JOHN STUART MILL UTILITARIANISM Introduction to Ethical Theory

JOHN STUART MILL UTILITARIANISM Introduction to Ethical Theory PHIL 240: Week 4, Lecture 3 Benjamin Visscher Hole IV

Singer Discussion Question “Suppose that at some time in the future, humankind has solved all of its problems and entered a period of peace and economic prosperity for all. In the meantime, people have been engaged in space exploration and have recently discovered a new planet in which there are untold billions of people (perhaps human, perhaps alien of some sort …), all near starvation. To avoid mass starvation and death on this planet will require all the people on earth to reduce their standard of living to the minimum required for survival for many generations. Are those living on earth morally required to do this …? ” (Bon. Jour/Baker, 352)

You are morally required to help the “untold billions … near starvation” A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Somewhat Agree D. Neutral E. Somewhat Disagree F. Disagree G. Strongly

Assignment 4: (Kant Exegesis and a) Critical Reflection Question When it comes to the issue of beneficence, Singer and Kant can agree about at least one thing: we all have straightforward duties of beneficence. That is to say that neither would regard “charity”, where that term is interpreted as “providing positive assistance to others” as merely supererogatory. Where Singer and Kant will surely disagree, however, is over the issue of the grounding of the duty of beneficence. In other words, they will disagree about the reasons why such a duty is binding on all moral agents. Which thinker (Kant or Singer) provides the better approach to thinking about our obligations to the global poor? Make an argument. Only explain Singer’s view as much as necessary for supporting your case. (prompt for assignment 4)

AGENDA 1. Singer, put in context 2. Clicker Quiz 3. Mill’s qualitative hedonism

Singer claims that his argument upsets the traditional distinction between: A. egoism and altruism. B. rights and privileges. C. positive and negative D. E. F. G. H. rights. duty and charity. the rich and the poor. proximity and psychology. all the above. none of the above.

When faced with the complaint that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine, Mill responds that pleasures differ in: A. purity. B. quality. C. species. D. weight. E. all the above. F. none of the above.

Mill claims that of any two pleasures, one is preferable to the other if and only if: A. it lasts longer. B. it is more intense. C. it is more certain. D. it is preferred by those competent judges who are acquainted with both. E. all the above. F. none of the above.

Hedonistic Utilitarianism: “An act is right if and only if (and because) it would (if performed) likely produce at least as high a utility (net overall balance of welfare) as would any other alternative action one might perform instead. ” Hedonism: Pleasure is the one and only intrinsic value and pain is the one and only intrinsic disvalue. (Timmons, 8) Bentham is a Quantitative Hedonist Mill is a Qualitative Hedonist

Recapitulation of Bentham’s HU Features of Bentham’s HU Bentham makes a felicific calculus for maximizing utils. On this view: 1. Sentience is the source of moral value. 2. Pleasures are homogenous with respect to value. 3. Pleasures are given. Problems with Bentham’s HU

John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873) Greatest happiness principle “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. ” The happiness of all affected parties counts equally. Happiness: pleasure and the absence of pain.

John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873) • Child of James Mill, who was a close friend of Bentham • Raised as a living exhibit of the power of utilitarianism • A celebrity as a child, touring Europe to defend utilitarianism • Read Greek at three …

“ Mill has a mental breakdown at age 20: [I] had what might truly be called an object in life; to be a reformer of the world. My conception of my own happiness was entirely identified with this object. . . [I]t occurred to me to put the question directly to myself: "Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be completely effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you? " And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, "No!" At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. (From Mill’s Autobiography: http: //www. utilitarianism. com/millauto/five. html )

At age twenty-five. . . • Mill meets Harriet Taylor, who is already married to John Taylor • They write together in a chaste relationship for twenty-one years • They are married in 1851, two years after the death of John Taylor

Relevance? THEMES: 1. Experiments in living 2. Truths not easily captured by single systems 3. Feminism 4. Aspects of human wellbeing not captured by pleasure or pain

Relevance? WHAT THIS WILL LEAD TO: • A revised version of utilitarianism, in which we judge actions and social policy with reference to the “permanent interests of man as a progressive being. ” • It will avoid some of the more implausible bits of Bentham • It will be harder to practice (and harder to criticize)

Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism “the summum bonum, or, … the foundation of morality” What is value? • A foundational good thing is one that people want for itself. • Happiness is the only thing that people want for itself. • Therefor, happiness is the only nonderivative good.

Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism “… pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things … are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value The Fetishism Argument

The Reductionist Move The Fetishism Argument Worries • Hedonism: pleasure is the only 1. “bad pleasures” intrinsic value. • All other apparent values are only, at best, instrumentally valuable towards pleasure. • The fetishism argument claims that if you deny the above bullet point, you’re probably fetishizing some instrumental value as an intrinsic one. objection 2. “hedonism monster” objection

What are higher pleasures? “Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification”

Mill Reformulates Bentham’s Hedonism Qualitative vs. Quantitative i. Higher pleasures are qualitatively better than lower pleasures. ii. Higher pleasures are immeasurable and therefore incommensurable with one another. iii. No matter how much lower pleasure you have, it is not as good as a higher pleasure.

Possible Objection “Doctrine worthy of a swine” Mill’s Response: The HP vs. LP Distinction Higher Pleasures (human/intellectual) vs. Lower Pleasures (animal/bodily)

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” CONTENTMENT: The Pig Lower Pleasures Socrates No Lower Pleasures HAPPINESS: No Higher Pleasures (human/intellectual) vs. Lower Pleasures (animal/bodily)

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” Discussion Question Do you agree with Mill? Higher Pleasures (human/intellectual) vs. Lower Pleasures (animal/bodily)

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Somewhat Agree D. Neutral E. Somewhat Disagree F. Disagree G. Strongly Disagree

The Argument from Value Measurement 1) Utilitarianism is true only if there is a precise unit of measurement that can determine the value of an action’s results. 2) There is no such unit of measurement. 3) Therefore, utilitarianism is false.

The Argument from Value Measurement A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Somewhat Agree D. Neutral E. Somewhat Disagree F. Disagree G. Strongly Disagree