Chapter 8: ETHICS
UTILITARIANISM
(NOTE: You must read
only those linked materials that are preceded by the capitalized word READ.)
The Basic Idea
To overcome the obvious defects of using Egoism as a moral guide
Utilitarianism approaches the question of the GOOD from an opposing point
of view. Instead of that
being the GOOD which serves one's own interest and provides for one's own
pleasure, the utilitarians take that which produces the greatest amount
of pleasure (Hedonism) (Physical and
emotional) for the greatest number of people to be the GOOD. This is
the principle of UTILITY.
VIEW: Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36
VIEW: on Utility
The theory developed from an attempt to direct the lawmakers of
England to consider the common good rather than the welfare of their
social class when they made laws. The
GOOD is that which provides for the happiness of the greatest number of
people even if it results in no happiness to the agent at all. In this approach each human being has exactly the same worth
as all other human beings. In
this view the benefit of the action must be maximized:
When confronted by some situation and facing a choice or dilemma
and when considering what would be the correct thing to do, what would be
right, what would be good, the utilitarian would :
1. consider the options available, however many there are.
2. calculate how much happiness would be produced were each of the
options to be acted upon
3. determine which option produces the greatest resulting happiness
4. choose that option which does produce the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of people
Note: it is not a
matter of making the majority (>50%) happy but the greatest possible
number of people. So if there
are three options, (a),(b), and (c) and (a) makes 87% happy, (b) makes 76%
happy and (c) makes 89% happy the utilitarian must choose to do (c).
Choice (c) is the GOOD or the morally correct choice while the others (a) and (b) are not good
or would be morally incorrect choices.
Suggested Reading John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism ch 2 and ch 4
ACT and RULE Utilitarianism
There is a difference between rule and act utilitarianism. The act utilitarian considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the rule utilitarian considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct .
VIEW: VIDEO on ACT and RULE UTILITY
Why the two approaches? Consider the following case:
Someone goes to the doctor. The
person is ill, experiences pain and dysfunction.
The doctor performs a series of test and examinations.
The person returns to the doctor's office to learn of the results,
the diagnosis and prognosis. The
doctor is aware that the tests all show that the person has a disease that
is incurable and life threatening. In
fact even under the most aggressive treatment option there is a survival
rate of less than 15% for two years.
The doctor is considering what would be GOOD to tell the person.
Should the person know the truth or should the person be told
something other than the truth? Which
is better? Which is the right
thing to do? What would be
GOOD to do? The act
utilitarian might calculate that in telling the truth there will be a
great deal of pain and hardly any pleasure at all
The person will be upset, their family will be upset, the doctor
will be upset in informing the ill person that there is nothing that the
doctor can do to alter their condition.
The doctor's staff will be upset seeing the person come in for
whatever treatment there may be. On the other hand if the doctor makes up a story concerning
the diagnosis and prognosis that is not true but that gives the ill person
more time to enjoy life before the illness makes it obvious that the end
is near, well then the results are different.
The doctor is not so upset in seeing the person, the doctor's staff
is not upset . The family and
friends of the person have some more time with that person to enjoy things
instead of being morose and depressed.
So the ACT utilitarian might calculate that the GOOD is to lie.
The rule utilitarian would need to consider what would the long
term consequences be if doctors were to lie to those who come to them and
have life threatening, incurable illnesses.
The rule utilitarian might calculate that people would no longer be
able to trust their doctors and this would break down the confidence they
need for their therapies to be effective.
The RULE utilitarian might calculate that there is far more harm in
lying and so the GOOD is to tell the truth.
The same result might obtain were there to be a consideration of
cheating on an examination. The
single act might produce a great deal of happiness for the cheater,
teacher, family and friends. The
rule of cheating might produce quite the opposite result as society could
no longer trust that the doctors, lawyers, engineers, repair people etc..
really know what they are doing and deserve their position.
Rule Utilitarianism (RU) has no rule other than UTILITY. Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or doesn't it produce HAPPINESS. Utilitarians must maximize HAPPINESS. They must never accept unhappiness if they can minimize it .
Both ACT and RULE utilitarians must ASSUME NOTHING. They must actually poll or measure what act will produce the greatest utility.
The difference is that the ACT UTILITARIAN measures the consequences of a SINGLE ACT.
The RULE UTILITARIAN measures the consequences of the act repeated over and over again through time as if it were to be followed as a RULE whenever similar circumstances arise.
NOTHING is right or wrong in itself for a utilitarian. NOTHING! It all depends on the consequences of the act, the results are what matters not the act.
The idea behind Rule Utilitarianism is that whenever you are in a situation and have alternatives you calculate the utility to be produced by adopting a course of action (rule) which would produce the greatest utility in the long run if it were followed every time that situation arose.
Let's consider the rule that states you must stop your vehicle at a red traffic light.
Situation: Pregnant woman in back seat. About to deliver. Water has broken. Contractions are 2 minutes apart. It is 4am. The vehicle is 2 miles from the hospital. There are no other cars around. The RU would think if you were as a rule to break the law and go through that red light it would produce more utility than not doing so and therefore would be the morally GOOD thing to do. So the RU RULE would be to go through red lights whenever it is 4am and there is a pregnant woman in the back seat who is about to deliver and you are heading to the hospital.
Another presentation on the distinction:
Another good video on Utilitarianism from Crash Course
RESOURCES:
Rule Utilitarianism
Literature on Utilitarianism
Links to all the original texts of the Utilitarians
Tremendous Central Site for utilitarianism
Original Text by John Stuart Mill
Organization promoting utilitarianism
PROBLEMS with the Theory:
1. It is difficult if not impossible to do the calculations required. How do you measure the happiness (pleasure) produced?
a. Not everyone will be able to measure their happiness.
b. One persons’ maximum happiness may not be the equal of another person’s maximum.
c. Do the calculations range over 1 year, ten years, century,etc..? How long?
d. Do the calculations measure the happiness for a small group, entire country, the whole world?
e. Do they consider only humans or non-humans who are sentient beings (have awareness and feelings). Peter Singer is a Utilitarian who includes all sentient beings.
2. The theory can support opposing actions on different occasions as the correct or the good thing to do.
3. The theory can’t really resolve conflicts in views, e.g.. Sometimes it supports lying, cheating, killing, stealing, etc... and sometimes not.
4. The theory can support doing horrible, heinous acts, as long as they produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. There is no act that is wrong in and of itself! Murder, lies, rape, child molestation, ..whatever can be the GOOD thing to do!
5. The theory treats all people as being equal. It does not take into consideration special relationships that exist between people, for example the relationships of family members.
6. Non Humans have feelings and can suffer. Why not include them in utilitarian calculations?
VIEW:
Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42
Now to examine approaches to determining right from wrong that does
not consider the consequences of the acts but the acts themselves and the
intentions of the actors.
Proceed to the next section by clicking here> next section.
Introduction to Philosophy by Philip A. Pecorino is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.