Ethics - Utilitarianism

Value Theory

What is the good life? What ie worth pursuing for its own sake? Provides the standard for measuring utility. Hinges on the difference between intrinsic and Instrumental values

Intrinsic Value

The fulfillment of personal desires or preferences; something that is good in and of itself, regardless of its consequences; all examples are controversial, pleasure/pain, happiness, loving relationships, knowledge, health

Normative system

System made up of norms (ex. Focused on the rule where you can’t lie)

Instrumental value

Something that is good only because it helps achieve something that is intrinsically valuable; money, cars, motorized ice cream cones, flutes; money LEADS to pleasure

Norms

Standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, and rules we shouldn’t break

Principle of utility

One and absolute moral rule that you can’t break

Metaethics

Can ethical theories be true? What makes them true?

What makes right actions right?

Law? (Law can be wrong), tradition? (Traditions can be wrong and changed), self-interest? (We might have to sacrifice this to do the right thing)

It is not trying to describe how people act but how they ——- act

SHOULD

Name one normative system

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill

• taught by his father, James Mill, who was a follower of Jeremy Bentham

• He wanted his son to be a genuis and was home schooled

• He was extremely intelligent, learned Greek at 3, Latin at 8

• Very unhappy

• His wife Harriet Taylor Mill worked with him

• Wrote On Liberty, Utilitarianism, Greatest Happiness Principle, and The Subjection of Women

We should make a better place - how good should we make it and what do you mean by better?

• happiness—>better

• Suffering——> worse

• An action is morally required because it produces the best overall results (best overall results can vary)

Consequentialism

We want our consequences to increase happiness and decreasing suffering

Utilitarianism

A version of consequentialism where best overall results are determined by how much happiness is produced

The greatest happiness principle = principle of utility

“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness by happiness is intended by pleasure” Mill thinks that humans are inherently going to be or can be taught through education. Ther happiness is predicated by the happiness of others. Mill would say that if one person did well in order for everyone else to suffer, the person would not be happy because everyone else is suffering

What is happiness?

Happiness is please and the absence of pain and unhappiness is the pain and the absence of pleasure; Mill’s answer is a hedonist position happiness is strictly this definition

Bentham

• all pleasures are equal quantity; count them as units

• It doesn’t matter what you find pleasure in, they all have the same value when calculating utility

• Assessed pleasure based on seven variables: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (how soon will it happen), fecundity (will it lead to more pleasure), purity(free from accompanying pain), extent (amount of people affected)

Hierarchy

• higher pleasures - intellectual, creative, artistic, and moral pursuits. These possess intrinsic superiority and carry far more value than physical sensations

• Lower pleasures - basic bodily and sensory gratification (eating, drinking, physical comfort)

• In Mill’s view, no amount of lower pleasures could ever equal or outweigh a higher pleasure

Pig or human?

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates than a fool satisfied” Mill argued that anyone who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures will almost always choose a life with access to higher pleasures - even if it comes with higher potential for suffering, frustration, or dissatisfaction

Motivation

Doesn’t matter. If you’re doing it for the right reasons doesn’t matter but rather the consequences. Other than the principle of utility, there are o other absolute moral rules

Would a utilitarian spend money on a nice lunch for themselves?

No. You can’t justify spending money on on-necessities

Would a utilitarian engage in strenuous exercise?

Yes - it is okay if it leads to more pleasure overall

Would a utility donate $1000 to buy life-saving malaria medicine or a local library?

Malaria because more lives are saved overall

Would a utilitarian give pizza to someone who loves pizza or split it even?

They would give it to Pizza lover assuming that his pleasure is so great

Impartiality

It doesn’t matter whose pleasure or pain is at issue. Pleasure and pain are just as important in those far away as it is in those nearby. Utilitarianism is still impartial. John got more pizza just because that would increase the TOTAL AMOUNT of pleasure, not just because t was his pleasure

Utilitarianism’s would

Pursue a career that would make a ton of money and use it well

Act-utilitarianism

Actions must be judged by its consequences; you do something based off of an outcome and not off of biases

An action is morally required if and only if:

It does more to improve the overall well-being than any other action in that circumstance - assess different options and determine which gets the best overall happiness

Common objection to act-utilitarianism

Promises to give us a way of what actions are right and wrong - it takes a lot of time and energy and may not even be possible because you don’t know what the outcome may be. It doesn’t give us a good decision-making model

Murder?

Certain things like murder, torture, enslavement are things that we consider morally wrong but utilitarianism - wrong is determined by consequences of an action so they don’t have the tools to say this is wrong since there is only one moral rule. RC - society would be better off if we don’t allow murder

Minority Suffering?

What if majority of society is made happy by a minority suffering? Utilitarian might demand that they suffere since overall pleasure might outweigh the pain. RC - society would be better off if we don’t allow minority suffering

Grades?

A student fails and appeals for a passing grade. The harm done if they fail is significant. The cost to me is relatively less. Utilitarians would say to change the grade because overall happiness would increase. RC - society would e better off if we insist of fairness in school - rules apply equally to everyone; if you change the grade for one person than you have to do it for everyone

Too demanding? Does it require too much of us?

Unreasonably demanding on us. Money has diminishing marginal utility: every dollar you have after use in necessities is going to give you less and less utility. Every extra dollar that you have diminishes the utility that it will bring you. Money has increased value in otherr places. i should give away most of my money until my marginal utility loss=arginal utility gain. Act-utilitarianism says that it’s obligatory to give away your material goods. RC - society would be better off if we all gave some small portion of our income (10%)

Rule-Utilitarianism

Our actions must be judged by a set of dispositions, rules, desires, which are assessed by their consequences if everyone were to have them. Rules are determined by the consequences of everyone following these rules. Would the world be better if everyone followed this rule?

Optimific rule

The rule that is determined to have the best consequences for society. Optimizes the best for society if everyone were to follow it

Non-compliance problem for rule-consequentialism

RC - we should obey moral rules when breaking them might yield better rules. But what happens when not everyone complies with the moral rules. What if you are required by the rules to do something hat, because other s are not, produces much worse consequences.

Hooker’s response to NC problem

When deciding which is the best rule to adopt, we need to factor in “maintenance costs”

Maintenance costs

Cost to sustain people’s commitment to rule and to teach it to young

Lower maintenance cost—→better consequences

Instead of giving 10% of income give roughly 3% may be better ecause more compliance and easier to teach

Aggregative utilitarianism

We want to maximize sum of well-being for everyone involved. The two cautionary tales are overpopulation and distribution within a population

The average principle

If other things are equal, it is better if people’s lives go, on average, better (we want a better quality of life)

The total principle

If other things are equal, it is better if there is a greater total sum of happiness ( we want more people to be happy)

Situation “Z”

The greater sum of happiness comes from the vast increase in the number of lives. “We can imagine what it would be for someone’s life to be barely living - containing Muzak and potatoes” If you believe in total principle u would choose A over Z

The Repugnant Conclusion

Compared with the existence of very many people, all of whom have a very high quality of life, there must be some larger number of people whose existence would be better even though those people would have lives barely worth living

The mere addition paradox

In addition/separate it the repugnant conclusion

World 1: Amy’s island with 100 happy people

World 2: Minze’s island with 100 happy people and 30 average people because the island is split

World 2 is not worse off that world 1

Worl 3: 130 happy people (island no longer split) - happiness level decreases slightly for 100 people but increases for 30

World 3 is better than world 2

World 2 is not worse than 1, so world 3 must also not be worse than world 1

We all agreed that B is worse than A, we are forced to believe B is worse and not worse than A, so one belief must go

Parfit’s escape

Certain things cannot be outweighed by a lesser good piled up. Z can be accepted if the vast amount of people are intermediately experiencing little goods throughout their time

Maxim

A principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something; the rules you live by (ex. Coming to class and learning about Kantian Ethics)

1. What you intend to do

2. Why you are about to do it

Intentional + Reason = Maxim

ALL ACTIONS HAVE MAXIMS

If they don’t they are not actions, just mere bodily movements

What makes an action right depends o the maxim

One person cheats in accordance with maxim X (to gain competitive edge)

Another with Maxim Y (to save their best friend’s life)

These actions would be assessed differently because they have different maxims. Maxim Y would be okay but not maxim X

Telling good maxims from bad depends on whether the maxim is universalizable

How to tell if the maxim is universalizable

1. State the maxim in terms of what you intend to do and why

2. Imagine a world where everyone supports and acts on this maxim

3. Then ask: can the goal of my action be achieved in this world? (Can you achieve the goal of this maxim if everyone agrees upon it?) (you can’t aim a competitive edge if everyone also gains a competitive edge so Kant wouldn’t support it)

Universalizability of maxims vs. Rule Consequentialism

RC = what if everyone did X? Would everyone concerned be better?

Kant = what if everyone did X? Could we still achieve our goals?

Acting rationally:

When we act on a maxim that isn’t universilizable, we are being inconsistent and irrational and reasoning badly. We thing that we are more important that we are exceptions. But what if I’m really smart? In one sense acting on maxims that are not universalizable is rational, you ae following a command that you think will get you what yin want. These commands are called hypothetical imperatives and depend on what you care about. Other commands are independent what you care about (categorical imperatives) and are rational requirements, commands, regardless of who you are and wat you want. Apply as long as you have reason and autonomy

Categorical impeatives

• all moral duties

• One moral principle: the universal law

• Another: the principle of humanity

Value of human life

Price - a kind of value that most things have

Dignity - a kind of value human beings have

Cn’t be compared

No price on human being

Humanity (for Kant)

Our ability to use reason to set and pursue ends

Roughly: our autonomy

This ability is beyond price and not a choice - valuing the ability to use reason to set and pursue ends is something we have to value. It is what we are doing when we are trying to decide what is right or wrong. So when you act freely, you’re committed to the value of humanity

Formula for humanity

Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means

Treating someone as an end

Treating them with the respect they deserve

To treat them as an autonomous person with their own ends and maxims

Treating someone as a mere means

Treating someone as a men’s: treating a person in a way that helps you achieve your goals

Mere means: treating someone in a way that fails to recognize their humanity. Involving them in a scheme to which they could not in principle consent to. Ex: successful false promising

Objection: sometimes you should treat humanity merely as a means. Sometimes you have to make trade-offs

What about yourself?

Act so as to treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means.

You have a duty to set goals and work towards them

(Capacity to use reason to set ends=humanity)

This duty is of self-respect

Otherwise you’re out respecting your ability to set ends

Maria Von Herbert’s Challenge to Kant

Maria describes a love that she has lost that is a deep heartbreak for her. It is a blow to her sense of self. Maria studied Kant carefully, her brother left to study him and house always filled with people who knew of Kant’s work. Maria experienced a tense desire to end her suffering

What makes life meaningful?

Utilitarianism: happiness

Kant: humanity(autonomy)

Kant says Maria needs to live for the good that she does and not for the happpiness that she may achieve

Maria has really bad insomnia and war health. She is not excited by life and wants permission to end it

What is autonomy?

The formulation of ends and striving to bring them about; an individual’s capacity and right to self-govern, make informed decisions, and act independently based on their own reasons and values

If you lose touch with your autonomy, do you lose the value which is supposed to come with it?

Langton argues how Herbert is a woman who is looked down on by society. This argument generalizes beyond women. When we start to treat people as tools, we don’t recognize that we treat them as though people who don’t have ends. Applies to women, minorities, poor people. She is supposed to live because of her being but her being is falls silent. If the value of humanity an be lost, Kant does it have the resources to say that Maria should not end her life. She was supposed to live because of her being and she no longer has he thing that makes beings valuable, we should think of autonomy as a muscle that doesn’t go away, but can be strengthened again.l the problem is that she does not see the value and not thtat she does not have it

Maria’s third letter

Written three years later and describes the realization that she was engaging in a circular reasoning. god had punished her but she could not find any6 reasoning as to why she deserved this. She thinks that there is something wrong with her because god is punishing her she can;t allow herself to enjoy friendships because she doesn’t see herself as worthy and calls herself seless. Bas things happen to good people for no reason and Maria finally realizes this. It takes her 3 years to figure out this problem. She doesn’t loose the desire to die, but her view has changed and now she had friendships to make her want to live

Power of friendship

Maria threw a party and wrote letters and wrote a will. During the party she left quietly and drowned herself in the river. This was 9 years after the last letter. Friendship saved her and brought her 9 more years. Without friendship, she would have died much sooner. Create a life that is livable for you. She gave herself 3 years to figure out the problem and 9 years to enjoy friendships

Von Herbert’s Lie

She lied about her virginity to make a friend. Main Point: for some, being “virtuous” comes at a greater cost because of the context one is in. Sometimes its very costly for people to adhere to Kant’s theory

On Apatthy

The moral life without inclinations is a life of “intolerable emptiness” reasons without inclinations are empty. Can Kant’s theory take in his theory of apathy

What are moral saints?

A person whose action is as morally good as possible, a person, that is, who is as morally worthy as can be. Devoting yourself to helping other to helping others who need it the most. Spends all of their time donating, giving most of their money away to others

The loving saint

Desires happiness of others the way most of us desire our happiness; donating and giving back gives you joy

The rational saint

Desire the same things as ordinary people, but knows that there is an overriding importance to give to moral considerations; there is a duty to take care of others so they shelve their own desires to give back

Both types f saints lead to being a moral saint; mpossible to determine which kind

There are certain non-moral qualities and projects that we admire - there are people that we admire for reasons that are not charitable or giving back

Regardless of which saint you are, no thank you!

Moral sainthood is incompatible with:

• a sarcastic/cynical sense of humor

• A taste for gourmet cooking, fashion, and fine arts

• A fun personality

• Your own personal self?

A life in which none of these possible aspects of character are developed may seem to be a life strangely barren

There seems to be a limit to how much morality we can stand

Utilitarianism and moral saints:

• its a standard of rightness, not a guide for action

• Wolfe: according to U, it be better off if we don’t try to be perfect aunts

• A world where everyone achieved moral sainthood would contain less happiness than a world where people realized a diversity of values

• There would be more happiness if people did what they like to do and not give back

Drawbacks to utilitarianism and moral saints

• on an individual level, i might want to achieve the greatest happiness and this commits me to being a moral saint

• According to U, I might still be allowed a “limited and carefully monitored allotment of time and energy to be devoted to the pursuit of some nonmoral interests…that would ae a person a better contributor to general welfare”

• You may still be able to pursue your passions in limited time but only in virtue of others (people get joy out of your working)

• The way you enjoy these extracurricular aspects of life is simply not the way in which these aspects are to be enjoyed insofar as they figure into our less saintly ideals

• There are things we think are good in themselves (cooking,art) because we think that they are fvaluable, but to say that we are lowed to do these in virtue of the happiness of others is not right - one thought too many

One thought too many

Bernard Williams: if you try to justify certain actions according to morality, it is one thought too many

If you see your wife drowning and you only go in because according to U, she was the person to save, that is not right

If you justify your actions based off of U, the goodness of the actions can get lost

There is a certain shallowness of commitment if you only do it because it was what morality demanded

You shouldn’t save your drowning wife because of morality

Kantian Ethics

First Reading

• we should always strive to be as morally good as possible (and help others to further their ends - a duty to benevolence)

• This leads to similar problems of sainthood (shallowness of commitment)

• If you help others because of a duty to benevolence you’re not doing it for the right reasons

Second Reading:

• upper limit on moral goodness?

• All you have to do is not violate the categorical imperative:

  • Don’t at on maxims that are not universalizable

  • Don’t treat others as mere means

• Wolfe: it is crazy to think that Jane Austen and Mother Theresa are morally equal. this might make the bar too low for moral sainthood

A person may be perfectly wonderful without being perfectly moral

TRUE

There are non-moral attributes that contribute to a valuable, good life

What does it mean to be “perfectly wonderful?” - based on individual perfection

We should try to think about what makes life worth living

We shouldn’t try to find a theory that tells us when to follow moral values

Who was Aristotle?

Ancient philosopher born in Stagira (modern day Greece) in 384 BC

When he was 18, he over to Athens to study in Plato’s academy, and studied philosophy for nearly twenty years

He was the tutor of Alexander the Great, who had one of the largest empires in history

wrote about biology, physics, poetry, rhetoric, linguistics, metaphysics, psychology, prominently known as a natural philosopher

Nicomachean ethics

Aristotle’s best known ethical treatise, widely studied in the Ancient and Medieval words, major text for Christian theology

The title is believed to have come from his son, Nicomachus, who compiled his lecture notes

A “public” text with the explicit pedagogic aim of instructing elite Athenian men about the right conduct to have in life

Ten chapters devoted to central ethics topics such as happiness, deliberation, virtue and a philosophical life

Ethics

A study of “good” and “bad”

How do we start doing ethics? One traditional path philosophers have taken is by decinding upon the highest good or the “summum bonum”

Mill: happiness, specifically pleasure

Kant: a good will

Aristotle: a few steps before we get there

Crafts (good), sciences (good), actions (good), decisions (good)

There seem to be many different goods and ends proper to different activities

How do we choose the best goods?

Lower ends are subordinate to higher ones

Lower ends are for-the-sake-of higher ends

In ethics, we are after highest, ruling goods or ends

If everything we seek is for-sake-of something else, our desiring is infinite and limitless. We want to find an end that is “in itself”

Bridle-making only makes sense under horsemanship. Horsemanship only makes sense under generalship and generalship only makes sense under politics

Ethics is a part of the study of politics

Political science is the most controlling science

Politics prescribes which sciences should e studied, decides which class of people should study a particular scienc and how much they should study it

It legislates what must be done and what must be avoided at the highest level

Seeking the good n an individual life (how should i lie?) remains subordnatieto seeking the good in the highest form of political organization present in society at the time

For Aristotle, thi was the city

A problem:

Aristotle tells us that young people are not suitable students of political science because they lack experience of the actions of life

Young people, tend to follow their feelings while acting

Ethics aim at practical knowledge about acting

What is the good of politics?

Everyone agrees that it is “eudaimonia” (human flourishing or happiness) but they disagree about what “eudaionia” is

People reach a conception of eudaimonia from the lives they lead.

The three kinds of lives

• a life of pleasure: satisfying the basic urges we share animals

• A life of politics: seeks honor and virtue, although this honor depends on the recognition of other people

• A life of study: seeks wisdom

A money making life: not a good life for Aristotle; money cannot be the highest good because it is necessarility-for-the-sake of something else; money in itself is not good, it leads to a good

But we still don’t have an answer

The human “ergon” or function

Every craft has a function/work/activity namely producing that which is appropriate to it. Function of a sculptor is produce sculptures

Similarly, all of our body parts have specific function

A function appropriate to the kind of thing it is, there for it is the answer to “what is this for”

Aristotle asks: is there a specific function for the human being in general?

The function of a plant is to grow and reproduce

Animals to grow reproduce and perceive its surroundings

But human beings share these functions with pants and animals. We take in nutrition for our growth, reproduce, and perceive the world. What can only we do?

What is unique to human beings?

It is not merely to have the capacity for reason, for all human beings have the capacity

The function of a human life is to use our rational capacity actively

Excellence

The function of a basketball player is not only to play but to play excellently

The function of a human being is not only to use reason actively, but use reason “well and finely”

What is the highest good for Aristotle?

Three main steps:

1. We begin with multiple crafts, activities, decisions, and actions, each with their particular goods. We identify the ruling activity as political science. Ethics is thus a part of politics

2. The good that politics seeks is “eudaimonia” we identify that as the human function an active use of reason

3. Eudaimonia turns out to be something like using reason well, just like the function of a dancer is not only to dance but to dance excellently

What is a virtue of character?

Virtue is a state. We are not virtuous due to our capacities, that we all actually have, nor due to our feelings, but due to a certain thoughtful and decisive relationship we take towards our feelings: not merely feeling angry, but feeling angry in a particular way. A state is our relation to feelingsing: a kind of decision we take with respect to our feelings

Virtue is an intermediary state, a mean between defincienc and xcess

• passions and feelings can be felt too little or too much

• Excess - I feel too much; deficiency - I feel too little

• There is the right way to feel these things, namely the intermediary way

• Look at phone for diagram

Two features of the mean

1. No decision procedure to determine the mean

• there is no general rule or formula to tell us what the right amount in any situation is

2. The mean is relative to us

• what the mean is will depend on who you are and the particular circumstance you’re in

the doctrine of the mean

Moral virtues dispose one to aim at the mean in passion and actions

Your character must be correctly tuned to feel and act the right way

EX: courage (a moral virtue) disposed us to feel the right amount of fear

Screaming in horror when you see a bug may not be excessive response if you have a lethal allergy

“To feel them at the right times, with references to the right objects, toward the right people, with the right motive,and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is the characteristic of virtue”

Other features of a virtuous person

• must perform virtuous action knowing you are doing something virtuous - Ex: a brave group of soldiers and a less group of soldiers so you go with the fearful group but get lost and end up doing all of the actions of the brave group unknowingly to yourself - that doesn’t;t make you virtuous, you are just copying the wrong group; you have to be doing it for the right reasons

• Must decide on virtuous action because it is virtuous

• Must do so from a firm and unchanging state - you have to choose to be virtuous everyday

• Must enjoy doing it - loving saint over rational saint

Doris on what Aristotle’s view requires

• good character is “firm and unchangeable”

• The disposition that we should aim to cultivate throug habit should be permanent and hard to change

• “Virtue is typified by the performance of right actions in the most difficult and demanding circumstance”

• Aristotle requires virtues that are robust and consistent

• A generous person is more likely compassionate than callous

• In order to support the attribution of Artistotelian traits, we would need behavioral reliability

Cross-situational consistency

Behavior that is consistent with a trait in a range of situations BUT experimental data suggests that there often failures of cross-situational consistency behavior is often reliable

For Aristotle this might mean that virtue consistency may not be possible

Three main claims

• behaviorist variation across a population owes more to situational differences than disposition differences

• Empirical evidence problematizes the attribution of robust traits

• Personality structure is not typically evaluatively consistent

Virtue ethics - situationist debate

Situationist side - cross-situationally character traits are not widely instantiated

So, we should sped less time thinking about character as it doesn’t matter as much as we thought

Some personality traits can generate cross-situationally consistent behavior (extrovert, loyalty, regardless of the situation, you will consistently exhibit certain behaviors)

Doris will be calling this into question

The extroverts are chatty and sometimes quiet

The Good Samaritan Parable

• a story that Jesus tells in the Book of Luke when he is asked, how is it that I can behave in a way that morally demands?

• This is an example of the virtue of compassion moving you to act in a certain way

• Should lead you to recognize the virtue of helping a stranger in need

Batson and Darley: The Samaritan Study

First group is asked to write up a sermon of the good samaratin story and the other was not writing. Parts of each group were told they were in a hurry, and others were told nothing. People were along the roads asking for help

Degree of hurry (low, medium, high)

Percentage that helped depending on degree of hurry

Low: 63%

Medium: 45%

High:10%

In some cases, the hurried seminarian literally stepped over the stricken form of the victim

Fundamental Attribution error

The tendency to over-credit dispositional features and under-credit situationist behaviors when explaining behavior

When using a phone booth, one group found a dime and the other group did not. Both groups witnessed someone take a fall. You are more likely to help after finding the dime

Dime: 87.5% help

No dime: 4% help

Milgram Experiment

• 2/3 are obedient (65%) continued to the highest shock at 450 volts

• The mean prediction of what they would deliver was 150 volts

• The mean prediction of what others would deliver was 1-2% would give 450 volts

• Authority and proximity had strong influence - biggest predictor of whether you will cause harm to others over your own character

What do these examples show?

• our predictions and perception of what will happen is very off with what actually does

• We must have a lot more faith in robust character traits than we should

• Situations matter more than dispositions in determining what we will do

Doris main takeaway

• We should try to avoid situations that could be “near occasions for sins”

• We should try to put ourselves in situations that are conducive to ethical behavior

What stays? what goes? (According to Dorris)

What we should get rid of:

• global personality judgements like “good person” or “bad person”

• General trait descriptions like “honest” or “compassionate”

• We might need to get rid of these terms in a “thick” sense (meaning that they tell us something about a person’s character across different situations

What we can keep:

• personality traits in a “thin” sense (calling an action courageous, using terms to evaluate in situations, states of affairs)

• We can attribute local traits to individuals (which might be more accurate)

Upshot of Dorris’ view:

• reminds us that the world is a morally dangerous place

• We should be thinking about situations rather than character development when it comes to ethical theory