Rachels notes that the late “18th and 19th centuries witnessed an astonishing series of upheavals.” p.89

• French Revolution 1789-1799

• American Declaration of Independence 1776



The Revolution in Ethics: The Philosophers

David Hume 1711-1776, Scottish philosopher and historian.

Jeremy Bentham 1748-1842 English, jurist and philosopher.

John Stuart Mill 1806-1873, British philosopher and economist.

Henry Sidgwick 1838-1900, English philosopher.

Peter Singer 1946 - present, Australian Philosopher



What Morality Is NOT About For Utilitarians

• The norms of one’s culture

• The commands of God

• The order of the universe as determined by God

• Individual self-interest

• Inflexible moral rules like “Never lie”.

• Or anything else except…..

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 p.90

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.

• It is important to emphasize that utilitarians tend to focus on aggregate happiness and not distribution.

• So consider two acts:

Action	     # People Affected	     Utility Per Person      Total

Act 1		     7			                           600		 4200
Act 2		    37			                         110		           4070

• For the utilitarian, the first act would be the right act



Utilitarianism & Social Reform

• The basic idea of utilitarianism might seem obvious and not very revolutionary; but the utilitarians were (and are) great social reformers in such areas as:

• 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 Matthew Donnelly case on p.91.

1.The right thing to do is the action which produces the greatest amount of happiness and causes the least amount of pain.

2. Matthew Donnelley was blind, mutilated, and in constant pain from his cancer and wanted to die.

3. If Matthew continued to live, he would have one year of only pain and misery.

4. So, the right thing to do is to honor Matthew’s request (as his brother did) and help him die.

• The utilitarian would, contrary to the Christian tradition, support euthanasia in the Donnelly. Note however that Bentham thinks religion would endorse the utilitarian view point - p. 93.

• And while the law in the US forbids euthanasia, the utilitarian would argue that we have good reason to change the laws -- as other countries have done.

• For the utilitarian, the purpose of the law is to promote the general welfare of all citizens.

Other Implications?

• What do you think a utilitarian might have to say about….?

Homosexuality

Same-sex marriage

Marijuana laws

Our obligations to the poor

N.B. the clear importance of consequences in utilitarian thinking: that is, the consequences concerning happiness and pain.

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

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. If follows that in our moral deliberations we must give equal consideration to the interests of non-human 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.

Utilitarianism Part II

Three Elements of Classical Utilitarianism

1. Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences.

2. In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the total amount of happiness that is created.

3. Each person’s happiness counts as the same.

• Critics have objected to each of these elements

Objection 1: 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.

Question: Is this situation morally acceptable?

• The classical utilitarian is a hedonist; that is, he holds that pleasure or happiness is the ultimate good.

• In the last example, if happiness is maximized, then the situation is morally acceptable.

• But the last example seems to show that we value certain things, such as friendship, for their own sakes; we think them good and they make us happy.

Replies to Objection 1

1.The classical utilitarian might hold that the ridiculing friend scenario might be an odd situation and one contrary to our common moral intuitions. But that just shows that common moral intuitions are not very good guides to morality.

2. Some contemporary utilitarians, like Peter Singer, move away from hedonism and argue that we should aim to satisfy as many preferences as possible. (See pp.102-103)

Objection 2: Justice - Are Consequences All That Matter?

The principle of utility presumably requires some to forgo greater life prospects for the sake of others.

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice,p.180

• 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 world in which each person got 40 units of happiness for a total of 4000 units.

• But this scenario clearly conflicts with our sense of justice

Objection 2: Rights - Are Consequences All That Matter?

• Consider the Ms. York case in our text. (p.104)

• 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.

Question: What other rights might utilitarianism violate?

Reply to Objection 2: Act vs. Rule 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.

• Compare "percentage tennis" with "free-style tennis"

• Using the act vs. rule utilitarianism distinction, the rule-utilitarian might argue that rules against slavery, violating rights to privacy, free-speech, etc, are good rules to have because following them maximizes overall utility, even if in some weird and unusual cases they might not.

• N.B. One clear problem with this reply is that a utilitarian, since she is a consequentialist, cannot be an absolutist about ethical rules.

Objection 3: Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding

• Recall the third basic element of utilitarianism.

3. 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 needies people could help. (p.109)

• In other words, utilitarianism seems to demand that we all become moral saints.

• It thus blurs the distinction between acts we normally consider to be our duty, such as giving something to charity from time to time, and supererogatory acts or acts that are good but not obligatory.