Utilitarianism

By: Rose Fe M. WamarBy: Rose Fe M. Wamar
MAEd-Educ.Mngt.MAEd-Educ.Mngt.

Structure of DiscussionStructure of Discussion
Utilitarianism and its TypesUtilitarianism and its Types
Article relate to UtilitarianismArticle relate to Utilitarianism
Theory applying UtilitarianismTheory applying Utilitarianism
in research studiesin research studies

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a universal teleologicalUtilitarianism is a universal teleological
system.system.
It calls for the maximization ofIt calls for the maximization of
goodness in society.goodness in society.
It asks for the greatest amount ofIt asks for the greatest amount of
goodness for the greatest number ofgoodness for the greatest number of
people.people.

David Hume
Ethics should be based on
what is most Useful. To
determine whether an action
is right or wrong one must
look at what would be most
useful in that situation.
Francis Hutcheson
Believed happiness was most
important in determining
what is right or wrong.
“greatest happiness for the
greatest number.”
Jeremy Bentham
Wanted to create a system of right and wrong - benefit all society.
One of the first Utilitarian view point.
Most useful thing in any moral dilemma is happiness. (leads people to make
right ethical decisions.)
Creating the Principle of Utility = Maximize pleasure – minimize pain
Neither Hume nor Hutcheson were Utilitarians, joining of the two
views: usefulness and happiness that makes Utilitarianism an ethical
theory.
+

Making Ethical Judgments inMaking Ethical Judgments in
 Utilitarianism says that theUtilitarianism says that the ResultResult or theor the
ConsequenceConsequence of an Act is the realof an Act is the real
measure of whether it is good or bad.measure of whether it is good or bad.
 This theory emphasizesThis theory emphasizes Ends overEnds over
Means.Means.
 Theories, like this one, that emphasizeTheories, like this one, that emphasize
the results or consequences are calledthe results or consequences are called
teleologicalteleological oror consequentialistconsequentialist..

Jeremy Bentham’s UtilitarianismJeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism
 Father of UtilitarianismFather of Utilitarianism
 Later criticized by hisLater criticized by his
wayward disciple, Johnwayward disciple, John
Stuart MillStuart Mill
 Similar to Hedonism, asSimilar to Hedonism, as
both center on pleasureboth center on pleasure
as the goodas the good
 However, GreekHowever, Greek
Hedonism is essentiallyHedonism is essentially
egoist in nature; whileegoist in nature; while
Utilitarianism is social inUtilitarianism is social in
naturenature

 Act-utilitarianism: An act is right if andAct-utilitarianism: An act is right if and
only if it results in as much good as anyonly if it results in as much good as any
available.available.
 Looks at the consequences of an actionLooks at the consequences of an action
 Apply Hedonic Calculus to every act toApply Hedonic Calculus to every act to
work out if it will maximise pleasurework out if it will maximise pleasure
minimise pain.minimise pain.
 StrongStrong: Bentham following one principle –: Bentham following one principle –
Principle of Utility. Must be adhered toPrinciple of Utility. Must be adhered to
without exception.without exception.

BenthamBentham
 According to Bentham, the most moral acts areAccording to Bentham, the most moral acts are
those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain.those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
This has sometimes been called the ‘utilitarianThis has sometimes been called the ‘utilitarian
calculus’. An act would be moral if it brings thecalculus’. An act would be moral if it brings the
greatest amount of pleasure and the least amountgreatest amount of pleasure and the least amount
of pain.of pain.
 Bentham said: ‘An act is right if it delivers moreBentham said: ‘An act is right if it delivers more
pleasure than pain and wrong if it brings aboutpleasure than pain and wrong if it brings about
more pain than pleasure.’more pain than pleasure.’
 By adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain forBy adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for
each possible act we should be able to choose theeach possible act we should be able to choose the
good thing to do.good thing to do.
 Happiness = pleasure minus painHappiness = pleasure minus pain

Bentham’s Calculus of FelicityBentham’s Calculus of Felicity
 Like Hobbes, Bentham assumes that we humansLike Hobbes, Bentham assumes that we humans
are all governed by the desire for pleasure and theare all governed by the desire for pleasure and the
aversion to pain. He seeks to give advice on howaversion to pain. He seeks to give advice on how
one should pursue the goal of pleasure.one should pursue the goal of pleasure.
 However unlike Hobbes, he did not rule out the possibility ofHowever unlike Hobbes, he did not rule out the possibility of
altruismaltruism
 His advice on pursuing pleasure is called theHis advice on pursuing pleasure is called the
Calculus of FelicityCalculus of Felicity, made up of seven, made up of seven
categories intended to provide a rational analysiscategories intended to provide a rational analysis
of pleasure. Whenever one considers performingof pleasure. Whenever one considers performing
any action one can analyze its value in terms ofany action one can analyze its value in terms of
the Calculus of Felicity and contrast it withthe Calculus of Felicity and contrast it with
alternativesalternatives

Bentham’s Calculus of FelicityBentham’s Calculus of Felicity
 Bentham believed that hisBentham believed that his Calculus of FelicityCalculus of Felicity waswas
actually the schematization of something we doactually the schematization of something we do
semiconsciously anywaysemiconsciously anyway
 The 7The 7thth
category allows for altruism: if an act will bringcategory allows for altruism: if an act will bring
a great amount of happiness to a great number ofa great amount of happiness to a great number of
people, then I should perform it, regardless of whetherpeople, then I should perform it, regardless of whether
or not it brings misery to me.or not it brings misery to me.
 In fact, there is even a democratic bias built into it. When itIn fact, there is even a democratic bias built into it. When it
comes to evaluating acts, Bentham subscribes to the “onecomes to evaluating acts, Bentham subscribes to the “one
person, one vote” principleperson, one vote” principle
 To quote Bentham, “Prejudice apart, the game ofTo quote Bentham, “Prejudice apart, the game of
push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences ofpush-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of
music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnishesmusic and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnishes
more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.”more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.”

Application of Utilitarian TheoryApplication of Utilitarian Theory
 A) You attempt toA) You attempt to
help an elderlyhelp an elderly
man across theman across the
street. He getsstreet. He gets
across safely.across safely.
 Conclusion: theConclusion: the
Act was a goodAct was a good
act.act.
 B) You attempt toB) You attempt to
help an elderly manhelp an elderly man
across the street.across the street.
You stumble as youYou stumble as you
go, he is knockedgo, he is knocked
into the path of a car,into the path of a car,
and is hurt.and is hurt.
 Conclusion: The ActConclusion: The Act
was a bad act.was a bad act.

 If you can use eighty soldiers as a bait inIf you can use eighty soldiers as a bait in
war, and thereby attack an enemy forcewar, and thereby attack an enemy force
and kill several hundred enemy soldiers,and kill several hundred enemy soldiers,
that is a morally good choice even thoughthat is a morally good choice even though
the eighty might be lost.the eighty might be lost.
 If lying will actually bring about moreIf lying will actually bring about more
happiness and/or reduce pain, Acthappiness and/or reduce pain, Act
Utilitarianism says weUtilitarianism says we shouldshould lie in thoselie in those
cases.cases.

Act UtilitarianismAct Utilitarianism
 What would be the problems if everyoneWhat would be the problems if everyone
acted as an Act Utilitarian all the time?acted as an Act Utilitarian all the time?
 Are all actions only good because theyAre all actions only good because they
have good results?have good results?

John Stuart Mill’s UtilitarianismJohn Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
 Wayward disciple ofWayward disciple of
BenthamBentham
 Concerned that aConcerned that a
utilitarian might actuallyutilitarian might actually
conclude that a gameconclude that a game
of push-pin really wasof push-pin really was
better than poetrybetter than poetry
 He sought to rewriteHe sought to rewrite
utilitarianism in such autilitarianism in such a
way that he would beway that he would be
able to demonstrateable to demonstrate
that Shakespearethat Shakespeare
outranked push-pinoutranked push-pin

Rule-utilitarianismRule-utilitarianism
 Rule-utilitarianism: An act is right if itRule-utilitarianism: An act is right if it
conforms to a valid rule within a system ofconforms to a valid rule within a system of
rules whose acceptance leads to greaterrules whose acceptance leads to greater
utility for society.utility for society.
• applied Universally across societies toapplied Universally across societies to
promote happinesspromote happiness
• These rules should not be broken as theyThese rules should not be broken as they
are the basis of morality.are the basis of morality.
• Mill was aMill was a WeakWeak Rule UtilitarianRule Utilitarian
• He believed that the rules sometimes needHe believed that the rules sometimes need
to be broken into be broken in extremeextreme situations.situations.

J. S. Mill’s UtilitarianismJ. S. Mill’s Utilitarianism
 Part of the problem, according to Mill, is thePart of the problem, according to Mill, is the
CalculusCalculus generates a purely quantitative analysis,generates a purely quantitative analysis,
and pays no attention to the “quality” of theand pays no attention to the “quality” of the
pleasurepleasure
 Mill feared that over time, theMill feared that over time, the Calculus of FelicityCalculus of Felicity would graduallywould gradually
erode culture, leaving behind a society of belching, beer-swillingerode culture, leaving behind a society of belching, beer-swilling
Nascar enthusiastsNascar enthusiasts
 In order to combat this “lowering” of culture, MillIn order to combat this “lowering” of culture, Mill
differentiated between “lower desires” and “higherdifferentiated between “lower desires” and “higher
desires”desires”
 Lower desires (food, sleep, etc.) may be dealt with using theLower desires (food, sleep, etc.) may be dealt with using the
CalculusCalculus
 Higher desires, on the other hand, may only be discussed inHigher desires, on the other hand, may only be discussed in
terms of quality – which Mill claimed no calculus could evaluateterms of quality – which Mill claimed no calculus could evaluate

Actual CasesActual Cases
The Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicleThe Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicle
would sometimes explode when hit.would sometimes explode when hit.
The model was not recalled and repaired byThe model was not recalled and repaired by
Ford because they felt it was cheaper to payFord because they felt it was cheaper to pay
the liability suits than to recall and repair allthe liability suits than to recall and repair all
the defective cars.the defective cars.

John Stuart Mill ( 1806-1873) had some problems withJohn Stuart Mill ( 1806-1873) had some problems with
Bentham's Utilitarian arguments:Bentham's Utilitarian arguments:
1.1. The hedonic calculus attempts toThe hedonic calculus attempts to quantifyquantify happiness, ishappiness, is
this possible? Hard to apply when faced with anthis possible? Hard to apply when faced with an
immediate ethical dilemma.immediate ethical dilemma.
2.2. Bentham's utilitarian argument isBentham's utilitarian argument is teleologicalteleological ==
accurately predicting the consequences of an action. Notaccurately predicting the consequences of an action. Not
always possible.always possible.
3.3. What counts as pleasure? One person’sWhat counts as pleasure? One person’s pleasurepleasure isis
another'sanother's painpain..
4.4. Does not distinguish betweenDoes not distinguish between different sortsdifferent sorts of pleasuresof pleasures
or give them a rank orderor give them a rank order
5.5. What aboutWhat about minoritiesminorities??
6.6. The emphasis onThe emphasis on pleasurepleasure Mill saw little more thanMill saw little more than
animal instinctsanimal instincts e.g. sex, food, drinke.g. sex, food, drink

““It is better to be a human being dissatisfiedIt is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied:than a pig satisfied:
Better to be Socrates dissatisfiedBetter to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.”than a fool satisfied.”

AltruismAltruism
 Altruism (unselfishness/ love for others) was very
important to Mill
So he produced his Principle of Utility:So he produced his Principle of Utility:
1.1. Happiness is desirable.Happiness is desirable.
2.2. Happiness only thing desirable as an end in itself.Happiness only thing desirable as an end in itself.
3.3. General happiness of all is desirable.General happiness of all is desirable. IncreaseIncrease
happiness of others increases your own.happiness of others increases your own.
Also made links to Jesus’ Golden Rule: “To do as oneAlso made links to Jesus’ Golden Rule: “To do as one
would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour aswould be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as
oneself, constitutes the ideal perfection of Utilitarianoneself, constitutes the ideal perfection of Utilitarian
morality.” Millmorality.” Mill
(Why is Mill linking Utilitarianism with Christianity?)(Why is Mill linking Utilitarianism with Christianity?)

Many contemporary utilitarians recognize thisMany contemporary utilitarians recognize this
problem, and have created a distinctionproblem, and have created a distinction
between “act utilitarianism” and “rulebetween “act utilitarianism” and “rule
utilitarianism”utilitarianism”
Act utilitarianismAct utilitarianism is theis the
traditional form. Ittraditional form. It
necessitates that onenecessitates that one
perform the specific actperform the specific act
that will produce thethat will produce the
greatest amount ofgreatest amount of
happiness for the greatesthappiness for the greatest
number of people. Innumber of people. In
other words, theother words, the CalculusCalculus
of Felicityof Felicity is utilized tois utilized to
discover what specificdiscover what specific actsacts
should be doneshould be done
Rule utilitarianismRule utilitarianism argues that theargues that the
Calculus of FelicityCalculus of Felicity should beshould be
utilized to determine the rules that, ifutilized to determine the rules that, if
followed would produce the greatestfollowed would produce the greatest
good for the greatest numbergood for the greatest number
-Even if a particular self-serving lie-Even if a particular self-serving lie
may go undetected (and thereforemay go undetected (and therefore
causes no one unhappiness), it iscauses no one unhappiness), it is
nevertheless not appropriatenevertheless not appropriate
because lying and deceiving inbecause lying and deceiving in
general cause more unhappinessgeneral cause more unhappiness
than happinessthan happiness
- Utilitarians believe that this- Utilitarians believe that this
distinction answers the Case ofdistinction answers the Case of

Comparison: BenthamComparison: Bentham MillMill
• ““The greatest happinessThe greatest happiness
(pleasure) for the greatest(pleasure) for the greatest
number.”number.”
• Focused on the individualFocused on the individual
situations – Actsituations – Act
• Relative ethical theoryRelative ethical theory
based on each situation.based on each situation.
• Quantitative – HedonicQuantitative – Hedonic
Calculus (Can be seen asCalculus (Can be seen as
absolute guide to ethics)absolute guide to ethics)
• In search of maximisingIn search of maximising
happinesshappiness
• Hedonistic based onHedonistic based on
pleasurepleasure
• Teleological (end result) /Teleological (end result) /
ConsequentialistConsequentialist
(consequences)(consequences)
• ““The greatest happiness forThe greatest happiness for
the greatest number.”the greatest number.”
• Focused on protectingFocused on protecting
common good universally –common good universally –
RuleRule
• Absolute ethical theoryAbsolute ethical theory
based on universallybased on universally
applied rules.applied rules.
• Qualitative – higher / lowerQualitative – higher / lower
pleasurespleasures
• Teleological/Teleological/
ConsequentialistConsequentialist

Henry Sidgwick and G.E. MooreHenry Sidgwick and G.E. Moore

Ideal UtilitarianismIdeal Utilitarianism
 A Utilitarian theory which denies that the sole objectA Utilitarian theory which denies that the sole object
of moral concern is the maximising of pleasure orof moral concern is the maximising of pleasure or
happiness.happiness.
 In G.E. Moore’s version of Ideal Utilitarianism inIn G.E. Moore’s version of Ideal Utilitarianism in
Principia EthicaPrincipia Ethica 1903, it is aesthetic experiences1903, it is aesthetic experiences
and relations of friendship that have intrinsic value,and relations of friendship that have intrinsic value,
and therefore ought to be sought and promoted.and therefore ought to be sought and promoted.
 Consciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of whatConsciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of what
is good or beautiful, and the love, admiration oris good or beautiful, and the love, admiration or
enjoyment of what is evil or ugly are the threeenjoyment of what is evil or ugly are the three
things that have intrinsic disvalue and shouldthings that have intrinsic disvalue and should
therefore be shunned and prevented.therefore be shunned and prevented.

Henry SidgwickHenry Sidgwick
 Sidgwick argues that the balance ofSidgwick argues that the balance of
pleasure over pain is the ultimatepleasure over pain is the ultimate
goal of ethical decisions.goal of ethical decisions.
 His argument is closer to BenthamHis argument is closer to Bentham
than to Mill, as he questions how it isthan to Mill, as he questions how it is
possible to distinguish betweenpossible to distinguish between
higher and lower order pleasures,higher and lower order pleasures,
and how we can distinguish oneand how we can distinguish one
higher order pleasure from another.higher order pleasure from another.
 However, Sidgwick does argue thatHowever, Sidgwick does argue that
the process of deciding is intuitive –the process of deciding is intuitive –
we make self-evident judgementswe make self-evident judgements
about what we ought to do.about what we ought to do.

Henry SidgwickHenry Sidgwick
 He argued that justice is the similar and injusticeHe argued that justice is the similar and injustice
the dissimilar treatment of similar cases: ‘whateverthe dissimilar treatment of similar cases: ‘whatever
action any of us judges to be right for himself, heaction any of us judges to be right for himself, he
implicitly judges to be right for all similar persons inimplicitly judges to be right for all similar persons in
similar circumstances’.similar circumstances’.
 So it is wrong for person A to treat person B in aSo it is wrong for person A to treat person B in a
way in which it would be wrong for B to treat A,way in which it would be wrong for B to treat A,
simply on the grounds that they are two differentsimply on the grounds that they are two different
individuals and without there being any differenceindividuals and without there being any difference
in their circumstances or their natures.in their circumstances or their natures.
 Saying that people must act according to just lawsSaying that people must act according to just laws
raises the issue of which laws are just and sitsraises the issue of which laws are just and sits
uncomfortably with the principle of utility and theuncomfortably with the principle of utility and the
Act Utilitarian position.Act Utilitarian position.

Ideal UtilitarianismIdeal Utilitarianism
 A Utilitarian theory which denies that theA Utilitarian theory which denies that the
sole object of moral concern is thesole object of moral concern is the
maximising of pleasure or happiness.maximising of pleasure or happiness.
 In G.E. Moore’s version of IdealIn G.E. Moore’s version of Ideal
Utilitarianism inUtilitarianism in Principia EthicaPrincipia Ethica 1903, it is1903, it is
aesthetic experiences and relations ofaesthetic experiences and relations of
friendship that have intrinsic value, andfriendship that have intrinsic value, and
therefore ought to be sought and promoted.therefore ought to be sought and promoted.
 Consciousness of pain, hatred or contemptConsciousness of pain, hatred or contempt
of what is good or beautiful, and the love,of what is good or beautiful, and the love,
admiration or enjoyment of what is evil oradmiration or enjoyment of what is evil or
ugly are the three things that have intrinsicugly are the three things that have intrinsic
disvalue and should therefore be shunneddisvalue and should therefore be shunned
and prevented.and prevented.

Negative UtilitarianismNegative Utilitarianism
 The term Negative UtilitarianismThe term Negative Utilitarianism
was coined by Sir Karl Popper.was coined by Sir Karl Popper.
 The concept of negativeThe concept of negative
utilitarianism was foreshadowedutilitarianism was foreshadowed
earlier e.g. in the work of Edmundearlier e.g. in the work of Edmund
Gurney (1847-88).Gurney (1847-88).
 It has obvious affinity withIt has obvious affinity with
Buddhism.Buddhism.
 However, it has been argued thatHowever, it has been argued that
Negative Utilitarianism could leadNegative Utilitarianism could lead
to mass euthanasia, althoughto mass euthanasia, although
this implication has beenthis implication has been
disputed.disputed.

 Popper’s ‘negative utilitarian’ principle isPopper’s ‘negative utilitarian’ principle is
that we should act to minimise sufferingthat we should act to minimise suffering
rather than maximise pleasure.rather than maximise pleasure.
 Classical utilitarian philosophers such asClassical utilitarian philosophers such as
Sidgwick had explicitly argued for theSidgwick had explicitly argued for the
moral symmetry of happiness andmoral symmetry of happiness and
suffering.suffering.
 Complications aside, they supposed thatComplications aside, they supposed that
increases in happiness, and reductions inincreases in happiness, and reductions in
suffering, are essentially of equal valuesuffering, are essentially of equal value
when of equal magnitude.when of equal magnitude.

 Popper disagreed.Popper disagreed.
 He believed that the practical consequences ofHe believed that the practical consequences of
the supposed moral symmetry were alsothe supposed moral symmetry were also
dangerous.dangerous.
 ““Philosophers should consider the fact that thePhilosophers should consider the fact that the
greatest happiness principle can easily be madegreatest happiness principle can easily be made
an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. Wean excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We
should replace it by a more modest and moreshould replace it by a more modest and more
realistic principle: the principle that the fightrealistic principle: the principle that the fight
against avoidable misery should be a recognizedagainst avoidable misery should be a recognized
aim of public policy, while the increase ofaim of public policy, while the increase of
happiness should be left, in the main, to privatehappiness should be left, in the main, to private

 ““I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view,I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view,
no symmetry between suffering and happiness, orno symmetry between suffering and happiness, or
between pain and pleasure.between pain and pleasure.
 Both the greatest happiness principle of theBoth the greatest happiness principle of the
Utilitarians and Kant’s principle, promote otherUtilitarians and Kant’s principle, promote other
people’s happiness..., [and] seem to me (at least inpeople’s happiness..., [and] seem to me (at least in
their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point,their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point,
which is, however, not one for rational argument....which is, however, not one for rational argument....
 In my opinion... human suffering makes a directIn my opinion... human suffering makes a direct
moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call tomoral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to
increase the happiness of a man who is doing wellincrease the happiness of a man who is doing well
anyway.”anyway.”
 Karl Popper (Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its EnemiesThe Open Society and Its Enemies,,
1952)1952)

 Popper believed that by acting to minimisePopper believed that by acting to minimise
suffering, we avoid the terrible risks ofsuffering, we avoid the terrible risks of
‘utopianism’, by which he had in mind the‘utopianism’, by which he had in mind the
communist and fascist dictatorships of thecommunist and fascist dictatorships of the
twentieth century.twentieth century.
““Those who promise us paradise on earthThose who promise us paradise on earth
never produced anything but a hell.”never produced anything but a hell.”
 A staunch advocate of the ‘open society’,A staunch advocate of the ‘open society’,
Popper defended ‘piecemeal socialPopper defended ‘piecemeal social
engineering’ rather than grandiose stateengineering’ rather than grandiose state
planning.planning.

 Ironically, the full realisation of a negativeIronically, the full realisation of a negative
utilitarian ethic depends inescapably on theutilitarian ethic depends inescapably on the
‘utopian’ planning that Popper abhorred.‘utopian’ planning that Popper abhorred.
 Only a global bio-engineering project ofOnly a global bio-engineering project of
unparalleled ambition could bring about theunparalleled ambition could bring about the
eradication of suffering throughout the livingeradication of suffering throughout the living
world - not piecemeal social engineering.world - not piecemeal social engineering.
 In seeking to liberate the world from the tyrannyIn seeking to liberate the world from the tyranny
of pain, Negative Utilitarianism is no lessof pain, Negative Utilitarianism is no less
‘totalitarian’ in its policy implications than‘totalitarian’ in its policy implications than
communism or fascism, albeit vastly morecommunism or fascism, albeit vastly more
compassionate.compassionate.

Preference UtilitarianismPreference Utilitarianism
Singer Hare Brandt

 An Act Utilitarian judges right or wrong according toAn Act Utilitarian judges right or wrong according to
the maximising of pleasure and minimising of pain.the maximising of pleasure and minimising of pain.
 A Rule Utilitarian judges right or wrong according toA Rule Utilitarian judges right or wrong according to
the keeping of rules derived from utility.the keeping of rules derived from utility.
 A Preference (or Interest) Utilitarian judges moralA Preference (or Interest) Utilitarian judges moral
actions according to whether they fit in with theactions according to whether they fit in with the
preferences of the individuals involved. Thispreferences of the individuals involved. This
approach to Utilitarianism asks:approach to Utilitarianism asks:
 What is in my own interest? What would I prefer in thisWhat is in my own interest? What would I prefer in this
situation? Which outcome would I prefer?’ However,situation? Which outcome would I prefer?’ However,
because Utilitarianism aims to create the greatest goodbecause Utilitarianism aims to create the greatest good
for the greatest number, it is necessary to consider thefor the greatest number, it is necessary to consider the
preferences of others in order to achieve this.preferences of others in order to achieve this.

R. M. Hare (1919-2002) – taught Peter SingerR. M. Hare (1919-2002) – taught Peter Singer
 Need to consider our own preferences + those ofNeed to consider our own preferences + those of
others.others.
 Need to “Need to “stand in someone else’s shoesstand in someone else’s shoes” and” and
try to imagine what someone else might prefer –try to imagine what someone else might prefer –
universallyuniversally
 What would I prefer in this situation?’What would I prefer in this situation?’
 However, remember that it is a Utilitarian argument soHowever, remember that it is a Utilitarian argument so
aims to create greatest good for greatest number so isaims to create greatest good for greatest number so is
necessary to consider the preferences of others in ordernecessary to consider the preferences of others in order
to achieve this.to achieve this.
He says that “ equal
preferences count equally,
whatever their content.”

Peter SingerPeter Singer
““Our preferences cannot count any more than theOur preferences cannot count any more than the
preferences of others” + equal valuepreferences of others” + equal value
 Focus on 7Focus on 7thth
stage of HC – number of people affected.stage of HC – number of people affected.
 Everyone’s individual preferences must be taken intoEveryone’s individual preferences must be taken into
consideration when deciding what was in the bestconsideration when deciding what was in the best
interest of the group – “interest of the group – “act as an impartial spectatoract as an impartial spectator.”.”
 So in Singer’s view, killing a person who prefers to goSo in Singer’s view, killing a person who prefers to go
on living would be wrong and not killing a person whoon living would be wrong and not killing a person who
prefers to die would also be wrong.prefers to die would also be wrong.
 Singer’s approach to Utilitarianism is to minimiseSinger’s approach to Utilitarianism is to minimise
suffering rather than maximise pleasure.suffering rather than maximise pleasure.
 Far greater agreement about what causes pain thatFar greater agreement about what causes pain that
what gives pleasure.what gives pleasure.
 Pleasure is more subjective to individuals than pain.Pleasure is more subjective to individuals than pain.

Richard BrandtRichard Brandt
 Richard Brandt talks about the preferencesRichard Brandt talks about the preferences
someone would have if they had gone through asomeone would have if they had gone through a
process of cognitive psychotherapy and exploredprocess of cognitive psychotherapy and explored
all the reasons for their preferences and rejectedall the reasons for their preferences and rejected
any they felt were not true to their real values.any they felt were not true to their real values.
 He argued that the morality someone would thenHe argued that the morality someone would then
accept would be a form of Utilitarianism – withaccept would be a form of Utilitarianism – with
their preferences free from any psychologicaltheir preferences free from any psychological
blocks and them in full possession of all the facts.blocks and them in full possession of all the facts.
 Such a person would not, therefore, be influencedSuch a person would not, therefore, be influenced
by advertising.by advertising.

Article and TheoryArticle and Theory
relate torelate to

Questions:Questions:
Suppose a surgeon could use theSuppose a surgeon could use the
organs of one healthy patient to saveorgans of one healthy patient to save
the lives of several others. Would thethe lives of several others. Would the
surgeon be justified in killing thesurgeon be justified in killing the
healthy patient for the sake of thehealthy patient for the sake of the
others?others?

Does the Center Hold: The Case ofDoes the Center Hold: The Case of
Sam (Donald Palmer,)Sam (Donald Palmer,)
““Sam, a basically normal, rather nondescript but ‘nice’ human being,Sam, a basically normal, rather nondescript but ‘nice’ human being,
goes to the hospital to visit his only living relative, his senile, sickgoes to the hospital to visit his only living relative, his senile, sick
aunt. His visit coincides with five medical emergencies at theaunt. His visit coincides with five medical emergencies at the
hospital. One person needs a liver transplant, another a spleenhospital. One person needs a liver transplant, another a spleen
transplant, another a lung transplant, another a new heart, and a fifthtransplant, another a lung transplant, another a new heart, and a fifth
a new pineal gland. Each of the five patients is a tremendouslya new pineal gland. Each of the five patients is a tremendously
important, much-loved person whose death would bring a great dealimportant, much-loved person whose death would bring a great deal
of grief and actual physical discomfort to a great number of people.of grief and actual physical discomfort to a great number of people.
Sam’s death, on the other hand, would be mourned by no one (exceptSam’s death, on the other hand, would be mourned by no one (except
possibly his aunt in her lucid moments). The top members of thepossibly his aunt in her lucid moments). The top members of the
hospital administration, all strict utilitarians, lure Sam into anhospital administration, all strict utilitarians, lure Sam into an
operating room, remove all his vital organs, and distribute them to theoperating room, remove all his vital organs, and distribute them to the
other needy patients, thereby operating (literally) in accordance withother needy patients, thereby operating (literally) in accordance with
the principle of utility: the greatest amount of happiness for thethe principle of utility: the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest number of people.” Donald Palmer,greatest number of people.” Donald Palmer, Does the Center HoldDoes the Center Hold,,
pg. 270-71pg. 270-71

Can we used the three brain-
damaged infants so we could
remove their hearts for
transplantation into three other
infants who suffered from severe
heart problems?

Pure Utilitarianism: Doctors Justifying Killing Infant Patients for Organ Donation
By Hilary White
LONDON, August 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "Very few people," says the head of Britain’s leading pro-
life organization, "realize that the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia lobby believes it can be right intentionally
to kill innocent human beings." John Smeaton, Director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children,
wrote that a report by a group of scientists, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM),that
said doctors should be able to remove organs from patients, even if this would cause the patient’s death.
"The essential line taken by the paper’s authors is that it really doesn’t matter whether the patient is dead or
not." Smeaton wrote, "This new, further slide down the slippery slope of anti-life thinking is truly disturbing."
In the paper, heart transplant surgeons described how they simply "modified" the definition of death for
three brain-damaged infants so they could justify removing their hearts for transplantation into three other
infants who suffered from severe heart problems.
Two bioethicists, Robert Truog and Franklin Miller, made the case that it is "perfectly ethical" to remove
organs from patients who are not really or convincingly dead.
They said, "whether death occurs as the result of ventilator withdrawal or organ procurement, the ethically
relevant precondition is valid consent by the patient or surrogate. With such consent, there is no harm or
wrong done in retrieving vital organs before death, provided that anaesthesia is administered."
SPUC commissioned the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) to examine the NEJM paper. SCBI
concluded that the authors are utilitarians for whom the only ethical consideration is whether such patients
have given "informed consent". The SCBI report concluded that Truog and Miller are asserting that the
ultimate outcome of such organ transplant operations, "is really so good that traditionally unethical means
can be justified".
SCBI explains that the two new definitions of death, "brain death" and "cardiac death", widely adopted by
the medical community, are merely manipulations of language devised to make organs available from living
patients.
"Truog and Miller," the SCBI report says, "think the concept of brain death has ‘served us well’ because
without it, procuring organs would not happen and so organs for transplantation would be scarce. Rather
than the concept being right, they instead consider ‘being served well’ to be what counts."
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: New England Journal of Medicine: ‘Brain Death’ is not Death -
Organ Donors are Alive http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081406.html

 You are an army officer who has justYou are an army officer who has just
captured an enemy soldier who knowscaptured an enemy soldier who knows
where a secret time bomb is planted. If itwhere a secret time bomb is planted. If it
explodes it will kill thousands. Will it beexplodes it will kill thousands. Will it be
morally permissible to torture the soldiermorally permissible to torture the soldier
so that he reveals the bomb’s location? Ifso that he reveals the bomb’s location? If
you knew where the soldier’s childrenyou knew where the soldier’s children
were, would it also be permissible towere, would it also be permissible to
torture them to get him to reveal thetorture them to get him to reveal the
bomb’s whereabouts?bomb’s whereabouts?

there are five railway workmen in the
path of a runaway carriage. The men
will surely be killed unless a bystander
does something. Next to him is a big,
heavy stranger. He’s informed that his
own body would be too light to stop the
train, but that if he pushes the stranger
onto the tracks, the stranger's large
body will stop the train and save the five
lives. That, unfortunately, would kill the
stranger.

Beating a retreat by: Dr. Bartels and Dr. Pizarro
One of the classic techniques used to measure a person's willingness to behave in a
utilitarian way is known as trolleyology. The subject of the study is challenged with thought
experiments involving a runaway railway trolley or train carriage. All involve choices, each of
which leads to people's deaths. For example: there are five railway workmen in the path of a
runaway carriage. The men will surely be killed unless the subject of the experiment, a
bystander in the story, does something. The subject is told he is on a bridge over the tracks.
Next to him is a big, heavy stranger. The subject is informed that his own body would be too
light to stop the train, but that if he pushes the stranger onto the tracks, the stranger's large
body will stop the train and save the five lives. That, unfortunately, would kill the stranger.
Dr. Bartels and Dr. Pizarro knew from previous research that around 90% of people refuse
the utilitarian act of killing one individual to save five. What no one had previously inquired
about, though, was the nature of the remaining 10%.
Dr. Bartels and Dr. Pizarro then correlated the results from the trolleyology with those from
the personality tests. They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas
(push the fat guy off the bridge) and personalities that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or
tended to view life as meaningless. Utilitarians, this suggests, may add to the sum of human
happiness, but they are not very happy people themselves.
That does not make utilitarianism wrong. Crafting legislation—one of the main things that
Bentham and Mill wanted to improve—inevitably involves riding roughshod over someone's
interests. Utilitarianism provides a plausible framework for deciding who should get trampled.
The results obtained by Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro do, though, raise questions about the type
of people who you want making the laws. Psychopathic, Machiavellian misanthropes?
Apparently, yes.

HTTPS://ITHINKTHEREFOREITEAHTTPS://ITHINKTHEREFOREITEA
Thank You!!!Thank You!!!
If you would like further informationIf you would like further information
please follow the link below :please follow the link below :

Utilitarianism

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Utilitarianism

Similaire à Utilitarianism (16)

Plus de MamWamar_SHS Teacher/College Instructor at ESTI

Plus de MamWamar_SHS Teacher/College Instructor at ESTI (17)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Utilitarianism

Notes de l'éditeur