ON UTILITARIANISM AND LIBERTY UTILITARIANISM AN INTRODUCTION TO

ON UTILITARIANISM AND LIBERTY

UTILITARIANISM AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MORAL THEORIES OF JEREMY BENTHAM AND JOHN STUART MILL

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • THE YEARS 1748 -1873 WERE FULL OF CHANGE: • SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT • REVOLUTIONS (THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH) • EXPLORATION/COLONIZATION • SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS REFORM • INDUSTRIALIZATION • NEW MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF JEREMY BENTHAM (1748 -1832) • BORN IN LONDON, ENGLAND • A CHILD PRODIGY: READ AS A YOUNG TODDLER AND STUDIED LATIN AT AGE THREE • STUDIED LAW AT QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD, ENGLAND • INSTEAD OF PRACTICING LAW, HE SPENT HIS LIFE LOOKING FOR AND WRITING ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH EXISTING LAWS COULD BE IMPROVED

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN STUART MILL (1806 -1873) • BORN IN LONDON, ENGLAND • SON OF JAMES MILL, A PHILOSOPHER, ECONOMIST, ANDEAST INDIA COMPANY OFFICIAL • EDUCATED BY HIS FATHER ANDJEREMY BENTHAM • SUFFERED A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN AT TWENTY AND CREDITED HIS RECOVERY TO ROMANTIC POETRY • 1823 -1858 EAST INDIA COMPANY OFFICER AND 1865 -1868 LIBERAL MP FOR WESTMINSTER

ETHICAL JUDGMENTS • ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY DIFFERS FROM THE SCIENCES BECAUSE IT IS NORMATIVE OR PRESCRIPTIVE, RATHER THAN DESCRIPTIVE. • IN OTHER WORDS, ETHICS TELL USHOW WE OUGHT TO ACT OR WHATWE SHOULD DO, WHILE THE SCIENCES ARE MORE LIKELY TO OBSERVE HOW THINGS ARE IN NATURE OR SOCIETY.

MAKING ETHICAL JUDGMENTS

MAKING ETHICAL JUDGMENTS IN UTILITARIANISM • UTILITARIANISM SAYS THAT THE RESULT OR THE CONSEQUENCE OF ANACT IS THE REAL MEASURE OF WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD. • THIS THEORY EMPHASIZES ENDS OVER MEANS. • THEORIES, LIKE THIS ONE, THAT EMPHASIZE THE RESULTS OR CONSEQUENCES ARE CALLED TELEOLOGICAL ORCONSEQUENTIALIST.

BENTHAM’S FORMULATION OF UTILITARIANISM • MAN IS UNDER TWO GREAT MASTERS, PAIN AND PLEASURE. • THE GREAT GOOD THAT WE SHOULD SEEK IS HAPPINESS. (A HEDONISTIC PERSPECTIVE) • THOSE ACTIONS WHOSE RESULTS INCREASE HAPPINESS OR DIMINISH PAIN ARE GOOD. THEY HAVE “UTILITY. ”

JEREMY BENTHAM’S HEDONISTIC CALCULUS • IN DETERMINING THE QUANTITY OF HAPPINESS THAT MIGHT BE PRODUCED BY AN ACTION, WE EVALUATE THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES BY APPLYING SEVERAL VALUES: • INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY OR UNCERTAINTY, PROPINQUITY OR REMOTENESS, FECUNDITY, PURITY, AND EXTENT.

FOUR THESES OF UTILITARIANISM • CONSEQUENTIALISM: THE RIGHTNESS OF ACTIONS IS DETERMINED SOLELY BY THEIR CONSEQUENCES. • HEDONISM: UTILITY IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH AN ACT PRODUCES PLEASURE. HEDONISM IS THESIS THAT PLEASURE OR HAPPINESS IS THEGOOD THAT WE SEEK AND THAT WE SHOULD SEEK. • MAXIMALISM: A RIGHT ACTION PRODUCES THE GREATEST GOOD CONSEQUENCES AND THE LEAST BAD. • UNIVERSALISM: THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE CONSIDERED ARE THOSE OF EVERYONE AFFECTED, AND EVERYONE EQUALLY.

TWO FORMULATIONS OF UTILITARIAN THEORY PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST HAPPINESS: WE UTILITY: THE OUGHT TO DO THAT BEST ACTION IS WHICH PRODUCES THAT WHICH THE GREATEST PRODUCES THE HAPPINESS AND GREATEST LEAST PAIN FOR HAPPINESS THE GREATEST AND/OR REDUCES NUMBER OF PEOPLE. PAIN.

TWO TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM • ACT: AN ACTION IS RIGHT IF AND ONLY IF IT PRODUCES THE • RULE: AN ACTION IS RIGHT IF AND ONLY IF IT CONFORMS TO A SET OF RULES THE GENERAL ACCEPTANCE GREATEST BALANCE OF OF WHICH WOULD PRODUCE THE PLEASURE OVER PAIN GREATEST BALANCE OF PLEASURE FOR THE GREATEST OVER PAIN FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER. (JEREMY BENTHAM) NUMBER. J( OHN STUART MILL)

APPLICATION OF UTILITARIAN THEORY • A) YOU ATTEMPT TO HELP AN ELDERLY MAN ACROSS THE STREET. HE GETS ACROSS SAFELY. • CONCLUSION: THE ACT WAS A GOOD ACT. • B) YOU ATTEMPT TO HELP AN ELDERLY MAN ACROSS THE STREET. YOU STUMBLE AS YOU GO, HE IS KNOCKED INTO THE PATH OF A CAR, AND IS HURT. • CONCLUSION: THE ACT WAS A BAD ACT.

APPLICATION OF UTILITARIAN THEORY • IF YOU CAN USE EIGHTY SOLDIERS AS A DECOY IN WAR, AND THEREBY ATTACK AN ENEMY FORCE AND KILL SEVERAL HUNDRED ENEMY SOLDIERS, THAT IS A MORALLY GOOD CHOICE EVEN THOUGH THE EIGHTY MIGHT BE LOST. • IF LYING OR STEALING WILL ACTUALLY BRING ABOUT MORE HAPPINESS AND/OR REDUCE PAIN, ACT UTILITARIANISM SAYS WE SHOULD LIE AND STEAL IN THOSE CASES.

CRITICISMS OF BENTHAM’S THEORY COULD MEAN THAT IF 10 PEOPLE WOULD BE HAPPY WATCHING A MAN BEING EATEN BY WILD DOGS, IT WOULD BE A MORALLY GOOD THING FOR THE 10 MEN TO KIDNAP SOMEONE (ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WHOSE DEATH WOULD NOT CAUSE GRIEF TO MANY OTHERS) AND THROW THE MAN INTO A CAGE OF WILD, HUNGRY DOGS.

JOHN STUART MILL’S ADJUSTMENTS TO UTILITARIANISM • MILL ARGUES THAT WE MUST CONSIDER THEQUALITY OF THE HAPPINESS, NOT MERELY THEQUANTITY. • FOR EXAMPLE, SOME MIGHT FIND HAPPINESS WITH A PITCHER OF BEER AND A PIZZA. OTHERS MAY FIND HAPPINESS WATCHING A FINE SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY. THE QUALITY OF HAPPINESS IS GREATER WITH THE LATTER.

MILL’S QUALITY ARGUMENTS “IT IS BETTER TO BE A HUMAN BEING DISSATISFIED THAN A PIG SATISFIED; BETTER TO BESOCRATES DISSATISFIED THAN A FOOL SATISFIED. AND IF THE FOOL, OR THE PIG, ARE OF A DIFFERENT OPINION, IT IS BECAUSE THEY ONLY KNOW THEIR OWN SIDE OF THE QUESTION. THE OTHER PARTY TO THE COMPARISON KNOWS BOTH SIDES. ”

MILL’S QUALITY ARGUMENTS “AS BETWEEN HIS OWN HAPPINESS AND THAT OF OTHERS, UTILITARIANISM REQUIRES HIM TO BE AS STRICTLY IMPARTIAL AS A DISINTERESTED AND BENEVOLENT SPECTATOR. IN THE GOLDEN RULE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH, WE READ THE COMPLETE SPIRIT OF THE ETHICS OF UTILITY. T‘ O DO AS YOU WOULD BE DONE BY, ’ AND ‘TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, ’ CONSTITUTE THE IDEAL PERFECTION OF UTILITARIAN MORALITY. ”

CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM IF I AM TO BRING THE GREATEST HAPPINESS TO THE GREATEST NUMBER, NOT PUTTING MY OWN HAPPINESS ABOVE OTHERS, THAT MAY LEAD TO A DILEMMA. I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE 83% OF MY NEIGHBORS USE DRUGS. I COULD MAKE THEM MOST HAPPY BY HELPING SUPPLY THEM WITH CHEAP DRUGS, BUTI FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DOING THAT. WHAT SHOULD A UTILITARIAN DO?

CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM • BERNARD WILLIAMS CRITICIZES THE IMPLIED “DOCTRINE OF NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY” IN UTILITARIANISM. FOR EXAMPLE, A THUG BREAKS INTO MY HOME AND HOLDS SIX PEOPLE HOSTAGE, TELLING US HE WILL KILL ALL OF US. H “ OWEVER, ” THE THUG SAYS, “IF YOU WILL KILL TWO OF YOUR FAMILY, I WILL LET YOU AND THE OTHER THREE LIVE. ” • WITH UTILITARIANISM, THE GOOD THING TO DO IS TO KILL TWO MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY.

CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM • UTILITARIANISM PLAYS FAST AND LOOSE WITHGOD’S COMMANDMENTS. IF LYING, STEALING, OR KILLING COULD LEAD TO AN INCREASE OF HAPPINESS FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER, WE ARE TOLD WE SHOULD LIE, STEAL OR KILL ISN. ’T THAT A REJECTION OF GOD’S COMMANDS?

MILL’S ANSWER TO THE “GODLESS THEORY” CRITICISM • WHAT IS THE NATURE OFGOD? • DOES GOD MAKE ARBITRARY RULES JUST TO SEE IF WE WILL OBEY? • DOES GOD MAKE RULES THAT HE KNOWS WILL LEAD TO OUR HAPPINESS? • IF THE LATTER STATEMENT IS TRUE, DOESN’T IT MAKE SENSE GOD WOULD WANT US TO USE OUR GOD-GIVEN REASON TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION?

MILL’S ANSWER TO THE “GODLESS THEORY” CRITICISM “IF IT BE A TRUE BELIEF THATGOD DESIRES, ABOVE ALL THINGS, THE HAPPINESS OF HIS CREATURES, AND THAT THIS WAS HIS PURPOSE IN THEIR CREATION, UTILITY IS NOT A GODLESS DOCTRINE, BUT MORE PROFOUNDLY RELIGIOUS THAN ANY OTHER. . . WHATEVERGOD HAS THOUGH FIT TO REVEAL ON THE SUBJECT OF MORALS MUST FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF UTILITY IN A SUPREME DEGREE. ”

A SECOND CRITICISM OF UTILITARIANISM IF ONE MUST DECIDE THE PROBABLE OUTCOME OF AN ACT BEFORE KNOWING WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD, HOW CAN CHILDREN LEARN TO EVALUATE ACTS, SINCE THEY KNOW SO LITTLE OF WHAT CONSEQUENCES MIGHT ARISE FROM THEIR ACTIONS?

RIGHTS AND UTILITARIANISM • MANY PHILOSOPHERS HOLD THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS, EITHER FROM GOD, NATURE, OR FROM A SOCIAL CONTRACT • CAN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS BE MADE COMPATIBLE WITH UTILITARIANISM? • IF IGNORING RIGHTS BRINGS ABOUT MORE HAPPINESS TO THE GREATEST NUMBER, SHOULD WE IGNORE SO-CALLED RIGHTS? • MILL’S RULE-BASED VIEW INON LIBERTY; HAVING A RIGHT TO LIBERTY WILL BRING THE GREATEST HAPPINESS

• DıSCUSSıON QUESTIONS • YOUR MILITARY STRATEGISTS HAVE TARGETED A SIGNIFICANT MUNITIONS FACTORY LOCATED NEXT TO A CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL. OBLITERATING THE FACTORY IS CRUCIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF YOUR OVERALL CAMPAIGNING. ANY HIT ON THE FACTORY WILL IMPACT THE HOSPITAL. • HOW WOULD YOU DECIDE WHAT TO DOUSING UTILITARIAN PRINCIPLES? • DO YOU FIND THEUTILITARIAN RECOMMENDATIONS MORALLY SATISFACTORY?