Utilitarianism

Problem for Mill: What makes a good judge?

Can a philosopher really get all the value out of a great video game? Just like a gamer wouldn't get the value from a philosophy book. Why is one any better than the other as a judge of what's good?

3. Utilitarianism and Justice:

Furthermore, the Utilitarian view is in danger of completely overlooking ordinary rules of justice: suppose there has been a terrorist attack and lots of people have been killed by a bomb. The police arrest a man although they know that he is innocent. People want the person responsible. Political leaders must find a solution. The police arrest the man and on fabricated evidence, and they cover their tracks. A utilitarian would say, job well done: happiness for the greatest number of people appears to be achieved because the public are then satisfied that the supposed terrorist has been caught. However, the Utilitarian view completely overlooks ordinary rules of justice, as in this case because an innocent person is punished. If the world were to work like this, we would all be in danger of unjust punishment at any point.

1. Utilitarianism and Obligations:

Imagine you promise to help your friend out with homework, but then someone else invites you to the movies. A utilitarian will overlook their bond with their friend, and their promise to gain the greater happiness of the movies. You are obliged to help your friend with their homework because you have promised to, and what binds you is what you have done in the past. Therefore obligations are overlooked in utilitarianism because they are backward looking.

Rule Utilitarianism as a response:

In an attempt to review utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism suggests that we learn from experience the kinds of actions that, in the long run, contribute to human happiness. For example, we learn not to kill and steal and this contributes to happiness in the long run. This then prevents problems like an innocent man being convicted of terrorism to please the general public, because we have learned that in the long-run a greater number of people will be happier if justice is upheld.

4. Moral Agency:

It is also argued that the Utilitarian view not only incorrectly overlooks intention, but moral agency generally. Williams gives the analogy of Jim and the Indians. Jim comes across a group of 20 civilians being held by armed guards. The head guard informs Jim that he must kill one civilian, if he does not the other 19 will be killed. If Jim does nothing they all are killed. A utilitarian will come to the answer of killing the one civilian in order to save the rest. Unfortunately this is the correct conclusion, however what Williams is arguing is that the decision for Jim is much more complicated and deeper than the utilitarian ruling of greater happiness allows. The reason for this is that a Utilitarian's only interest is in the outcome. Assuming Jim is a morally decent person, his only decision is whether he will kill one of the indians or he will not. If he does he is the one who has killed, and it is therefore his responsibility. If he does not kill then 20 will be dead. A Utilitarian cannot make the distinction between doing and allowing to happen, or killing and letting die. For Utilitarianism they are the same thing. The huge amount written on this distinction in medical ethics alone shows this not to be the case. This is known as the doctrine of negative responsibility. A moral theory that overlooks such an important distinction cannot plausibly be relied upon.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill studied Bentham's Utilitarianism since he was a young boy and made some changes to the theory where he saw weaknesses. He rejected very strongly that all pleasures are commensurable. Mill believed in higher and lower pleasures, and the need for a good judge for this to determine what acts generate more happiness. Mill made a test for a competent judge. He said that those who are familiar with a wide variety of pleasures are able to judge much more fairly than someone who only has knowledge of one particular thing. For example, if someone is familiar with the pleasures of philosophy and the pleasures of eating junk food then that person would make a better judge for which act of the two is a higher pleasure and which is a lower pleasure: presumably they will prefer to have the pleasures of philosophy to those of eating junk food. So for Mill, the pleasure of philosophy is a higher pleasure than that of eating junk food. Mill goes on to give an analogy in which he says: It is better to be a human dissatisfied pursuing higher pleasure things and being frustrated with that when its not working out. Even that is better than the pig who has mud and food but is happy. Mill adds that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied".

2. Using Individuals as a means to an end:

Some philosophers object to Utilitarianism because it is willing to use individuals as a means to gaining happiness, which seems to such philosophers to be unethical, at least intuitively. An example of this is Dostoyevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment": In the novel a gifted young man who is unable to exercise his gifts has plans to murder a mean old money lender to steal her money that she has hoarded and is of no use to her. He intends to use the money to do good for himself and others, in a way the old woman would not have. Immanuel Kant says that despite her avaricious nature, she should not have been used as a means to an end.

Bentham:

These 'good consequences' are carefully defined by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who is often seen as the founding father of Utilitarianism. Bentham provides what he called the principle of utility. "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever" or in other words, to promote or to oppose happiness. Regarding happiness, Bentham said that: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as what we shall do... they govern us in all we do, all we say, all we think". Thus, if you have more pain than pleasure, you are unhappy. If you have more pleasure than pain you will be happy. All animals just simply try to avoid pain and find pleasure. There is nothing more intuitive than such primal desires and avoidances, so Bentham thought that this was a good basis for a moral theory. This is known as psychological hedonism. Assuming as Bentham did that psychological hedonism is true, then we equate happiness with pleasure. What is common or commensurable in all good things that make us happy is the amount of pleasure they produce for those involved. Bentham was only interested in quantity of pleasure being produced, not the quality of it, in relation to how good an action is. Pleasure is pleasure: it does not matter what it is.

Intro:

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states the best action is the one that brings about the most utility. Utility is defined in many ways: usually in the well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings or other animals. Utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist moral theory. This is because a Utilitarian is not concerned with the intent behind one's actions, only the consequences. A morally good action is one that brings about good consequences.

Problem for Mill: What are higher and lower pleasures?

We as humans should always strive for the higher pleasures. Mill categorized pleasures of the mind and spirit such as philosophy, poetry and conversation as higher pleasures. Whereas, pleasures of the body such as eating sleeping and drinking are lower pleasures. However, Hemmingway's description of wine proves Mill's Utilitarianism to be very subjective: "Wine is one of the most civilised things in the world and one of the natural things of the world that has been brought to the greatest perfection... One can learn about wines and pursue the education of one's palate with great enjoyment all of a lifetime... A person with increasing knowledge and sensory education may derive infinite enjoyment from wine." This contradicts that things of body are lower pleasures as wine can be seen as one of the highest pleasures we can enjoy.

Classical Utilitarianism:

What has been discussed so far is broadly known as Classical Utilitarianism. A strength is that it makes no appeal to religious thought or entities. Our society is becoming increasingly secular and ethical theories are therefore easier to defend if they are distinguished from the teachings of religion. Utilitarianism also has a very strong connection with nature as it appeals to our most base desire: happiness. It is also common sense, as it aims to maximise happiness. Surely, if we are looking to become happy we must aim to maximise our happiness. Another strength is that Utilitarianism is Egalitarian. Egalitarianism is a doctrine that sees all people as equally deserving of equal rights and opportunities to maximise human happiness. Such equality is a key requirement in any modern theory of morality. A final strength is the practicality of Utilitarianism: it aims to provide what is called a decision procedure. It is a theory which tells us how to act in any given situation. If we are Utilitarians, we need never be unsure what to do, from a moral point of view, for we know that we should always act in such a way as to maximise happiness.

Counter response:

What if the betrayed friend who needs help with homework gets more pain from being betrayed than the pleasure that the other friend gets from the movies? The Utilitarian would then say not to break the promise.