New Utilitarian

8/2/2019 New Utilitarian

1/87


2/87

Type of ethical theories

It is customary to divide ethical theories

into two groups usually called

1. Teleological Utilitarianism

2. DeontologicalImmanuel Kant


3/87

Type of ethical theories

A third kind of ethical theory is one based

on the concept of virtue

Aristotles ethics is the best example of

theory of this kind


4/87

Teleological Theories

The word "teleology" is derived from the

Greek word "telos" that means "ends.

In this theory, you would consider the ends,or the outcomes of your decision

One of the most common branches of this

theory is utilitarianism


5/87

Teleological Theories

Teleological theories hold that the rightness

of actions is determined solely by the

amount of good consequences they produce. Actions are justified on teleological theories

by virtue of end they achieve ,rather than

some features of the actions themselves.


6/87

This theory can be utilized in decision-

making by first identifying what the

dilemma entails and several alternativechoices to solve it.

Next you would predict what consequences

would be associated with each alternative.


7/87

You would then choose the solution that

you believe would bring about the best

possible consequence for the situation. Remember, in this theory "the means

justify the ends."


8/87

Deontological Theory (Duty)

The word "deonto" means "duty" in Greek.

A person using a deontological theory

would consider the basic duties and rightsof individuals or groups and act in

accordance with those guidelines

You would make a decision based on whatyou consider your moral obligations or

duties.


9/87

Your action will be guided by a set of moral

principles or rules.


10/87

Deontological Theories

Deontologists typically hold that certain

actions are right not because of some

benefit to ourselves or others but because ofthe nature of these actions or rules from

which they follow.

Thus bribery is wrong ,some say by its verynature ,regardless of the consequence.


11/87

KANTIAN VS. UTILITARIAN UTILITARIANISM

Greatest Happiness Principle

The rightness or wrongness of an act depends uponthe consequences. (the END Justifies the MEANS)

KANTIAN ETHICS

Supreme Principle of Morality

The rightness or wrongness of an act depends uponuniversal laws of action (the END never Justifies theMEANS)

It is all about DUTY


12/87

Virtue ethics

In virtue ethics the judgment or the

character of the person is considered the

most basic guide to decision-making The person makes moral decisions based

upon which actions would make one a good

person.


13/87

Virtue-based ethical theories place much

less emphasis on which rules people should

follow and instead focus on helping peopledevelop good character traits, such as

kindness and generosity.

These character traits will, in turn, allow aperson to make the correct decisions later

on in life.


14/87

Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill(1806-1873)

The creators of classical utilitarianism were


15/87

Jeremy Bentham

1748-1832

Bentham believed that we should try

to increase the overall amount of

pleasure in the world.


16/87

The principle of utility

The principle requires that consequences bemeasured in some way so that the pleasure

and pain of different individuals can be

added together and the results of different

courses of action compared .

Bentham assumed that a precise quantitative

measurement of pleasure and pain was

possible, and he outlined a procedure that hecalled hedonistic calculus (hedonistic =

pleasure)


17/87

The procedure is to begin with any one

individual whose interest is affected :

Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on

the one side , and those of all the pains on theother . The balance ,if it be on the side of

pleasure ,will give good tendency of the act

upon the whole, with respect to the interest ofthat individual person ; if on the side of pain

,the bad tendency of it on the whole.


18/87

If this process is repeated for all other

individuals whose interest are effected ,

the resulting sum will show the good orbad tendency of an action for the whole

community


19/87

A good example of utilitarianism is:

Say there is a train coming toward a group of 5

people tied to the tracks and you're standing by

the lever to make the train go onto a different path

that is heading towards yourself. A utilitarianwould pull the lever to make the train head in

his/her direction. Killing one person creates a

greater amount of good than killing 5 people


20/87

Utilitarianism

The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral

decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good

to the greatest number of people.


21/87

Utilitarianism is a based on maximising

utility or happiness.

A good act increaseshappiness or reduces

pain.

A bad act increases suffering orreduces happiness.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethicalsystem, which means it is concerned with

consequences.


22/87

Bentham theory is open to some rather obvious

objections

The thesis of hedonism (pleasure) : critics at

the time complained that pleasure is too low toconstitute the good for human beings and

pointed out that even pigs are capable of

pleasure , which lead to the charge thatutilitarianism is pig philosophy fit only for

swine.


23/87

Mills Version

He attempted to develop a moredefensible version.


24/87

John Stuart Mill

1806-1873 Greatest happiness principle , holdsthat the actions are right in proportion

as they tend to promote happiness ,

wrong as they tend to produce thereverse of happiness

Believed that happiness, not pleasure,

should be the standard of utility.


25/87

Mill claimed , by holding that the human

beings are capable of enjoying higher

pleasures than those experienced by

swine.

Because human beings, but not pigs , can

enjoy the arts and intellectual pursuits .


26/87

Utilitarianism

Utilitarian theory hold that the rightness ofactions is determined solely by the amount ofconsequences they produce.

Our obligation , or duty , in any situation is to

perform the action that will result in the greatestpossible balance of good over evil.


27/87

The right thing to do, in any situation, iswhatever would produce the best overalloutcome for all those who will be affected byyour action.

An action is right if and only if produces thegreatest balance of pleasure over pain for

everyone

Utilitarianism


28/87

The morality of an action is determined

solely through an assessment of itsconsequences and nothing else

The morally right action, the one weought to perform, is the one that

produces the greatest overall positiveconsequences for everyone.


29/87

Cost and Benefit

Really utilitarianism is asking us to do a

cost/benefit (or suffering/happiness)

calculation for every decision we make.


30/87

For any given action, we must calculate:

How many people will be affected, negatively

(dolors) as well as positively (hedons)

How intensely they will be affected

Similar calculations for all availablealternatives

Choose the action that produces the greatestoverall amount of utility (hedons minus dolors)


31/87

UtilitarianismThe greatest happiness for the

greatest number

1. The right thing to do is whatever wouldhave the best overall consequences.

2. Which consequences matter? Whatsimportant is human welfarewe wantpeople to be as well-off as possible.

3. Each persons welfare is equallyimportant.


32/87

Utilitarian principle

1. Consequentialism : The principle holds

that the rightness of actions is determined

solely by their consequences .

2. Hedonism : Hedonism is a the thesis that

pleasure and pleasure is ultimately good .


33/87

3. Maximalism : the right action is one

that has not merely some good

consequences but the greatest amount of

good consequences

4. Universalism : The consequences to be

considered are those of everyone.


34/87

How do you think a utilitarianwould respond in the following

situations and why?

Discussion points


35/87

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making

ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the

government that the dealership donated a van worth

30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an

opportunity to make the children happy.

Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?


36/87

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled

with people waiting to be rescued; there are fivepeople on one rock and four on the other. Assume that

you cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only

one able to rescue either group.

Which group would a utilitarian rescue?


37/87

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is

very contagious and has no known cure. The health boardhave locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the

rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread

very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected

people are released. The police have been called in to kill the

30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

Would a utilitarian agree with this action?


38/87

Now think again

Discussion points


39/87

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making endsmeet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth 15,000 for

free if you will falsely report to the government that thedealership donated a van worth 30,000. You really need the vanand it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy.

A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities foundout the truth about what had happened. They removed the vanfrom the orphanage and sacked you because of the fraud. Theorphanage was unable to find a replacement and has had to be

closed down as a result.


40/87

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled with

people waiting to be rescued; there are five people on one rock

and four on the other. Assume that you cannot rescue bothgroups and that you are the only one able to rescue either group.

After you have rescued the group of five they begin to fight witheach other about whose fault it was that they ended up stuck on a

rock. As they argue it becomes clear that you have rescued a

group of criminals who had been trying to steal a yacht from a

family on holiday when it hit a rock and sunk. The group of fouryou didnt save were that family.


41/87

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is

very contagious and has no known cure. The health boardhave locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the

rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread

very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected

people are released. The police have been called in to kill the

30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

The day after the 30 people had been wiped out to protectothers a cure is found for the disease.


42/87

Can we be held responsible for consequences we cannot always predict and

that may be as a result of other people?

Can we really be expected to put aside our personal interests to always do

what is best for the greatest number of people?

Are intentions not as important as consequences when making moral

decisions?

Do utilitarians not leave moral decisions up to luck because we have to

decide how to act and then wait to see what the consequences are to know

if we have behaved in a morally correct manner or not?

Who decides what is right and wrong for the greatest number of people?

Is morality really as simple as

utilitarianism makes out?


43/87

Act and Rule Utilitarianism


44/87

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism

An action is right if and only if it produces the

greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone

Rule utilitarianism

An action is right if and only if conforms to a

set of rules the general acceptance of whichwould produce the greatest balance of pleasureover pain for every one


45/87

Act utilitarianism

This is based on the consequences of actions. If anaction will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber of people then it is the correct moral action

according to utilitarianism.

For example, if 20 people were held hostage by fourcriminals, it would be correct for the police to kill thefour criminals to save the 20 people. In other words, thegreatest happiness for the greatest number of people.


46/87

Rule utilitarianism

Many rules are made to ensure the greatest good for the

greatest number, therefore following these rules is the

right moral choice.

For example, everyone obeys road traffic rules, like

stopping at red lights, which makes the roads safer foreveryone.

I i h f ll i i


47/87

Imagine the following scenario.

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the

hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins bullet. Heneeds a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive.

No suitable donors are available, but there is a homelessperson in the emergency room who is being kept alive ona respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, andwho is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leaderwill die; the homeless person will die in a few daysanyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled.The transplant team could hasten the death of the

homeless person and carry out the transplant without thepublic ever knowing that they killed the homeless personfor his organs. What should they do?


48/87

Forrule utilitarians, this is an easy

choice. No one could approve ageneral rule that lets hospitals kill

patients for their organs when they are

going to die anyway. Theconsequences of adopting such a

general rule would be highly negative

and would certainly undermine publictrust in the medical establishment


49/87

Foract utilitarians, the situation is

more complex. If secrecy wereguaranteed, the overall consequences

might be such that in this particular

instance greater utility is produced byhastening the death of the homeless

person and using his organs for the

transplant.


50/87

In classical Utilitarianism an action is

judged by the virtue of consequences of

performing that action. As result , telling lieor breaking a promise is right if it has better

consequence than any alternative course of

action.

Utilitarian morality thus seems to place no

value on observing rules such as Tell thetruth or Keep your promise


51/87

An act is right if and only if it conforms

with a learnable set of rules, the adoption of

which by everyone wouldmaximize utility

To make this a little clearer, a person might

say:There are certain easy-to-grasp rules of

action that, if everyone follows them, will

make for the greatest balance ofpleasure/happiness over pain (utility).


52/87

Of course, in certain cases it may easily be

seen that breaking the rule leads to greaterutility, but even here the act must surrender

to the rule. This is because it is better (i.e. it

increases utility) if everyone keeps the rulerather than if everyone considers it

breakable in certain situations.


53/87

Concluding Assessment

Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy

decisions, as long as a strong notion of

fundamental human rights guarantees that itwill not violate rights of small minorities.


54/87

Back up


55/87

Basic Insights of Utilitarianism

The purpose of morality is to make theworld a better place.

Morality is about producing goodconsequences, not having good intentions

We should do whatever will bring the mostbenefit (i.e., intrinsic value) to all of

humanity.


56/87

The Purpose of Morality

The utilitarian has a very simple answer tothe question of why morality exists at all:

The purpose of morality is to guide peoples

actions in such a way as to produce a betterworld.

Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianismis on consequences, not intentions.


57/87

Fundamental Imperative

The fundamental imperative of

utilitarianism is:

Always act in the way that will produce thegreatest overall amount of good in the world.

The emphasis is clearly on consequences, not

intentions.


58/87

The Dream of Utilitarianism:

Bringing Scientific Certainty to Ethics

Utilitarianism offers us a powerful vision of themoral life, one that promises to reduce oreliminate moral disagreement.

If we can agree that the purpose of morality is to makethe world a better place; and

If we can scientifically assess various possible coursesof action to determine which will have the greatest

positive effect on the world; then We can provide a scientific answer to the question of

what we ought to do.


59/87

Section Two.

Standards of Utility:

A History ofUtilitarianism


60/87

Happiness

Advantages

A higher standard,

more specific to

humans

About realization of

goals

Disadvantages

More difficult to

measure

Competing conceptions

of happiness


61/87

Section Three.

The Utilitarian Calculus


62/87

The Utilitarian Calculus

Math and ethics finally

merge: all

consequences must be

measured andweighed.

Units of measurement:

Hedons: positive

Dolors: negative

Hedon is a term that utilitarians use to designate a unit of pleasure. Its opposite is a dolor, which is a unit of pain or

displeasure. The term "hedon" comes from the Greek word for pleasure.


63/87

What do we calculate? Hedons/dolors may be defined in terms of

Pleasure

Happiness

Ideals

Preferences For any given action, we must calculate:

How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well aspositively (hedons)

How intensely they will be affected

Similar calculations for all available alternatives Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of

utility (hedons minus dolors)


64/87

Example:Debating the school lunch program

Utilitarians would have to calculate: Benefits

Increased nutrition for x number of children

Increased performance, greater long-range chances of success

Incidental benefits to contractors, etc.

Costs Cost to each taxpayer

Contrast with other programs that could have been funded andwith lower taxes (no program)

Multiply each factor by Number of individuals affected

Intensity of effects


65/87

How much can we quantify? Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify

than happiness or ideals

Two distinct issues: Can everything be quantified?

Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life(love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things(productivity, material goods) may get emphasized precisely becausethey are quantifiable.

The danger: if it cant be counted, it doesnt count.

Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

Are a fine dinner and a good nights sleep commensurable? Can onebe traded or substituted for the other?


66/87

How much can we quantify? Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify than

happiness or ideals

Two distinct issues: Can everything be quantified?

Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life (love,family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things (productivity,material goods) may get emphasized precisely because they are quantifiable.

The danger: if it cant be counted, it doesnt count.

Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?

Are a fine dinner and a good nights sleep commensurable? Can one be

traded or substituted for the other?

66



67/87


Utilitarianism suffers from more problems.But it remains a strong ethical theory

because in principle at least one can simply

calculate the right thing to do. One is given

a clear guide to action.

Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy

decisions, as long as a strong notion of

fundamental human rights guarantees that itwill not violate rights of small minorities.


68/87

Let us imagine you are a doctor driving to a patient, a young mother who is about to give birth. Itlooks like she will need a caesarian section. It is late at night and you come across a car accident on

the country road you are travelling on Two cars are involved in the accident and both drivers are


69/87

the country road you are travelling on. Two cars are involved in the accident and both drivers are

unconscious and have visible injuries. One of the men is the father of the child you are going to

deliver, and the other man is very old. You do not know the extent of their injuries but in your

opinion, without immediate medical help, one or both may die. You as a Utilitarian are now faced

with one of three possible solutions:

You help the young mother who's about to give birth. You help the young woman's husband.

You help the old man.

The outcome of felicific calculus would suggest:

Attending to the mother first is your primary concern as the doctor. The death of both mother and

child is almost a certainty if you do not act now, whereas the death of the men is uncertain.

Furthermore, the pain of the mother is clearly greater than that of the men at this time. There is agreater richness and purity in saving the life of a young child who has, in all probability, a long

happy life ahead. Meanwhile the extent and duration of the utility created by these two people is a

clear likelihood.

Attending to the young husband is the next priority. The pleasures of a new familyits intensity,

duration, extent, richness, and purityare all clear probabilities. If, as the doctor, you attend him first

his wife and child would in all probability die. The man would then experience pain. The pain

experienced by the widowed husband is likely to outstrip any pleasure to be gained from continuedlife without his loved ones.

Attending to the old man is the last priority. The duration and certainty of his future pleasure are

questionable owing to his agehe has all but lived his life. This is sometimes known as the 'good

innings' argument, according to which the older you are the less claim you have to life.[citation

needed]


70/87

Certainly, the doctor should not be limited

to the three choices, though the wholepurpose of the exercise rests on it being a

closed universe. To maximize the felicific

calculus, he should try to secure external

help by calling another doctor to help the

mother, and by asking people nearby and

the emergency services to deal with the

accident

Act utilitarianism states that when faced


71/87

Act utilitarianism states that, when faced

with a choice, we must first consider the

likely consequences of potential actionsand, from that, choose to do what we

believe will generate most pleasure. The

rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by

looking at potential rules of action. To

determine whether a rule should be

followed, he looks at what would happen if

it were constantly followed.


72/87

If adherence to the rule produces more

happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that

morally must be followed at all times. Thedistinction between act and rule

utilitarianism is therefore based on a

difference about the proper object ofconsequentialist calculationspecific to a

case or generalized to rules


73/87

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for

advocating general rules that will in somespecific circumstances clearly decrease

happiness if followed. Never to kill another

human being may seem to be a good rule,

but it could make self-defense against

malevolent aggressors very difficult

R l tilit i dd h th t th


74/87

Rule utilitarians add, however, that there

are general exception rules that allow the

breaking of other rules if such rule-breakingincreases happiness, one example being

self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces

rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and

makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians

retort that rules in the legal system (i.e.

laws) that regulate such situations are not

meaningless. Self-defense is legallyjustified, while murder is not.


75/87

Happiness

Advantages

A higher standard,

more specific to

humans

About realization of

goals

Disadvantages

More difficult to

measure

Competing conceptions

of happiness


76/87

Pleasure

Advantages

Easy to quantify

Short duration

Bodily

Criticisms

Came to be known

as the pigs

philosophy

Ignores higher

values

Could justify living

on a pleasuremachine


77/87

Lockheed in Japan

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was in very

precarious financial situation .

It had failed to get contracts with severalEuropean carriers.

Lockheed had avoided bankruptcy in 1971.

The survival of Lockheed was riding on the effort

to sell the new L-1011 TriStar passenger jet to AllNippon Airways Japan .


78/87

Carl Kotchian ,President of Lockheed

visited Japan to sell the aircrafts.

Shortly after landing in Tokyo , Kotchian

met a representative of Marubeni

corporation a trading company engaged to

arrange a meeting with Kakuei Tanaka , theprime minister of Japan.

The representative of Marubeni , Okubo ,

informed Kotichian that a pledge of fivehundred million yen would be required to

set up such a meeting.


79/87

Kotichian was hesitant about making an

irregular payment of this size to the highest

official in Japanese Government.

But he agreed to pledge the amount requested

and the meeting was held with the PM .

After a complex negotiations ,executives ofANA were on the verge of placing an order

for six planes with an option to buy 8 more.

Carl Kotichian received a telephone call


80/87

Carl Kotichian received a telephone call

from Okubo informing him that the sale was

assured if he would do three things. Two of them were minor , but the third was

a bombshell.

Kotichian was asked to have $ 400,000 inJapanese yen ready the next morning. Of

this amount $ 300,000 was to be paid to the

president of ANA .

The figure was based on $ 50,000 for each

of six planes ordered.


81/87

The remaining $ 100,000 was to be divided

among six Japanese politicains .

Kotichian protested but eventually the

amount was paid.

Kotichlian returned to companys

headquarters in California amid general

celebrations and apperently forgot about

the pledge of five hundred million yen for

prime minister Tanaka .


82/87

Marubeni reprenstative Mr Okubuo

informed that if he did not honor the pledgeLockheed never be able to do business in

Japan again .

And he hinted darkly that the president ofMarubeni , who had made the offer to

Tanaka ,would have to leave the country.


83/87

Strengths of teleological theory

They are in accord with much of our

ordinary moral reasoning .

Teleological theories provide a relatively

precise and objective method for moraldecision making.

An Example


84/87

Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved leader hasbeen rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassins bullet. Heneeds a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors

are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who isbeing kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live,and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; thehomeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital isvery well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of thehomeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowingthat they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?

Forrule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve ageneral rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they aregoing to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rulewould be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust inthe medical establishment.

Foract utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were

guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particularinstance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the homelessperson and using his organs for the transplant.


85/87


86/87

Forrule utilitarians, this is an easy

choice. No one could approve a

general rule that lets hospitals kill

patients for their organs when they are

going to die anyway. Theconsequences of adopting such a

general rule would be highly negative

and would certainly undermine publictrust in the medical establishment


87/87

Foract utilitarians, the situation is

more complex. If secrecy wereguaranteed, the overall consequences

might be such that in this particular

instance greater utility is produced byhastening the death of the homeless

person and using his organs for the

transplant.

Documents

New Utilitarian