Utilitarianism

Movie Clips
P G - 1 3 Strong Language

Bentham and Mill

Principle of Utility
Rule Utilitarianism

Case Studies and

Discussion
 Thin Red Line
Nick Noltehow many of your men are
you willing to risk?
 Counting Costs &
Making Tough Calls
Military decision-making, and public policy generally
(including economic policy), frequently make use of
outcomes-based reasoning

The right decision, action, or policy is often

defined as the one that optimizes the balance of
benefits over harms for all affected. For example:

President Trumans decision to use nuclear

force on Hiroshima
Gen. Omar Bradley at St. Lo
Churchill and the Bombing of Coventry
Lifeboat dilemmas
Medical triage decisions
Rules of Engagement
Your thoughts
 Utilitarianism
The utility (usefulness or moral rightness) of a policy
is measured by its tendency to promote the
good (or to prevent harm).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) :

The good is simply pleasure

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) :

The good is happiness - a more complex notion,
achieved by living a principled and prudent life
Bentham and Mills were reformers concerned with
political reform and franchising the populace
 Benthams Act Utilitarianism
Nature has placed mankind under the governancy of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for
them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as
to determine what we shall do.

The principle of utility . . . Is that principle which

approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever
according to the tendency which it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question

By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby

it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good,
or happiness, or to prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil, or unhappiness. . .
 Benthams Hedonistic Calculus
Prin of Morals & Legislation, Ch IV
Bentham envisioned an
actual calculus of pain and
pleasure, something like the
following:
For every act (or choice), x
(where xs effects are a
function of time), there is a
quantity U(x), the net utility of X
for time t, such that
Bentham tried to provide a scientific standard that anyone could apply
in determining right from wrong
as opposed to subjective, dogmatic or intuitive ideas of good.
 Net Utility
For every human action, X, there is a quantity u(X)
associated with that action, called the net utility of
that act.
This net utility of X is the sum of all the benefits (B)
minus the harms (H) of the action X

The net utility of X must be calculated for all

individuals, i, affected by X; thus:
u (X) = 3 B(x) - H(x), for all i

An action is morally right if it has a higher net

utility than any alternative.
This is why Navy Options must take Calculus
 Early Criticisms of
Benthams Approach
Hedonism a moral
theory fit for swine
Atheistic leaves out
God
(and by extension, any
higher-order moral
considerations)
Promotes selfishness
calculus of pure self-
interest
Benthams rebuttal: Vulgar or not, nature has placed us under two
masters, pleasure and pain - there is no other standard
 Those who walk away
Why did they walk?
Would you stay or
would you walk
away?
or would you try
and change it?
What important values
appear to be missing
in the Utilitarian
calculus?

LeGuin won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974
 Modern Criticisms
Quantification and measurability of the good
Incommensurate notions of the good
Ignores other, morally relevant considerations
Human Rights
Justice
Distribution of the good
Difficult and often inconsistent in practice to
solve for U(x) and maximize this variable
No supererogation
No value in performing more than required
by duty
 John Stuart Mills Revisions:
Utilitarianism
Elevate the Doctrine of the Swine
Pleasures of the intellect, not the flesh
Qualitatively better, not quantitatively

Happiness is NOT simply equivalent to

pleasure
lower quality pleasures
shared with other animals e.g., food, sex
higher quality pleasures,
uniquely human, involving our so-called higher faculties

It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool or a pig satisfied.

 John Stuart Mills Revisions:
Utilitarianism (Cont)
Utilitarianism is NOT equivalent to selfishness. Mill writes:
. . .between his own happiness and that of another, utilitarianism
requires that one be strictly impartial as a disinterested and
benevolent spectator.

not the agents own happiness but that of all concerned.

Notions like rights and justice are merely rules of

thumb that represent underlying calculations of overall
utility (rule utilitarianism)

Is this what Mill really meant?

 The Principle of Utility
(or Principle of Greatest Happiness)
says:

The greatest happiness of all of those

whose interest is in question, is the
right and proper, and universally
desirable, end of human action.

The greatest good for the greatest number

 The Principle of Utility and the
Nautical Almanac - Mills
Nobody argues that the art of navigation
is not founded on astronomy because
sailors cannot wait to calculate the
Nautical Almanac.
Being rational creatures, they go to sea
with it ready calculated;

and all rational creatures go out upon

the sea of life with their minds made up
on the common questions of right and
wrong, as well as on many of the far more
difficult questions of wise and foolish.
- John Stuart Mill -

stay with me Mill 147

Intro - 139
 The Moral Almanac
We shouldnt have to derive right and wrong in
specific instances each time we face a dilemma,
directly from the basic rules of morality

Like the Nautical Almanac, we have a

moral almanac:
i.e., the rules, laws, religious teachings,
moral traditions, and customs of the past
all of which reflect accumulated human wisdom about
the kinds of actions and policies that tend to promote
utility

Our moral rules of thumb Mill 147

Intro - 139
 The Principle of Utility
and
The Moral Almanac
Principle of Utility performs three vital
functions:
1) Explains the foundations, and offers
justification, for our moral rules, laws, and
customs, or

2) Exposes the inadequacy of unjust laws or

customs that do NOT promote utility; and

3) Offers us a means for resolving

conflicts between rules and laws, or
deciding vexing cases on which
traditional moral rules and laws are silent

Do no harm Dont lie

Mill 147
Intro - 139
 Act vs Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
Assesses the consequences of
our actions
Is there justification in harming
someone?
An act is right if, and only if, it
results in as much good as any
available alternative
Rule Utilitarianism
Assess the consequences of
following particular rules:
Is there justification in harming
a small number of people in
order to save a larger
number?
An act is right if, and only if, it
is required by a rule that is
itself a member of a set of
rules, whose acceptance will
lead to greater utility for society
than any other available
alternative.
Pojman 151-152
 Rule Utilitarinanism
Set of utility-maximizing rules
Simple rules of thumb you follow unless there is a
conflict between them
Help those in need
Resolve conflict between the rules
Keep your promises vs Help those in need
e.g., What if you see someone in an emergency on your way to a meeting?

Remainder rule:
Do what your best judgment deems to be the ACT that
will maximize utility

Pojman- Page 152

 So how do you measure
good/bad consequences?
The principle of utility (or Principle of Greatest Happiness)
says:
The greatest happiness of all of those whose
interest is in question, is the right and proper, and
universally desirable, end of human action.

Happiness can then be looked at either long term or short term,

physical pleasure or intellectual happiness

Should allow everyone affected by the act to get a vote

We already reason like this in many cases

Act Utilitarian: The principle should be applied to particular

acts in particular circumstances

Rule Utilitarian: An action is right if it conforms to a rule of

conduct that has been validated by the principle of utility
 Your Thoughts?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF UTILITARIANISM?
IS IT LOGICAL? INTUITIVE?
IS THIS A MORAL THEORY YOU CAN USE TO
MAKE DECISIONS?
Is pleasure vs pain the right metric?
WHAT IS UTILITARIAN REASONING BASED ON?
CONSEQUENCES (OUTCOMES) TELEOLOGICAL

1. RIGHT/WRONG DETERMINED BY GOOD/BAD OUTCOME

2. PLEASURE (+) PAIN (-)
3. HUMAN FLOURISHING (+) SUFFERING (-)
 Evaluating Actions by Their
Consequences
(Examples from the trivial to the life determining)

Example: (Not a deep moral issue)

Do I eat the donut this morning?
Considerations:
Long term at least 500 calories = pound to my body weight
Short term pleasure burst of sugar in my mouth
Will make me sleepy after about 45 min.
I love donuts, they make me happy
My heart condition
Am I a SWO?
Other consequences to consider?
 Little More Complex
EXAMPLE: CALCULATING THE CONSEQUENCES

Should I stay in the Navy or Marine Corps after obligated service?

How do I decide?

One way is to look at consequences and measure happiness.

stay in navy leave navy
Job security (+1000) Need to pay for college (-500)
Get to serve country (+200) Will miss the camaraderie (-100)
Will have obligated service (-300) Will not have to deploy
(+600)
Travel around world (+100)
Variety of duty (+100)
Have to leave home (-600)

Weighted Values: Commonly Accepted Decision-Making Process

How would a Utilitarian divide $300?

Option$
A B C
Moe $100 $150 $300

Larry $100 $100 $0

Curly $100 $50 $0

Triage
 Medical Triage Example

1) Will die without 2) Will live- 3) Might save if

extraordinary --dont treat they get medical
measures now attention
Is this a fair concept?
How do we morally justify letting people die without
medical attention?
Shouldnt we be trying to save every human life?

How would you feel if you woke up on tent #1?

How do we morally explain to the patient in tent #1 they

will not see a doctor?
Triage Last Look
 Live or Let Die?
You are a battlefield surgeon, and one of the wounded
has been in a coma for several days, and the doctors
believe has brain damage and are not certain he will
recover.

A new group of badly wounded arrive in need of

immediate surgery. You determine that they need four
different organs to live, and there are four surgeons
standing by for your decision.
If you take the four organs from the comatose soldier,
you can save four people. (assume surgeries will be
successful)

Questions on the Case

What kind of argument can you make for taking
his organs?
What kind of argument can you make for not
taking his organs, and letting the other four die?
What is the morally right thing to do?
What kind of moral reasoning did you use?
Closing the Hatch
Crimson Tide
Questions on Closing the Hatch
Would you give the order to close the
hatch?
What moral reasoning did you use?

But
if your principle as CO is protect the
lives of your men/women, then how do
you justify giving the order to
intentionally kill one of your men?

Will this moral reasoning work in all

situations?

How do you deal with your moral

conscience after closing the hatch?
 The Moral Point

What is the difference between the case

Live and Let Die and Closing the
Hatch?
In the case of the battlefield surgeon, you
were willing to let all five die, rather than
take the life of one, and
in the Crimson Tide case, you were willing
to take the lives of 3 to save 140

Why?

Is it just Math:
.saving 140 vs saving 4?
.Is that how we make decisions?

How can we explain the different moral

answers between the two cases?
 Problems and Pitfalls
Lead in to Kantian Ethics

Familiar Soviet proverb: If you want to

make an omelet, you have to break a few
eggs
Do the ends justify the means?
Are the requirements of justice and
protections of human rights negotiable at
the bottom line?
See Ford Pinto
 Criticisms
Tyranny of the masses
Cannibalism makes all but one person happy
Ability to predict the future
Forecast the consequences or the ends
Which is fairer?
Equal opportunity or equal happiness?
$300 split 3 ways
Are numbers the best metric?
1 life for 1? for 2?,,,for 5?...for 100?
 Teleological Ethics
Consequential Principles
Utilitarian Morality:
An act is good/bad, right/wrong, depending on the
consequences or ends produced by that act

If the consequences are good, the act is good.

If the consequences are bad, the act is bad.

Utilitarianism:
Judges the act, not the person
Does not consider intentions or motive
So, good intentions could produce a bad act
And bad people (with bad intentions) can produce a good
act
So much for good intent!
 More Thoughts
Isnt the military the
ultimate Utilitarian?
We are willing to sacrifice
soldiers to achieve our
desired end state?

Dont Utilitarians use

some Kantian ethics?
They have good intent! Haqlaniyah, Al Anbar, Iraq (Dec. 19, 2006) - Marines assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd
Marines (2/3) amuse Iraqi children while on patrol through the city of Haqlaniyah,
during Maritime Security Operations (MSO) to develop the Iraqi Security Forces.

Patriot Act?

Value of the individual

Equal claim to triage
treatment?