Consequentialism Utilitarianism CONSEQUENTIALISM MOTIVE ACT CONSEQUENCES Consequentialism

Consequentialism: Utilitarianism

CONSEQUENTIALISM MOTIVE ACT CONSEQUENCES Consequentialism is a teleological theory (it stresses the end or goals of actions) focusing on the consequences of those actions (usually asking to maximize the good of those and deriving from those actions) A general formula for consequentialism: The morally right action is the one producing the best (or better) overall consequences Questions: - Consequences for whom? - What kind of good? - What kind of consequences?

UTILITARIANISM Classical formulation by o Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” o John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873) “Utilitarianism”, “On Liberty”, "The Subjection of Women“, “Considerations on Representative Government”

Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) o Bentham was a leading theorist in Anglo-American o o o philosophy of law, His ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, He defended equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalizing of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights.

The Panopticon o The idea of Panopticon (later developed by Michael Foucault - a 20 th century French philosopher) o The principle of the Panopticon was that prisoners could be observed night and day, without realizing that they were being observed. o The structure consisted of tiers of prison cells, arranged in a circular design. In the very centre of the circular structure was an observation tower, tall enough for the observer to be able to see the interior of each cell

The Panopticon today o Today, the concept of panopticon was applied to the modern state (Foucault). It reflected much of the philosophy of observation that has become a guiding principle of policing in the modern state. For instance, the use of video cameras both in cities and on roads employs the same principle of observation, so that the citizen is never entirely sure whether or not they are being watched.

John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873) o He received great education: geometry, logic, philosophy, Greek and Latin. o At the age of three he was taught Greek. By the age of eight he had read Aesop’s Fables and the whole of Herodotus. and was acquainted with Diogenes Laertius, and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic, physics and astronomy. o At the age of eight he began studying Latin, the works of Euclid, and algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the family. o By the age of ten could read Plato with ease.

Utilitarianism o work for the good of all persons (not just for the good of the upper class) and promote the interests of the greatest number o change the political status quo in order to promote the good o what is good is determined by the empirical observation of whether a policy is promoting what is good

UTILITARIANISM Two simplified formulations: - The morally best (or better) alternative is that which produces the greatest (or greater) net utility, where utility is defined in terms of happiness or pleasure - “We ought to do that which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people”

UTILITARIANISM - Consequences for whom? For everyone affected by my action - What kind of good? Pleasure or Happiness and Satisfying Preferences - What kind of consequences? Best consequences for the greatest number of people (more pleasure; pleasure minus pain; intensity; duration; likelihood). - *

UTILITARIANISM Hedonism: pleasure or happiness (as psychic states of satisfaction) is the good that should be promoted Bentham: “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. ” Pleasure and/or Happiness are intrinsic goods: we look for them as such Other goods (such as fame, education…) are instrumental: they are useful for attaining the goals of pleasure and/or happiness

UTILITARIANISM The Utilitarian Calculus A universalistic theory: the pleasure and/or happiness of all who are affected by an action or practice should be considered In other words we are asked to look not only at our good (egoism) but neither only to other people’s good (altruism): We need to look at the general good. For example, sacrifice is not good in itself, but if and only if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. (Mill: “A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum of total happiness, [utilitarianism] considers as wasted”)

UTILITARIANISM IMPARTIALITY and EQUALITY Everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally: there is no special privilege equally for anyone. Example: - Act A makes me happy and two other people happy - Act B makes me unhappy but five other people happy In this example Act B is a better choice than Act A

UTILITARIANISM Pleasure minus Pain An act usually produces both pleasure and pain, so in order to evaluate it we need to calculate the net happiness or unhappiness (even if we cannot make exact mathematical calculations). For example: - Act A produces twelve units of happiness and six units of unhappiness (12 – 6 = 6 units of happiness) - Act B produces 10 units of happiness and one of unhappiness (10 – 1 = 9 units of happiness) Therefore Act B is preferable because it produces a greater net amount of happiness

UTILITARIANISM Bentham measures pleasure in terms of degree intensity and duration Intensity All things, being equal, the more intense the pleasure, the better. We can imagine a scale of 1 to 10 degrees better of intensity For example: - Act A gives forty people each mild pleasure (40 X 2 = 80 degrees of pleasure) - Act B gives ten people each intense pleasure (10 X 10 = 100 degrees of pleasure) Therefore Act B is preferable even though Act A gives pleasure to 30 more people (or not? )

UTILITARIANISM Duration Intensity is not enough, it may well be that the more serene pleasures last longer. So the longer lasting the pleasure, the better For example: - Act A gives three people each eight days of happiness (3 X 8 = 24 days of happiness) - Act B gives six people each two days of happiness (6 X 2 = 12 days of happiness) Therefore Act A is preferable even though Act B gives pleasure to the double of people (or not? )

UTILITARIANISM Likelihood If before acting we are attempting to decide between two available alternative actions, we must estimate the likely results of each before we compare their net utility. It may turn out that we ought to choose an act utility with lesser rather than greater beneficial result if the chances of it happening are better. For example: - Act A has a 90 percent chance of giving eight people each five days of pleasure (40 days X 0. 90 = 36 days of pleasure) - Act B has a 40 percent chance of giving ten people each seven days of pleasure (70 days X 0. 40 = 28 days of pleasure) Therefore Act A is preferable because it gives more pleasure discounted by the possibility of its realization

Differences between Bentham and Mill Bentham VS Mill or Quantity VS Quality For Bentham: there are degrees of pleasure and pleasure=happiness Bentham: we ought to consider only the Bentham quantity of pleasure produced the AMOUNT of pleasure. In his words, “quantity pleasure of pleasure being equal, pushpin [a game] is as good as poetry”);

Mill’s ideas Mill: the quality of pleasure counts as well. But pleasure =/= Mill happiness There are hierarchies of pleasures: some better (or noble) than others. Intellectual pleasures are of higher order than physical pleasures For example, the quality of reading a good book is superior to the quality of eating. In particular Mill is thinking about the qualitative superiority of those pleasures that are specifically human (for example, aesthetic experiences) The KIND of pleasures In his words, it is better “to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.

Mill’s ideas o People have to take such actions that maximize happiness for most people and not just for the parties concerned (involved) o The universal principle: We need to act in such a way so that our action brings about the greatest happiness for the greater number of people

Two types : Act Utilitarianism 1)Act Utilitarianism: We ought to do the Utilitarianism act with the best consequences l we should consider the consequences of some particular act. If our action is right or wrong depends on our assessment of the consequences of that action. The focus is on each individual act itself.

2) Rule Utilitarianism: we ought to do what Utilitarianism would be prescribed by the rules with the best consequences for people in society to try to follow We should choose the action which conforms to a specific rule which would bring about the greater good for the greater number of people. When faced with a moral choice we must determine which rule would bring about the greater good. If an act is right or wrong depends on the consequences of a rule that requires that the act always be performed in similar situations.

ARGUMENTS FOR UTILITARIANISM 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Egalitarian equality = going beyond our self-interest and considering the importance of other people Good common sense Reasons for action: produce some sort of good It is wrong to choose the worse over the better It suggests universal standard (vs. Cultural Relativism)

UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS 1) APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE (A) The theory is too complex: it requires to calculate the complex number of people involved, whether and how many of them will get pleasure or pain, how much of pleasure they will experience, for how long, what is the likelihood that we estimate will happen à No one can really consider all the variables involved à It is difficult to determine the consequences for others Reply: although this may be complex, the more we are Reply able to evaluate the variables, the better judgments we will make

UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS 2) APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE (B) There are cases where the maximization of happiness conflicts with greatest number of people having beneficial outcomes For example, Act A produces 200 units of happiness for one person Act B produces 150 units of happiness for three persons (50 units each) Theoretically following an utilitarian calculus we should choose Act A, but do we think this is the best course of action?

UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS 3) Utilitarianism and Personal Integrity There is a problem concerning the requirement that we should always do what maximizes overall happiness This theory does not respect our personal integrity: A) This theory does not give us or those whom we love any special privilege B) This theory is not respecting our personal ways of life or ‘identity-conferring commitments’ Reply: it is important that a person gives due Reply consideration to his personal integrity because this will have better consequences for both society and him/herself

UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS 4) The end justify the means Utilitarianism seems to lead to conclusions that are contrary to common morality (for example, killing some people for the sake of the good of the greatest number, cheating and lying when these actions maximize the actual outcome) Reply: the considerations concerning the harm Reply produced by those kind of actions are counted in the utilitarian calculus and usually they lead to a worst outcome (specially in the long-term). Therefore utilitarianism will not promote such actions (but this may not be always true)

UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS 6) Who is included? Whose Good? 1) ourselves? 2) Our group? 3) All humans 4) All sentient humans

ACT UTILITARIANISM: PROBLEMS Tyranny of the Majority? Who determines the ‘greater good’ for most people? Individual views of the Good differ. Does utilitarianism lead to the conclusion that ‘the ends justify the means’? Focusing on the ends, we lose sight of the means to that end and focusing on means can neglect our goals (the case of IRA – “a good terrorist”? )

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM Some philosopher think that is difficult to measure and compare human feelings of happiness or pleasure. Therefore they developed a new version of utilitarianism based on preferences. Preference utilitarianism: the action that is best utilitarianism is the one that satisfies the most preferences, either in themselves or according to their strength or their order of importance.

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Cost-benefit Analysis: one policy is better than the Analysis other if it is the least costly compared with the benefits expected. Often, the measure is money. Problems: Problems - it is difficult to assign a value in money to things like life, friendship, love (but there are times when we make such dollars assignments explicitly or implicitly, for example insurances) - Is it really possible to compare even two simple things like a good night’s sleep and a fine dinner?