2. In this lecture…  Evaluating actions  The principle of utility  Strengths  Criticisms  Rule utilitarianism

3. A dilemma  You are a lawyer. You have a client who is an old lady who owns a big house. She tells you that she wants her dog to inherit the house after she dies. You promise her you will see to it that her dog will be the only future owner of the house. However, you also notice that there are not enough schools for children in the district.

4. A dilemma  What would you do when the old lady dies – keep your promise and honor her wish, or break the promise and convert the house into a school for poor children?

5. Evaluating actions  A theory can be defined as a framework of related ideas and concepts that can be used to understand, analyze and deal with a problem.  In the study of ethics, we make use of moral theories to evaluate actions and decisions.

6. Evaluating actions  When we make moral judgments or decisions, we need to evaluate actions to determine whether they are right or wrong.  Moral theories provide justifications for our moral beliefs and judgments by giving us an idea why certain actions are right or wrong.

7. Evaluating actions  Broadly speaking, there are 2 main theoretical approaches to ethics: [1] deontological theories evaluate actions in terms of duty or moral rules, and [2] consequentialist theories evaluate actions in terms of consequences.

8. Evaluating actions  Deontology, or ‘duty-based ethics,’ is the view that we have a duty to do what is right (and avoid doing what is wrong) by following some moral rules or principles.

9. Evaluating actions  For example, if everyone accepts the principle ‘You should be nice to those people who are nice to you’, we have a duty to follow it.  From a deontological point of view, an action that accords with the principle is intrinsically right, i.e. the action is right in itself.

10. Evaluating actions  On the other hand, an action that goes against the principle is intrinsically wrong (i.e. wrong in itself), and we have a duty not to do it.  An example of deontological ethics is the ten commandments of the Bible.

11. Evaluating actions  In stark contrast with deontology is consequentialism, the view that actions should be evaluated in term of their consequences.  Consequentialism is the view that an action is right if it brings good consequence; an action is wrong if it brings bad consequence.

12. Evaluating actions  From a consequentialist point of view, actions are not right or wrong in themselves.  For example, an act of lying is not intrinsically wrong; it is wrong only if it leads to bad consequences.

13. The principle of utility  Utilitarianism, as a form of consequentialism, evaluates actions in terms of their consequences.  The classical formulation of utilitarianism can be found in the writing of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).

14. The principle of utility For Bentham and his followers, morality is concerned with maximizing happiness or utility.

15. The principle of utility  As a social reformer, Bentham believed that morality, as well as law and social policy, should all have the same goal: to serve for the good of all persons.  The purpose of morality, as he saw it, was to make the world a better place for everyone.

16. The principle of utility  Bentham and his followers saw their ethical theory as providing the basis for legal and social reforms.  They wanted to reduce suffering and promote happiness. They wanted to make law serve human needs and interests. They wanted social policy to work for the good of all persons.

17. The principle of utility  For Bentham, happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value, i.e. the only thing that is good in itself.  Other things such as money or freedom may be good too, but only to the extent that they produce happiness; what they have is instrumental value, not intrinsic value.

18. The principle of utility  Money, for example, is just a means to an end. It has no intrinsic value; it is not good or valuable in itself. Its value is instrumental. Sometimes you can use money to buy happiness; sometimes you cannot. Money has value only when you can use it buy happiness.

19. The principle of utility  From a utilitarian point of view, actions are not right or wrong in themselves.  An action is right if it brings more happiness (pleasure) than unhappiness (pain or suffering), and wrong if it causes more unhappiness than happiness.

20. The principle of utility  The 3 main propositions of classical utilitarianism:  First, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequences.

21. The principle of utility  Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus, right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.

22. The principle of utility  Third, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness caused by an action, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Each person’s welfare or well-being is equally important. In short, everyone counts, and everyone counts equally.

23. The principle of utility  To put it all together, the most fundamental principle of utilitarianism is ‘the principle of utility’ (also known as ‘the greatest happiness principle’): We ought to perform the action that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

24. The principle of utility  The ‘utility’ of an action is the net amount of pleasure (over pain) that it causes when everyone affected by it is taken into consideration.  The best action, in other words, is the one that maximizes utility.

25. The principle of utility  When we evaluate actions, there is no need to consider the motives or intentions for which people do what they do; it is the result or consequence of one’s action that matters morally.

26. The principle of utility  What we need to do is to measure, calculate and compare the consequences produced by various alternative actions.  The morally right or best action is the one that produces the greatest overall positive consequences for everyone affected by the action.

27. Strengths  An attractive feature of utilitarianism is that it has given morality a clear purpose: to promote general well-being or maximize overall happiness.  The right action is the one that brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people.

28. Strengths  In addition, utilitarianism offers a logical and reasonable solution to moral decision making.  In our daily lives we use utilitarian reasoning all the time: We give money to charity when seeing that it would do more good for needy people than it would for ourselves.

29. Strengths  Utilitarianism provides a universal standard of morality according to which everyone’s interest and well-being must be taken into consideration and given equal weight.  As such, utilitarianism embodies the ideal of equal concern for all persons.

30. Strengths  For example, from a utilitarian point of view, policymakers are expected to make decisions based on calculation of the effects of policies on society as a whole. They should not choose policies that favor themselves or their families and friends.

31. Strengths  Utilitarianism also encourages us to show more concern for animals.  Because animals, like humans, can experience pleasure and pain, utilitarian reasoning requires that we take animal welfare into consideration when we decide what is the right thing to do.

32. Criticisms  One criticism of utilitarianism is that measuring and calculating utility is by no means an easy task.  Is it possible or meaningful to compare, in quantitative terms, the pleasure we get from eating an ice-cream and the pleasure we get from helping a friend?

33. Criticisms  Different people may have different ideas of ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure.’  John Stuart Mill, for example, suggested that we have to distinguish between lower, bodily pleasures (e.g. eating, drinking, and sexual activity) and higher pleasures (i.e. intellectual, creative and spiritual pleasures).

34. Criticisms  Mill thought that the higher pleasures are superior to, and thus more valuable than, the lower ones.  In his view, it is not the quantity (amount), but the quality (type) of pleasure that matters.

35. Criticisms  Another objection is that it is usually extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict the precise results or consequences of actions.

36. Criticisms  Consider the following example:  A child asked Alice for money to get home. Alice bought a train ticket for the child. Unfortunately, the train was involved in an accident and the child was injured. Was it morally wrong for Alice to buy the ticket for the child?

37. Criticisms  It is usually very difficult to predict the long-term consequences of actions.  Even if we agree with utilitarianism on principle, the best we can do is to perform the action that is most likely to have the best overall results.

38. Criticisms  Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, without taking into account the motives of people’s actions.  In the previous example, Alice’s action is not wrong if intention, rather than consequence, is seen as the most relevant factor in evaluating her action.

39. Criticisms  Some people argue that utilitarianism is too demanding because it often requires us to consider the interests of others. For example, when I am about to go to the cinema, I should ask myself if helping the homeless in my community would promote greater happiness for all.

40. Criticisms  According to utilitarian reasoning, you should sell your smartphone (or you should not have bought it in the first place) and donate the money to the Save the Children Fund. Why? Because the starving children in Africa need the money to buy food more than you need your smartphone.

41. Criticisms  The implication of the principle of utility is that in order to maximize utility and promote the well-being of everyone, continual self-sacrifice is necessary, for example, by giving up one’s time and money to help the needy.

42. Criticisms  Most of us are aware that spending $1000 on food for some unknown person in Africa would create more happiness than spending it on entertainment for ourselves. But most of us would not make the utilitarian choice because we think that our own happiness is more important.

43. Criticisms  Utilitarian reasoning often implies that it would be right to sacrifice someone’s rights or interest if it would maximize happiness for everyone else.  A good example is the invasion of privacy of a celebrity (e.g. by placing a hidden camera in her bathroom) for the entertainment of the public.

44. Criticisms  A friend of yours installed a hidden camera in your bathroom without you noticing it. He enjoys watching you take showers but you are not aware of it. From the utilitarian point of view, it seems there is nothing wrong with your friend’s actions.

45. Criticisms  Now, suppose your friend goes further by sharing the nude photos taken of you over the internet. Do you think his actions can be morally justified in terms of the principle of utility?

46. Criticisms  A common objection to utilitarian reasoning is that it can be used to justify any action that might bring happiness for many people.  Cheating, stealing, lying, and even killing may all seem to be justified, depending on whether they maximize utility in some particular situation.

47. Criticisms  If it could be shown, for example, that publicly hanging someone who is innocent would have the direct beneficial effect of reducing violent crime by acting as a deterrent, then a utilitarian would say that hanging the innocent person is the morally right thing to do.

48. Criticisms  As shown in the above examples, the utilitarian justification for immoral actions is misguided and unacceptable.  Few of us would agree that an individual’s rights can be violated or sacrificed no matter how much happiness it might bring to others.

49. Rule utilitarianism  The apparent weaknesses of utilitarianism have led some philosophers to modify the theory.  They suggest that not only can we apply the principle of utility to actions, but we can also apply the principle to moral rules.

50. Rule utilitarianism  It was John Stuart Mill who first proposed that happiness is generally “more successfully pursued by acting on general rules than by measuring the consequences of each act.”

51. Rule utilitarianism  ‘Rule utilitarianism’ applies the principle of utility to moral rules.  The best way to promote general welfare, according to rule utilitarianism, is to adhere to those rules that are chosen to maximize utility.

52. Rule utilitarianism  As a general rule, punishing innocent people produces more unhappiness than happiness.  Thus, in the previous example, we should adopt the rule ‘never punish the innocent’ because the adoption of this rule is likely to produce the best consequence for society as a whole.

53. Rule utilitarianism  Actions that violate the rule can never be morally justified, although there might be particular instances in which punishing an innocent person would produce more happiness than unhappiness.

54. Rule utilitarianism  ‘Act utilitarianism’ argues that we should consider the expected consequences of various actions and choose the one that maximizes utility.  ‘Rule utilitarianism’ asks us to compare the expected outcomes of following various rules, and then select the best rule to follow.

55. Rule utilitarianism  Act utilitarianism: An act is right insofar as it maximizes happiness in a particular situation.  Rule utilitarianism: An act is right insofar as it conforms to a moral rule the application of which will promote general welfare.

56. Rule utilitarianism  A doctor has five patients under his care. One of the patients needs to have a heart transplant, one needs two lungs, one needs a liver, and the last two need kidneys. Now into his office comes a young healthy man who just wants to have a flu shot.

57. Rule utilitarianism  Doing a utility calculus, there is no doubt in the doctor’s mind that he could do more good by injecting the healthy man with a sleep-inducing drug and using his organs to save the patients. Is there anything wrong with this line of thinking?

58. Rule utilitarianism  In the above example, there are at least three reasons to oppose classical (act) utilitarian reasoning: First, it is unjust to sacrifice the life of an innocent person who does not deserve to die. Second, killing the healthy young man clearly violates his right to life, a universal human right.

59. Rule utilitarianism  Finally, the general public will lose trust in the medical profession if they are aware that unsuspecting patients have been murdered in hospitals and their organs harvested for transplant.

60. Rule utilitarianism  Given these objections, a rule utilitarian would argue that the act of ‘killing one to save five’ can never be morally justified.  Certain actions must be forbidden, even if they might sometimes achieve good results.

61. Rule utilitarianism  All doctors, as the argument goes, must abide by the rules laid down in the medical code of ethics which strictly prohibit the removal or transplant of organs without patients’ consent.

62. Rule utilitarianism  Broadly speaking, a ‘rule’ can be a law, a social norm, a custom or convention, a regulation, or a professional code of ethics.  The medical code of ethics is a good example of applying rule utilitarian reasoning to practical issues.

63. Rule utilitarianism  For rule utilitarianism to work, the rule that has been chosen must be a clearly defined rule of action that can be followed consistently by all members of a society, group or profession.  If following the rule has the best overall consequence for everyone, it is a rule that must be followed at all times.

64. Rule utilitarianism  In August 1945, the US Air Force made history by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs killed nearly 200,000 civilians and reduced both cities to rubble. Japan surrendered immediately on seeing the incredible devastation caused by those bombs.

65. Rule utilitarianism  Can we say, in hindsight, that sacrificing civilian lives can be justified on utilitarian grounds? Does the end (stopping the world war) justify the means (murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians)?

66. Rule utilitarianism  Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be justified from the standpoint of rule utilitarianism? Why or why not?

67. Rule utilitarianism  What is the most heavily bombed country in all of human history?  Let’s watch this video to find out!