Session 3: Utilitarianism
Dr. Chan Ho Mun
Dept of Public & Social Administration
City University of Hong Kong
June 7, 2007
Categories of Deontic Evaluation


The Greek original of “Deontic” is “deon”, which
means “duty”.
Three categories (Timmons 2002):





Obligatory actions are actions that one ought to do.
Wrong actions are those that ought not to be done.
Optional actions are neither obligatory nor wrong.
Right actions in the narrow sense are obligatory.
Rights actions in the broad sense are either
obligatory or optional.

A finer categorization (Driver 2007):






(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Obligatory actions
Supererogatory actions
Permissible actions
Suberogatory actions
Forbidden actions
Rights actions could mean (1), (1)+(2), or
(1)+(2)+(3).
Categories of Values


Intrinsic value: Something is intrinsically
good (or valuable) if it is good (or has
value) in and of itself.
Extrinsic value: Something is extrinsically
good if it related to something else that is
good, so its goodness is borrowed.

Three categories of values:




Intrinsically good
Intrinsically value-neutral
Intrinsically bad
Moral Value and Nonmoral value


Moral value is ascribable only to responsible
agents (persons).
Other things, including experiences and states
of affairs, have nonmoral value.
Hedonism vs Pluralism


Hedonism: Happiness is the only intrinsic
good.
Pluralism: There is more than one intrinsic
good.
Utilitarianism




It is a consequence-based theory
(consequentialist theory).
The deontic status of an action is defined
solely in terms of the utility of the
consequence produced by the action.
Utility is a nonmoral value and the
ultimate goal of morality is to maximize
the aggregate utility.
Virtue-based consideration is out of the
picture.




An action is obligatory if it has a utility
higher than any alternative actions.
An action is wrong if it has a utility less
than some other alternatives.
An action is optional if it is tied with some
other alternative for first place.
An action is right (in the broad sense) if it
has a utility no less than any other
alternative action.
Classical Utilitarianism



Classical utilitarianism is hedonistic.
The utility of an action is defined as the
overall balance between happiness and
unhappiness produced by the action.
Bentham’s version


Happiness is identified with the pleasure (and
the absence of pain).
Unhappiness is identified with pain (and the
deprivation of pleasure).


Greatest happiness principle: In our actions,
we should aim at producing the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, or if
impossible, then reducing the unhappiness of
the greatest number.
Mill’s version


Quality matters.
The life of dissatisfied Socrates is morally
better than that of a happy fool.
Mill’s Proof

Part I:




Everyone desires his/her happiness for its
own sake.
Everything that is desired for its own sake is
desirable. (Every object that is seen is visible).
If something is desirable, it is intrinsically
valuable.
One’s own happiness is therefore an intrinsic
good for oneself, which implies that general
happiness is intrinsically good for the
aggregate of persons.

Part II:



If some other things besides happiness that
are desired for themselves, they are desired
as part of the end of happiness.
Thus, happiness is the only intrinsic good.
Criticism:
“Desirable” is ambiguous. It can mean
“able to be desired” or “worthy of being
desired”.
Strength of Utilitarianism








A secular morality
Based on human nature
A common sense approach
Egalitarianism
Focus on human wellbeing
Simple: only outcome counts
A decision procedure
Cost-benefit analysis is a utilitarian
approach that is widely used in public
policy analysis and decision making.
Objections to Utilitarianism



The problem of comparability.
Too demanding: The money for an ice
cream could be used to bring about much
greater happiness in a very poor country.
Supererogatory actions become obligatory.
Too impartial: Whom should you save
when both are drowning? Your mother
who is very old or a young and famous
professional?

William’s story of Jim and the Indians


Utilitarianism makes no distinction between
doing and allowing something to happen. For
utilitarians, one is equally just as responsible
in one case as much as in another (the
doctrine of negative responsibility).
Utilitarianism could undermine ones moral
integrity.

Human Rights and Criminal Justice


The values of freedom of speech and so on
are intrinsic. They are respected even they
cannot bring out the best outcome.
Suppose a police officer has found some
convincing evidence to press charge against
the top leader of a triad society, but he
actually has not committed the crime in
question. It seems that he should be
prosecuted if the utilitarian approach is
followed.

Political Equality



Suppose having a landfill nearby will diminish
property value by 20% within a one-mile
radius.
According to CBA, people in the poor side of
the town will have to suffer in order to avoid a
greater monetary losses by rich people.
Equal worth to each dollar vs. equal worth to
each human being.



Our obligations to others: A promise still
has its moral force although breaking it
can so happen to produce a better
outcome.
Using individuals as means.
Claims of needs vs claims of utility



Rationing in an Accident and Emergency Ward.
Organ transplant.
Welfare
Act-utilitarianism vs Ruleutilitarianism



Following a moral rule can bring about desirable
effect in the long run.
Complexity: The cost of figuring out whether we
should break a rule can be higher than the
benefit gained.
Rule-utilitarianism:

An action is right if one act in accordance with a
moral rule whose associated utility in the long run is
no less than the utility associated with any alternative
moral rule.

Criticism:



Suppose it is clear and obvious that breaking
a rule in a certain situation would not have
long term negative effect. Should you break it?
If you say “no”, it means that you are not a
true utilitarian.
If you say “yes”, the distinction between actutilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism becomes
blurred.
Pluralistic (Restricted) Utilitarianism



Outcome matters, though not exclusively.
It is not everything, but it is not nothing
either.
Utilitarianism is acceptable if other moral
constraints are taken into considerations.
The application of utilitarianism sometimes
can promote other values. Efficiency and
justice are not always incompatible.


Some public agencies are created to
achieve certain results. They are not
supposed to produce results better than
any others, all things considered.
The consequentialist consideration should
be constrained by the functional
specialization of the public agency in
question.


Very often moral agents are expected to
maximize only a specific kind of results in
a certain context.
Example 1: The triage in ICU aims to
maximize medical utility, not social utility.
Otherwise, the education background and
other factors of the patient have to be
taken into consideration, and the result
can be ruthless.

Example 2: Drugs outside the Standard
Drug Formulary




(1) Drugs proven to be of significant benefits
but expensive for the public health care
system to provide as part of its subsidized
service
(2) Drugs which have preliminary medical
evidence only
(3) Drugs with marginal benefits over
available alternatives but at significantly
higher costs
(4) Life style drugs e.g. anti-obesity drugs