Utilitarianism
Bentham and Mill
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
1
2
4
England
Bentham (1748-1832)
Mill (1806-1873)
1700
1900
Mozart (1756-1791)
Kant (1724-1804)
Germany
America
For
comparison
Jefferson (1743-1826)
Lincoln (1809-1865)
Utilitarianism
0011 0010
1010Bentham
1101 0001 0100
1011
Jeremy
(1748-1832)
is
the first notable figure endorsing
“the principle of utility.” That
principle states:
an action is right as it tends to promote
happiness, wrong as it tends to
diminish it, for the party whose
interests are in question
Bentham is famous for identifying
happiness with pleasure, and
providing a “hedonic calculus”
for determining the rightness of
an action.
1
2
4
Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
One goal of utilitarianism is to provide a way
to resolve moral disputes.
Bentham notes that if we can all agree that
Good = Pleasure, then we can make moral
progress scientifically by determining
which actions really do produce the most
pleasure.
His view if often called “Hedonistic
Utilitarianism.”
1
2
4
Hedonistic Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
If our central obligation is to act so as to produce
the most good (pleasure), then we need a way
to calculate which alternative action open to us
at a given time is best (productive of the most
good, pleasure).
1
2
4
Bentham identifies 7 features of pleasures that
allow us to determine how great a given
pleasure is…
Hedonistic Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Hedonic calculus: measure the rightness of an action by these features:
1) Intensity (a more intense pleasure is preferable to a weaker pleasure)
2) Duration (pleasures that last are preferable to those that don’t)
3) Certainty (if the act guarantees a pleasure, that act is better than one that
merely makes pleasure likely)
4) Propinquity (if the pleasure is far off in space or time, the act is less right)
5) Fecundity (the likelihood that the pleasure or pain will be followed by more
pleasures or pains)
6) Purity (a pleasure that is mixed with pain is not as good as one that just
pleasure)
7) Extent (the more people who will enjoy the pleasure, the better the act)
1
2
4
John Stuart Mill added the 7th criterion, though Bentham’s own principles
suggested it.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
0011 0010John
1010 1101
0001
0100
1011
Stuart
Mill
(1806-1873)
was
the son of James Mill, a friend of
Bentham’s
Mill took Bentham’s Utilitarianism
and made two major changes:
1.He emphasized the greatest good
for the greatest number
2.Rejected Bentham’s calculus,
saying that quality of pleasures is
crucial in deciding what is right,
not mere quantity.
1
2
4
Mill’s Utilitarianism
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Bentham had famously (and
very unpretentiously) said,
quantity of pleasure being
equal, pushpin is as good as
poetry.
Mill rejects that view and
argues for a distinction
between “higher” and
“lower” pleasures.
1
2
4
Mill’s Utilitarianism
What justifies the distinction between “higher” and “lower” pleasures?
Mill provides 2 reasons
1. He famously says, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2)
2. He also says that the only competent judge of two things is someone
with experience of both, and: “If one of the two [pleasures] is …
placed [by such competent person] so far above the other that they
prefer it …, 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.”
(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2. My brackets)
Utilitarianism – Problem Solving
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100Problem
1011
While many agree with Mill that there is a
qualitative difference between pleasures, that
admission to a large degree ruins our ability to
quantify pleasure, and so ruins some of the
problem solving appeal of Utilitarianism.
1
2
4
Are religious pleasures higher than humanistic
intellectual pleasures? Are the pleasures of
childhood higher than those of young
adulthood? Are all those different in kind?
Utilitarianism – A Demanding
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 Theory
1011
Note that Utilitarianism accepts and
emphasizes the distinction between what is
in our self- interest and our duty.
1
2
4
As soon as the happiness of two other people
conflicts with your own happiness, you lose
out. Being a moral person quickly becomes
quite difficult.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism -1
0011Utilitarianism
0010 1010requires
1101 0001
1011
that we0100
choose
the act that produces the greatest good for the
greatest number.
Does that apply to all our acts? Practically speaking, Mill cut us some slack, saying he
never meant that we should always be trying to produce the greatest good for the
greatest number, but can he say that? By what principle? Must I not say:
1
2
“Well, I’m tired and going to bed now, but I could stay up and try to solve problems …
make extra money for charity. Since I’m a good problem solver, I suppose the good I
could produce through self-sacrifice suggests I should stay up and try.”
 Can a consistent Utilitarian get a good night’s sleep?
 Does Utilitarianism turn us into good-making machines?
4
Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 2
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice?
Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and
his girl heading to the Mexico border. The man was
desperate for money and shot the teller at the bank while
robbing it. He is 50 yards from the border and the
Marshall has to decide whether to let him go or shoot
him from a distance. If the Marshall lets the man go,
let’s suppose the man will live a good life, raise a
family, and be a good husband. The killing was out of
character, and the money will allow him to live well
with his neighbors. What should the Marshall do?
According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best
consequences seems to be letting the man go. Everyone
will be happy: the Marshall doesn’t enjoy killing, the
man wants to live, the woman loves him, the Teller had
no family, no one much liked him anyway.
Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?
1
2
4
Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 3
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Is Utilitarianism prejudiced about the future?
1
2
When you make a promise, does your action
in the past limit your ability to act in the
future?
4
Criticisms of Utilitarianism - 4
0011 0010 1010 1101 0001 0100 1011
Utilitarianism seems to require that we
violate people’s rights on occasion.
If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize
winners to the emergency room, each
needing a different vital organ to
survive, and the doctor looks at you or
me, in for a hangnail, should he or she
put us under and remove our organs for
the Prize winners?
That action, if it can be done in secrecy,
seems to clearly be the best option in
terms of producing the most good for
the greatest number.
1
2
4
Mill’s On Liberty
In this work is Mill’s philosophically radical idea that, as
long as you’re not hurting others, you are free to do
whatever you please with your own mind and body.
 It isn’t that different from the Medieval conception of Ethics
as concerned with Duty vs. Interest, or what you owe to
others (God and other humans) vs. what you can permit for
yourself.
 It is different, though, because in the Middle Ages you
would have been hard pressed to find someone permitting as
much freedom as Mill has in mind.
The Harm Principle
Harm Principle:
The only end for which people are entitled, individually or
collectively, to interfere with the liberty of action of any of their
number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Mill, On Liberty, page 6, here.
Typically, harming someone is acting to produce some condition at
variance with their interests, hence, no:
•
•
•
•
•
Killing them (decreasing their life)
Wounding them (decreasing their health)
Stealing from them (decreasing their wealth)
Slandering them (decreasing their honor)
Etc.
but … What Constitutes Harm?
Inaction can be harm?
•
•
•
•
Do I have to go to school?
Do I have to vote?
Okay to live like a hermit?
Do I have to swim out and rescue
a drowning baby?
but … What Constitutes Harm?
Psychological harm?
o Crab Grass?
o Paint choices?
o Clothing choices?
o Unfair Treatment?
but … What Constitutes Harm?
Increased probability of harm is harm?
• Speeding?
• Designing out-of-code stairs in your own
home?
• Dependents limit freedom to harm self?
• Setting a bad example?
but … What Constitutes Harm?
What about stuff loaded with pleasure for
some people?
•
•
•
•
•
Prostitution
Bestiality
Incest
Group Sex
Voluntary Amputation
Free Speech
Mill argues for the value of free speech. No idea should be rejected outof-hand, and no ideas should be forbidden from consideration…
No legislature or executive whose interests aren’t exactly the same as the
people’s should be allowed to tell them what to believe or to decide
what doctrines or arguments they shall be allowed to hear.
and in a footnote, same page …
If the arguments of my present chapter have any validity, there ought to
exist the fullest liberty of proclaiming and discussing—as a matter of
ethical conviction—any doctrine, however immoral it may be
considered.
Mill, On Liberty, page 10, here.
but … Can’t Speech Harm?
The first famous detraction from freedom
of speech is …
You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.
–Oliver Wendell Holmes (paraphrase)
Mill distinguishes between speech that
violates rights and speech that merely
harms someone. He allows for speech
that harms, so long as the speech is
responsible (true speech that harms is
immune from censure, unless spoken at
a time that incites the violation of
rights).
but … Can’t Speech Harm?
Pornographic speech?
Hate speech?
Is there a difference between harm and offense?
Should speech be limited by what is offensive to
people, even if the speech doesn’t cause a
measurable infringement of rights?