Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism has its origins in the

hedonism of the ancient Cyrenaics and
Epicureans.
The originator of modern Utilitarianism
was Jeremy Bentham.
18th Century English philosopher.
Sought to make ethics quantitative, as
Sir Isaac Newton had made science.

 The Fundamentals of Utilitarianism

All humans by nature seek to attain
pleasure and avoid pain.
Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters,
pain and pleasure. It is for them alone
to point out what we ought to do, as well
as to determine what we shall do. On
the one hand, the standard of right and
wrong, on the other, the chain of causes
and effects, are fastened to their throne.

 They govern us in all we do, in all we say,

in all we think: Every effort we can make to
throw off our subjection, will serve but to
demonstrate and confirm it. In words a
man may pretend to abjure their empire:
But, in reality, he will remain subject to it all
the while.
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and
Legislation

In taking this view of human nature,

Bentham follows Thomas Hobbes and
David Hume, as well as the ancient
Cyrenaics and Epicureans

 All humans, by nature, seek utility.

Utility: A balance of pleasure over pain.
By utility is meant that property in any
object, whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness
(all this in the present case comes to the
same thing) or (what comes again to the
same thing) to prevent the happening of
mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the
party whose interest is considered . . . .
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation

 Egalitarianism: Every individuals utility

counts the same as every other individuals
utility.
Thus, the proper goal of morality is to
achieve the most overall utility.
The community is a fictitious body,
composed of the individual persons who
are considered as constituting as it were its
members. The interest of the community
then is what? the sum of the interests of
the several members who compose it.
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation

 For Bentham, utility is judged

quantitatively only.
There is no accounting for the
alleged quality of utility.
Prejudice apart, the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts and
sciences of music an poetry. If the
game of push-pin furnish more
[utility], it is more valuable than
either.
Jeremy Bentham, The Rationale of Reward

 Benthams Seven Quantitative Utilitarian

Criteria
Intensity
How strong is it?
Duration
How long does it last?
Certainty
How likely is it to happen?
Propinquity
How near at hand is it?

 Fecundity
How likely is it to produce more?
Purity
How free of pain is it?
Extent
The number of people affected by
it.

 How to make a utilitarian moral choice

Determine who is affected by your
choice.
Determine your alternatives.
Using the seven criteria, determine the
utility for each affected individual for each
alternative.
Sum up the total utilities for each
alternative.
Choose the alternative that yields the
most overall utility.

 Rule Utilitarianism
Doing a utilitarian analysis for every moral
choice is virtually impossible.
Thus, most contemporary utilitarians prefer
rule utilitarianism.
Rule Utilitarianism: Follow the rules that, in
the long run, produce the most overall utility.
With rule utilitarianism, the utilitarian analysis
is done only once, when deciding which rules
to follow.
After that, moral choice is just a matter of
following the rules.

 Objections to Utilitarianism
Its a pig morality.
Humans are too noble for a morality
that only seeks to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain.
Benthams response:
Get over it!
Humans are nothing more than
pleasure seekers and pain
avoiders.

 John Stuart Mills Response

19th Century English philosopher
Benthams godson
Tried to reform utilitarianism so that
quality, not just quantity, matters,
when evaluating utility.
If one of two [pleasures] is, by
those who are competently
acquainted with both, placed so far
above the other that they prefer it,
even though knowing it

 to be attended with a greater

amount of discontent, and would
not resign it for any quantity of
the other pleasure which their
nature is capable of, we are
justified in ascribing to the
preferred enjoyment a superiority
in quality, so far outweighing
quantity as to render it, in
comparison, of small account.
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

 But what does this really prove?

Later on, Mill shows his elitist
biases.
Few human creatures would
consent to be changed into any of
the lower animals, for a promise of
the fullest allowance of a beasts
pleasures; no intelligent human
being would consent to be a fool,
no instructed person would be an
ignoramus,

 no person of feeling and

conscience would be selfish and
base, even though they should be
persuaded that the fool, the
dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they are
with theirs. They would not resign
what they possess more than he
for the most complete satisfaction
of all the desires which they have
in common with him . . . .

 It is better to be a human being

dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And, if the
fool, or the pig, are a different
opinion, it is because they only
know their own side of the
question. The other party to the
comparison knows both sides.
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

 What it boils down to is this:

Mill is saying, if you want to know
what pleasures are qualitatively
better, ask a person of culture
and refined taste.
In other words, ask a person that
thinks like I do.
Mills attempt to introduce a
qualitative element into utilitarianism
is generally considered a failure.

 The good of the many outweighs the good

of the one.
Utilitarianism seems to allow sacrificing
the individual for the good (utility) of the
group.
Is this just?
This consequence is contrary to the
intuition that each human person has
an inherent dignity that should not be
sacrificed, no matter how much society
as a whole gains from the sacrifice.

 An example is an episode of Star

Trek: The Next Generation
The Enterprise encounters an
alien race called the Edo who
seem to be living the life of
Paradise.
When Wesley, the son of the
ships doctor, accidentally breaks
one of the Edos rules, the Star
Fleeters find out the high cost of
the Edo Paradise.

 Captain Picard comes to the

conclusion that the value of the
individual sometimes outweighs the
cost to the group.
The conviction that all humans have
a fundamental dignity that should not
be violated or sacrificed is the key to
Deontology, which is the ethical
tradition we will look at next time.