Philly 2-Val

Week 4, Reading Section 4.1: David Hume's Antecedents

I.  David Hume’s Antecedents

David Hume was a British Philosopher, in the tradition of the Empiricists, John Locke and George Berkeley. He is credited, among many contributions, with revisiting the question of whether Ethics/Morality should be based on Reason vs. Emotions/Passions. Unlike Aristotle and many other Western thinkers before him, Hume argued that Ethics could not be based on Reason, since Reason provides only alternative choices, based on analyses of issues and situations.

Thus, Hume answered the question, by concluding that Ethical Thought must be based on Emotion, in general, and Compassion for one’s fellows, in particular. Reason provided a moral decision-maker with facts and choices, along with positions for each choice. But many Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting values and choices. Reason, alone, could not lead a decision-maker to choose one alternative as “the best.” As we shall see in Week 5, Immanuel Kant, the creator of Deontology, disagreed with Hume.                

Resource:  Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics

As the Eighteenth Century gave way to the Nineteenth and to the Industrial Revolution, with its concentration of productive activities into factories and the squalid conditions under which workers labored and they and their families existed, reformers arose, seeking solutions to those conditions and problems. Three such reformers were Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor, who came to be called Utilitarians, after the Principle of Utility that Bentham and Mill promulgated. 

Resource:  David Hume

Week 4, Reading Section 4.2: General Theory of Utilitarianism

II. General Theory of Utilitarianism

First Bentham, then Mill and Taylor, analyzed the World in terms of Pain and Pleasure/ Happiness. The predominant condition, especially in Industrial societies in Europe, and later in North America, for the vast majority of people, was Pain and Displeasure. For these three writers, Happiness and Pleasure were characterized by the removal or abatement of Pain, whether of a physical or an emotional nature. Given the conditions our modern media show us, as existing in many parts of the World, it is not difficult, even now, to imagine such conditions existing in the predecessors of our own societies. Disease, war, famine, civil strife, violence, among other factors, were the primary causes of Pain. 

Resource:  Notes on Utilitarianism

The Utilitarians argued that moral/ethical actions were those, which, on balance, reduced Pain and increased, thereby, Pleasure/Happiness. By positing the definition of Happiness/ Pleasure, as the Removal of Pain, they provided a measure by which to gauge such ameliorative efforts. One weakness is that those definitions are circular: (1) Happiness is the absence of Pain; (2) Pain is the absence of Happiness. Nevertheless, it was a more concrete, starting point, than more esoteric concepts of “the Good,” as suggested by Aristotle and his successors.

Therefore, to be moral, an action had to produce Happiness, by reducing Pain in the World, for the majority of those human beings, affected by that action. As we’ve seen, a moral theory that depends on effects, results, or consequences, is called a Consequentialist theory. Utilitarianism, thus, is squarely within the School of Ethical Consequentialism.

Due to more sophisticated analyses over the past two hundred years and gradually improving living conditions for certain segments of human populations, the term “Happiness” has become more complex to define. More recent theories have refined Utilitarianism into the following formulation: creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people affected by the decision/action. These later views have also conceded that the rights and/or good of a few might have to be sacrificed, for the benefit of the many. One critic of this sacrifice has been John Rawls, whose work in the 20th Century revitalized Social Contract Theories (Week 6).        

Resource:  Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Resource:  Utilitarianism

Week 4, Reading Section 4.3: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor

III.  Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor

Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer and Member of Parliament in the Early Nineteenth Century, was very interested in the reform of what we call the Criminal Justice System and of prisons. Building on Hume’s work, as well as on Adam Smith’s, he formulated the Principle of Utility, as noted, above. In later commentaries on his work, successor theorists have identified two forms of Utilitarianism: Rule and Act Utilitarianism. (We shall see them, below.) John Stuart Mill, a student and colleague of Bentham, and Harriet Taylor were life-long friends, soul-mates, and collaborators. They wrote on subjects of Utility/Utilitarianism, Social Reform, Women’s Rights, and Human Liberty.

Resource:  Life and Writing of Jeremy Bentham

Resource:  John Stuart Mill

Resource:  Harriet Taylor Mill

A. Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism

 As subsets of Utilitarianism, these two variants start from the perspective that it is result or consequence, which determines the morality of an action. What distinguishes these approaches is a slightly more sophisticated focus in each case. In Rule Utilitarianism, a proper set of rules and/or of procedures has to contribute to that outcome and be followed . Put another way, the rightness of an action is not totally dependent upon happenstance, chance, or fortunate/good luck.          

Resource:  Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill  [PDF]

In Act Utilitarianism, the spotlight is on the Act, alone. As this was Bentham’s view and he was the originator of Utilitarianism, we can conclude his intention was to focus on effect, only. This means that, while “right intention” by the Actor was laudable, it was not a requirement for an action to be the right one. One can see Bentham’s intellectual lineage, back to Adam Smith, whose work posited that people, while pursuing their Enlightened Self-Interest (which actually includes operating within a set of moral parameters), will, by engaging in Mutually Advantageous (market) transactions or exchanges,  create the by-products of moral actions.

During everyday life, we behave in similar ways. Sometimes we are thinking through possible results or consequences, sometimes we are not, and usually we cannot foresee even certain major consequences. This is what is known as the Law of Unforeseen and Unintended Consequences.

Week 4, Reading Section 4.4: Immigration

IV. Immigration 

In the Discussion to follow, you will be required to address and argue various aspects of Immigration and related concerns. One consideration to include in your deliberations is that, under most circumstances, people do not migrate, on a semi-permanent, or permanent, basis, because they are happy, content, and safe in their existing circumstances. While the motivations might vary, by the person, seeking safety from threats and a better, often material, life for themselves and their families is often a baseline. 

Resource:  Immigration

Latino Immigration and Social Change in the United States: Toward an Ethical Immigration Policy.  (UMUC Library One Search)

Authors:    Davies, Ian. Foreign Language Department, Edgewood College, Madison, WI, US Source:    Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 88(Suppl 2), Sep, 2009. pp. 377-391.

The Great Conversation and the Ethics of Inclusion.  (UMUC Library One Search)

Authors:    Wagner, Paul and    Lopez, Graciela Source:    Global Virtue Ethics Review. 2016, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p4-33. 30p.

Environmental and Ethical Aspects of International Migration (UMUC Library One Search)

By: Abernethy, Virginia. International Migration Review, v30 n1 p132-50 Spr 1996. (EJ528779), Database: ERIC

The border crossed us: Education, hospitality politics, and the social construction of the "illegal Immigrant"  (UMUC Library One Search)

By: Carlson, Dennis. Educational Theory, v59 n3 p259-277 Aug 2009. (EJ857970), Database: ERIC

ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL READING

Resource:  The History of Utilitarianism

Resource:  Strong Moral Theories and the Major Players in Moral Philosophy  [PDF]