mill!

Background on Mill

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who lived and worked during the 1800s. He was one of the most famous historical defenders of utilitarianism, and our reading is taken from a short book he wrote called Utilitarianism, in which he sought to explain, defend, and popularize utilitarianism as an ethical view.

Pleasure and pain

A key assumption of utilitarianism is that pleasure, and the avoidance of pain, are the only things that are ultimately valuable. All of utilitarianism is rooted in this idea, since the theory determines what is right based on the amount of pleasure and pain that an action causes.

In some of the first parts of the reading, Mill discusses this focus on pleasure and pain. He also emphasizes that utilitarianism does not just on bodily pleasures, such as those of food, drink, and sex. Rather, it is also important to factor in the value of more refined and intellectual pleasures, such as those of learning, excelling in work, forming close relationships, and enjoying great works of art, music, and literature.

Comparing pleasures and pains

Utilitarianism requires thinkers to compare the value of different pleasures and pains. This is what I tried to do by assigning numbers to various experiences. In the text, Mill says some things about how to compare the value of various pleasures and pains.

He says that we should consider the quantity of pleasures and pains, which includes how long and how intense they are. He also says that we should factor in the quality of pleasures and pains, using a method which he describes.

Not all utilitarians focus on the quality of pleasures and pains. Some just focus on quantity. But, it is interesting to reflect on Mill’s proposal here.

Objections and responses concerning utilitarianism

Philosophers often include objections and responses in their writings. To do this, an author first describes an objection, concern, or challenge that can be raised against their view. Then—and this part is very important—the author gives a detailed response to the objection. That is, the author says something to show that their own view is correct, and that the stated objection does not undermine it.

In the second part of the assigned reading, Mill considers some objections that people have made against utilitarianism and gives his own response to each.

A few of these objections are:

· The concern that utilitarianism is too demanding for everyday people

· The concern that utilitarianism is unreligious

· The concern that utilitarianism tells people to break traditional moral rules, and

· The concern that it is too hard to calculate the consequences of actions.

Mill discusses each of these objections, and some others, but he does not believe that any of the objections he considers undermines the truth of utilitarianism.

In each case, he gives a response, showing why he believes that utilitarianism is correct, and explains how utilitarians might successfully answer back against the concerns that have been raised by their opponents.

As you reflect on the reading, you can think for yourself about the various objections, and consider whether you find Mill’s responses satisfactory, or are more inclined to believe that utilitarianism has serious problems.

Notes - When Kant and Mill Conflict

Background

The ethical theories of Kant and Mill both have something to add to our decision-making. It seems clear that respecting people (as Kant recommends) should be a part of our ethical thought, and that mapping out the consequences of actions (as Mill recommends) should also play a role in ethical deliberation.

However, things get more complicated when we consider each thinker's view as a complete ethical theory and try to apply these in practice. Kant says to treat people as ends in themselves and never, under any circumstance, as means only, while Mill says to perform whatever action will produce the greatest total amount of pleasure minus pain for all affected.

In some cases, the theories overlap. These would be cases where respecting people's chosen goals also produces the greatest total amount of pleasure for everyone. However, there are also cases where the theories of Kant and Mill conflict. These cases highlight the difference in values and perspective between the two thinkers and prompt us to reflect on whether we side more with Kant or Mill, or maybe with neither.

Using Someone as a Means Only

The most prominent type of case where the theories of Kant and Mill conflict is that where a great good can be achieved (or a great harm averted) by using someone as a means only. Lying to a person, undermining someone's goals and projects, seriously injuring a person, torturing or even killing someone. These actions are typically viewed as seriously wrong, and they are ruled out in an absolute way in Kantian ethics by the rule against using people as means only. However, there are extreme cases where these actions seem to be permitted, and even required, by utilitarian ethics.

If we could provide enormous benefit to humanity by using a person as a means only, should we do this? Or if the only way to prevent some terrible crime or tragedy is to violate an innocent person's life and dignity, is it appropriate to do this? Does the end justify the means? Or, are there certain basic human rights that should be respected, no matter the cost?

Some famous ethical dilemmas relate to this theme. If we could cure cancer by conducting a painful and debilitating medical procedure on one healthy child, this might seem to be condoned by utilitarianism, but ruled out by Kant's ethics as a violation of human dignity. Similarly, if framing and executing an innocent person for a crime was the only way to calm down an unruly mob that was threatening to destroy an entire city, this might promote the greatest happiness, yet would still be deemed unjust by Kant's categorical imperative.

Mill on Rule Breaking

When it comes to breaking traditional rules about actions like lying and killing, Mill gives some guidance in the assigned reading. He notes that rules of this kind are usually in place for a reason since they tend promote the greatest happiness. Telling the truth and not murdering, for example, are usually what utilitarianism requires.

Mill also notes that it is important to build up habits of following these traditional rules, which is why we should not break them for a minor or trivial reason. If lying seems to produce just a little more happiness then telling the truth in a given situation, Mill would say to tell the truth, since we also need to give weight in our utilitarian calculation to how a lie breaks down social trust and our own good habits, potentially leading to pain in the future.

As Mill (1863/2010) explains:

"Inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity [truth-telling], is one of the most useful... things to which our conduct can be instrumental; and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth, does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion... we feel that the violation, for a present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent expediency, is not expedient" (p. 245)

However, while Mill maintains that we should almost always tell the truth and follow similar moral rules, Mill (1863/2010) admits that utilitarianism would support exceptions in extreme situations:

"Yet that even this rule [against lying], sacred as it is, admits of possible exceptions, is acknowledged by all moralists; the chief of which is when the withholding of some fact (as of information from a malefactor, or of bad news from a person dangerously ill) would preserve some one (especially a person other than oneself) from great and unmerited evil, and when the withholding can only be effected by denial" (pp. 245-246).

Mill permits lying in extreme cases, and utilitarianism would presumably have to allow even more grievous actions such as torture and killing if it were known for certain that these actions would produce much greater pleasure than pain for society at large in each situation.

Even if such cases rarely or never occur in everyday life, they are a theoretical possibility. And, from the perspective of philosophy, they are helpful in a way. By thinking through what would be appropriate in extreme cases – breaking traditional moral rules or sticking with them – we can reflect on which ethical theory – Kant or Mill – fits better with our own underlying convictions. I can report that professional philosophers are divided on this question and there is no unified consensus in the field about which approach, Kant’s, or Mill's, is better as a complete approach to ethics. For this reason, it makes sense for each person to ponder these contrasting theories, as well as the others we will encounter in the course, to see which fits best with their considered ethical judgments.

How Much to Help Others?

There is a further issue where the theories of Kant and Mill diverge, one that is less violent than some of the previous examples, but also possibly of greater everyday significance. This is the question of how much people are required to help others.

We can recall that the helping part of Kant's second form of the categorical imperative is open-ended, saying that we should treat others as ends in themselves by promoting their goals in some way, but not mandating a specific amount of help that is required. In contrast, Mill's principle of utility tells us to perform the action in any situation that produces the greatest possible balance of pleasure over pain. In other words, Mill does not just say to perform an action that produces an adequate amount of pleasure, but to perform the best action, the one that maximizes pleasure (minus pain) for all involved. If a person watching a movie will produce +20 pleasure but the greatest possible pleasure for everyone would be +40 from that person volunteering at a soup kitchen, then volunteering is morally required.

These considerations lead to tension between Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, with Kant's ethics being more laid back and permissive about helping others and Mill's being more demanding. Mill discusses this somewhat in the reading, noting that caring for oneself and one's family and friends will usually be what produces the greatest total happiness. Still, he cannot rule out the possibility that great sacrifice in the service of helping others is sometimes what utilitarianism will require. Some may view this as an advantage of utilitarianism (that it requires us to help others even in demanding ways), while others view it as a disadvantage (that the demands of utilitarianism are unreasonable and the theory thus implausible).

The second reading for the module from Peter Singer will explore some of these issues. He employs both Kantian and utilitarian reasoning to defend a robust duty to help people in absolute poverty, so we can evaluate his argument and consider what it means for the broader views of Kant and Mill.

Video - Main Ideas in Singer

Main Ideas in Singer (Links to an external site.)  

Hello, and welcome back for this video!

Background on Singer

Let’s turn now to the reading by Peter Singer. Singer is a contemporary philosopher, who grew up in Australia, and now teaches in the United States at Princeton University. He is an outspoken utilitarian, and often writes about how utilitarianism should be applied to issues in the world today.

Singer’s views in the essay “Rich and Poor,” which we will be reading, reflect his utilitarian viewpoint, but in this reading, he does not only argue on utilitarian grounds. For most of the essay, he focuses on general claims that he thinks people of many different backgrounds should be able to accept. In addition, he stresses how followers of utilitarianism should be especially willing to accept his conclusions.

Absolute and Relative Poverty

Throughout the essay, Singer distinguishes between absolute and relative poverty.

Absolute poverty exists when people lack one or more of the basic necessities of life, such as food, shelter, medicine, and education.

Relative poverty exists when people have less money and resources than others in their society. This can be the case even if people have enough to meet their basic needs.

In his essay, Singer will be focusing on the problem of absolute poverty and discussing our moral obligations in regard to this issue.

Some of the statistics he cites in the essay are a little outdated, since he was writing in the late 1970s, but there is still a lot of absolute poverty in the world today, so his arguments are still highly relevant.

Argument for an Obligation to Assist

Singer’s main argument for an obligation to assist people in absolute poverty is given as three premises and a conclusion:

“First premise: If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.

Second premise: Absolute poverty is bad.

Third premise: There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.

Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute poverty” (Singer, 1979/2010, p. 518).

Here, I have drawn these three premises and the conclusion as quotes from p. 518 toward the middle of the reading.

Connection to Kant and Utilitarianism

One of the key claims in Singer’s argument for an obligation to assist is the first premise.

Singer tries to show why people with a variety of ethical views should accept that premise, starting on p. 517 in the paragraph that begins, “A plausible principle that would support the judgment…”

In that passage, Singer refers to “consequentialism,” which overlaps to a large extent with utilitarianism. He also uses the word “non-consequentialism,” which in this context refers to ethical views such as Kant’s, which believe in absolute duties not to do certain things.

Singer explains that consequentialists, such as utilitarians, should accept his first premise because it tells people to choose a smaller pain over a larger pain, thus producing a better outcome.

In regard to Kant, we can recall that Kant says we have some discretion in how we treat others as ends in themselves, but that we should make a good effort to do this often by helping others in the pursuit of their goals. Singer suggests that if someone like Kant is committed to the idea of treating others as ends in themselves, then this person would at least want to help others when something bad can be prevented without sacrificing anything of comparable significance. Thus, Singer concludes that a thinker like Kant should accept the claim that features in Singer’s first premise as well.

Singer’s Prescription

Singer’s ultimate view is that people who are not in absolute poverty themselves should forgo luxury items and use the money they save to help people in absolute poverty.

He holds that everyone can keep the resources they need to meet their basic needs and those of their family but should then give any extra money to charity.

He notes that there are some gray areas at the boundary between basic needs and luxury items. Maybe things like a college education, or a trip to visit family members, would fall in this gray area.

But he suggests that certain common items, such as fancy TVs, designer cloths, and expensive cars, are pretty clearly luxury items, and should not be purchased while people are living in absolute poverty in various parts of the world.

In the last paragraph of the reading, Singer says that people who are not ready to follow his full prescription might begin by giving 10% of their income to help people in absolute poverty, and keep the rest, even spending some of it on luxury items. But this 10% is not what Singer believes is actually required by morality. His real view on what is moral is what I have described in the earlier parts of this slide.

On pp. 520-529, all of the sections under the heading “Objections to the Argument,” Singer sets aside some space for objections and responses and gives his replies to many of the concerns that people have raised about his views over the years. He is not persuaded by any of these objections and remains confident that his viewpoint is correct.

Concluding Remarks

Of course, Singer’s prescription is very controversial, and would require that many people in rich societies radically transform their lives.

So, we can ask ourselves: Is Singer, right? Is he partially, right? If he is wrong, where does he go wrong? If he is right, or partly right, how should we respond in our own lives? These are some challenging questions to think about.