Foundations of
Professional Ethics
PHIL 3340
Today’s Topic
Utilitarianism
The Principle of Utility
“By the Principle of Utility is meant
that principle which
approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever,
according to the tendency which it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question…”
Bentham - The Principles of Morals and Legislation
In other words, the ethical thing to do is to act in such a way
that one produces the greatest amount of happiness and
causes the least amount of pain possible.
The Principle of Utility
• Which act produces the greatest total amount of utility?
Action
Act 1
Act 2
Act 3
# People Affected Utility Per Person
5
100
2000
Total
1000
40
1
• N.B. Recall that the classical utilitarian is NOT concerned with the
distribution of happiness but with the total amount of happiness.
The Principle of Utility
• Which act produces the greatest total
amount of utility?
Action
Act 1
Act 2
Act 3
# People Affected Utility Per Person
5
100
2000
1000
40
1.5
Total
5000
4000
3000
• N.B. In this case Act 1 would be the right act for the classical
utilitarian even though Act 2 and Act 3 have greater distribution of
happiness.
Utilitarianism & Social Reform
• The basic idea of utilitarianism might
seem obvious and not
very revolutionary; but the utilitarians were (and are) great
social reformers.
• Racial equality
• Sexual equality
• Aiding the poor
• Animal welfare
• Utilitarianism is a simple sounding ethical principle with
radical consequences…
Example: Euthanasia
• Euthanasia is the intentional ending
of one’s life in
order to avoid pain and suffering. This might be
accomplished, for example, through doctor assisted
suicide.
• Under the Christian tradition the intentional killing
of innocent people is always wrong, and euthanasia
appears to violate this rule.
• But now consider the Sigmund Freud case on p.99
Example: Euthanasia
• The utilitarian would, contrary
to the Christian
tradition, support euthanasia in the Freud case.
• Note however that Bentham thinks religion
would endorse the utilitarian view point - p. 101.
• Although Texas forbids euthanasia, the utilitarian
would argue that we have good reason to change the
laws since the law is to promote the general welfare of
all citizens.
Example: Marijuana
• American’s first “drug czar”
William Bennett
declared that “The simple fact is that drug use is
wrong. And the moral argument, in the end, is the
most compelling argument.” (p.102)
• But why is using marijuana wrong? What is the
ethical reasoning or theory behind this view?
• And how would a utilitarian evaluate the issue of
marijuana use?
Utilitarianism and The Principle of
Rational Benevolence
The good of any one
individual is of no more
importance, from the point of
view of the Universe,
than the good of any other;
so that as a rational
being I am bound to aim at
good
generally -- so far
as
it is attainable by my
efforts
-- not merely at a
particular
part of it.
Henry Sidgwick 1838-1900
Example: Nonhuman Animals
Example: Nonhuman Animals
Example: Nonhuman Animals
1. Reason shows that in our moral deliberations
we must
give equal consideration to all interests.
2. If we give equal considerations to all interests, then we cannot exclude
people on the basis of what they are like or what abilities they possess.
3. If we cannot exclude people on the basis of what they
are like or what abilities they possess, then we cannot exclude beings
simply because they are not members of our species.
4. Therefore, it
follows that in our moral deliberations we must give
equal consideration
to the interests of non-human animals.
Example: Nonhuman Animals
Racists: violate the principle of
rational benevolence
(RB) by giving greater weight to the interests of
their own race.
Sexists: violate the principle of RB by giving
greater weight to the interests of their own gender.
Speciesists: violate the principle of RB by giving
greater
weight to members of their own species.
Three Elements of
Classical Utilitarianism
1. In assessing consequences, the only thing that
matters is the total amount of happiness that
is created and the amount of pain diminished..
2. Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely
by virtue of their consequences.
3. Each person’s
happiness counts as the same.
• Critics have
objected to each of these elements.
Strange Friends Objection:
Is Happiness the Only Thing That Matters?
Consider the following example:
You think someone is your friend but she ridicules you
behind your back. You are unaware of it and suffer no
unhappiness. Now suppose you go to your grave never
knowing about the ridicule and further suppose that
everyone had a good laugh at your expense.
Backward Looking Reasons ObjectionAre Consequences All That Matter?
• Some have objected that utilitarianism is faulty since it
cannot accommodate “backward-looking reasons”.
• Example: Suppose you make a promise to do something
at at later time and that time arrives. Under utilitarianism, it
seems the fact that you made the promise is not itself a
reason to keep it.
Justice Objection Are Consequences All That Matter?
• Suppose we live in a world in which there are 100 people.
Further suppose that 75 of those people are slaves for the
remaining 25 elites.
• Suppose each of the 25 elites gets 100 units of happiness
and the 75 slaves get 30 units of happiness each.
• Such a world with 4750 units of happiness would be better
than a non-slavery world in which each person got 40 units
of happiness for a total of 4000 units.
Rights Objection Are Consequences All That Matter?
• Consider the Ms. York case in our text. (p.113)
• To see if the case was morally acceptable we need
to measure the unhappiness of Ms. York with the
happiness of the officers.
• However it seems this kind of utility calculus ignores Ms.
York’s right to privacy.
• This raises the general question of how Utilitarians deal with
the notion of a “right”.
Too Demanding Objection: Considering
Everyone Equally
• Recall the third basic element of utilitarianism: each
person’s happiness counts as the same.
Rachels objects that: faithful adherence to the utilitarian
standard would require you to give away your resources until you
have lowered your own standard of living to the level of the
neediest people could help. (p.116)
• Note that this also threatens personal relationships.
Defending Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism: judges the morality of an action by
whether the action itself produces the most utility, or at
least as much utility as any other action.
Rule Utilitarianism: judges the morality of an action by
whether the moral rule presupposed by the action, if
generally followed, would produce the most utility, or at
least as much utility as any other rule.
Defending Utilitarianism
• Using the act vs. rule utilitarianism distinction, the
rule-utilitarian might argue that rules against slavery,
violating rights to privacy, etc, are good rules to have
because following them maximizes overall utility, even if
in some weird and unusual cases they do not.
• One clear consequence of this reply is that a utilitarian,
since she is a consequentialist, cannot be an absolutist
about ethical rules.
Defending Utilitarianism
And…
1. We also need to focus on all the consequences of an act.
2. Our initial reaction to unusual cases may well be wrong.
3. Utility might be our standard of value, but it need not be
what we at all times consciously aim at. In fact, to do so
would likely not maximize utility. (See p.178)