utilitarianism-lawrence m. hinman

7/23/2019 Utilitarianism-Lawrence M. Hinman

1/34

Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D.Director, The Values Institute

University of San iego

12/7/2015 Lawrence M. Hinman 1

Utilitarianism
mailto:[email protected]?subject=PowerPoint%20Presentationmailto:[email protected]?subject=PowerPoint%20Presentation


2/34


Overview

1. Fundamental Tenets ofUtilitarianism

2. Standards of Utility/History ofUtilitarianism

3. The Utilitarian Calculus

4. Act and Rule Utilitarianism

5. Criticisms of Utilitarianism

6. Concluding Assessment


3/34


Part One.

Fundamental Tenets

ofUtilitarianism


4/34


Basic Insights of Util itarianism

The purpose of morality is to makethe world a better place.

Morality is about producing goodconsequences, not having goodintentions

We should do whatever will bring the

most benefit (i.e., intrinsic value) toall of humanity.


5/34

12/7/2015 Lawrence M. Hinman

5

The Purpose of Morality

The utilitarian has a very simpleanswer to the question of whymorality exists at all:

The purpose of morality is to guidepeoples actions in such a way as toproduce a better world.

Consequently, the emphasis inutilitarianism is on consequences,not intentions.


6/34


6

Fundamental Imperative

The fundamental imperative of

util itarianism is:

Always act in the way that will producethe greatest overall amount of good in

the world.

The emphasis is clearly onconsequences, not intentions.


7/34


7

The Emphasis on the Overall Good

We often speak of utilitarian solutions ina disparaging tone, but in factutil itarianism is a demanding moral

posit ion that often asks us to put asideself-interest for the sake of the whole.

Util itarianism is a morally demandingposition for two reasons:

It always asks us to do the most, to maximizeutility, not to do the minimum.

It asks us to set aside personal interest.


8/34


8

The Dream of Utilitarianism:

Bringing Scientif ic Certainty to Ethics

Utili tarianism offers us a powerful visionof the moral li fe, one that promises toreduce or eliminate moral disagreement. If we can agree that the purpose of morality is

to make the world a better place; and

If we can scientifically assess various possiblecourses of action to determine which will have

the greatest positive effect on the world; thenWe can provide a scientific answer to the

question of what we ought to do.


9/34


9

Part Two.

Standards of Utility:

A History ofUtilitarianism


10/34


10

Intrinsic Value

Many things have instrumental value, that is, theyhave value as means to an end.

However, there must be some things which arenot merely instrumental, but have value inthemselves. This is what we call intrinsic value.

What has intrinsic value? Four principalcandidates: Pleasure

Jeremy Bentham

Happiness John Stuart Mill

Ideals G. E. Moore

Preferences Kenneth Arrow


11/34


11

Jeremy Bentham

1748-1832

Bentham believed

that we should try

to increase theoverall amount of

pleasure in the

world.


12/34


12

Pleasure

Definit ion: Theenjoyable feeling weexperience when astate of deprivationis replaced byfulfillment.

AdvantagesEasy to quantify

Short duration

Bodily

Criticisms

Came to be known

as the pigsphilosophy

Ignores higher

values

Could justify livingon a pleasure

machine


13/34


13

John Stuart Mill

1806-1873

Benthams godson

Believed that

happiness, notpleasure, should

be the standard of

utility.


14/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

14

Happiness

Advantages

A higher standard,

more specific tohumans

About realization of

goals

Disadvantages

More difficult to

measureCompeting

conceptions of

happiness


15/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

15

Ideal Values

G. E. Mooresuggested that weshould strive to maximize idealvalues such as freedom,knowledge, justice, and beauty.

The world may not be a betterplace with more pleasure in it ,but it certainly will be a betterplace with more freedom, moreknowledge, more justice, andmore beauty.

Moores candidates for intr insicgood remain diff icult to quantify.

G. E. Moore

1873-1958


16/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

16

Preferences

Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel Prizewinning Stanford economist,argued that what has intrinsicvalue is preference

satisfaction. The advantage of Arrows

approach is that, in effect, itlets people choose forthemselves what has intr insicvalue. It simply defines

intrinsic value as whateversatisfies an agentspreferences. It is elegant andpluralistic.


17/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

17

Part Three.

The Utilitarian Calculus


18/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

18

The Utilitarian Calculus

Math and ethics

finally merge: all

consequences

must be measuredand weighed.

Units of

measurement:

Hedons: posit ive

Dolors: negative


19/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

19

What do we calculate?

Hedons/dolors may be defined in terms of Pleasure

Happiness

Ideals

Preferences For any given action, we must calculate:

How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) aswell as posit ively (hedons)

How intensely they wi ll be affected

Similar calculations for all available alternatives

Choose the action that produces the greatest overallamount of utility (hedons minus dolors)


20/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

20

Example:Debating the school lunch program

Util itarians would have to calculate:

Benefits Increased nutrition for x number of children

Increased performance, greater long-range chances ofsuccess

Incidental benefits to contractors, etc.

Costs Cost to each taxpayer

Contrast with other programs that could have been

funded and with lower taxes (no program)Multiply each factor by

Number of individuals affected

Intensity of effects


21/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

21

How much can we quantify?

Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier toquantify than happiness or ideals

Two dist inct issues: Can everything be quantified?

Some would maintain that some of the most importantthings in life (love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantif ied,whi le other things (product ivity, material goods) may getemphasized precisely because they are quantif iable.

The danger: if it cant be counted, it doesnt count.

Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

Are a f ine dinner and a good nights s leepcommensurable? Can one be traded or subst ituted for theother?


22/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

22

the problems of three little

people dont amount to a hill of

beans in this crazy world. Utilitarianism

doesnt always

have a cold andcalculating face

we perform

utilitarian

calculations ineveryday life.


23/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

23

Part Four.

Act and RuleUtilitarianism


24/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

24

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism

Looks at the consequences of eachindividual act and calculate uti lity each

time the act is performed. Rule utili tarianism

Looks at the consequences of havingeveryone follow a particular rule andcalculates the overall utili ty ofaccepting or rejecting the rule.


25/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

25

An Example

Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-lovedleader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by anassassins bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplantimmediately to survive. No sui table donors are available, butthere is a homeless person in the emergency room who is beingkept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days tolive, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leaderwil l die; the homeless person w ill die in a few days anyway.Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The transplant

team could hasten the death of the homeless person and carry outthe transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed thehomeless person for his organs. What should they do? For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a

general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when theyare going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such ageneral rule would be highly negative and would certainly underminepublic trust in the medical establishment.

For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy wereguaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in thisparticular instance greater utili ty is produced by hastening the deathof the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.


26/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

26

The Continuing Dispute

Rule util itarians claim: In particular cases, act utili tarianism can justify

disobeying important moral rules and violatingindividual rights.

Act utilitarianism also takes too much time to calculatein each and every case.

Act utilitarians respond: Following a rule in a particular case when the overall

util ity demands that we violate the rule is just rule-worship. If the consequences demand it, we shouldviolate the rule.

Furthermore, act utili tarians can fol low rules-of-thumb(accumulated wisdom based on consequences in thepast) most of the time and engage in individualcalculation only when there is some pressing reason fordoing so.


27/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

27

Part Five.

Criticismsof Utilitarianism

1. Responsibility

2. Integrity

3. Intentions

4. Moral Luck5. Who does the calculating?

6. Who is included?


28/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

28

1. Responsibility Utilitarianism suggests that we are responsible for all the

consequences of our choices.

The problem is that sometimes we can foreseeconsequences of other peoples actions that are taken inresponse to our own acts. Are we responsible for thoseactions, even though we dont choose them or approve ofthem? Discuss Bernard Williams example of Jim in the village Imagine a terrorist situation where the terrorists say that they

wil l kill their hostages if we do not meet their demands. Werefuse to meet their demands. Are we responsible for whathappens to the hostages?

Imagine someone like Sadam Hussein putt ing children in

targets l ikely to be bombed in order to deter bombing by theUnited States. If we bomb our original targets, are weresponsible if those children are killed by our bombing?


29/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

29

2. Integrity

Util itarianism often demands that we put asideself-interest. Sometimes this means puttingaside our own moral convictions. Discuss Bernard Williams on the chemist example.

Develop a variation on Jim in the village, substi tut ing amercenary soldier and then Martin Luther King, Jr. forJim. Does this substitution make a difference?

Integrity may involve certain identity-conferringcommitments, such that the violation of thosecommitments entails a violation of who we are atour core.


30/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

30

3. Intentions

Utili tarianism is concerned almostexclusively about consequences, not

intentions.

There is a version of uti litarianism called

motive utilitarianism, developed by Robert

Adams, that attempts to correct this.

Intentions may matter is morally

assessing an agent, even if they dontmatter in terms of guiding action.


31/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

31

4. Moral Luck

By concentrating exclusively on consequences,utili tarianism makes the moral worth of ouractions a matter of luck. We must await the finalconsequences before we find out if our actionwas good or bad.

This seems to make the moral life a matter ofchance, which runs counter to our basic moralintuitions. We can imagine actions with good intentions that have

unforeseeable and unintended bad consequences

We can also imagine actions with bad intentions thathave unforeseeable and unintended goodconseqeunces.


32/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

32

5. Who does the calculating?

Historically, this was an issue for theBritish in India. The British felt theywanted to do what was best for India, butthat they were the ones to judge what that

was.See Ragavan Iyer, Utili tarianism and All That

Typically, the count differs depending onwho does the counting

In Vietnam, Americans could never understandhow much independence counted for theVietnamese.


33/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M. Hinman

33

6. Who is included?

When we consider the issue ofconsequences, we must ask who isincluded within that circle. Those in our own group (group egoism)

Those in our own country (nationalism)

Those who share our skin color (racism)All human beings (humanism or speciesism?)

All sentient beings

Classical uti litarianism has often claimedthat we should acknowledge the pain and

suffering of animals and not restrict thecalculus just to human beings.


34/34

12/7/2015

Lawrence M Hinman

34

Concluding Assessment

Utilitarianism is most appropriate for

policy decisions, as long as a strong

notion of fundamental human rightsguarantees that it will not violate

rights of small minorities.

utilitarianism-lawrence m. hinman

Documents