Utilitarianism Dr. Schmid, Ph.D. Philosophy and Religion, UNCW

The Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens In 1884, the small ship Mignonette set sail from England for the Americas. It ran into a terrible storm, and sunk at sea. Four men survived in an open boat. What followed led to one of the most famous cases in English legal history.In 1884, the small ship Mignonette set sail from England for the Americas. It ran into a terrible storm, and sunk at sea. Four men survived in an open boat. What followed led to one of the most famous cases in English legal history.

Four men in a boat The four men—captain Dudley, first mate Stevens, sailor Brooks, and cabin boy William Parker, 17, were adrift for many days. They had just two small tins of turnips. After 6 days, they ran out of food. After 19 days, they discussed whether to draw lots, that one should be killed for the others. Brooks refused.The four men—captain Dudley, first mate Stevens, sailor Brooks, and cabin boy William Parker, 17, were adrift for many days. They had just two small tins of turnips. After 6 days, they ran out of food. After 19 days, they discussed whether to draw lots, that one should be killed for the others. Brooks refused.

Cabin boy Willy Parker William (“Willy”) Parker was 17. He had left home in a spurt of youthful ambition, “to test his courage at sea, and make a man of himself.”William (“Willy”) Parker was 17. He had left home in a spurt of youthful ambition, “to test his courage at sea, and make a man of himself.” Unwisely, he drank sea water, and lay sick and seemingly near death in the boat, as the other three men pondered their fate.Unwisely, he drank sea water, and lay sick and seemingly near death in the boat, as the other three men pondered their fate.

A terrible decision On the 20 th day, Dudley, after discussing the matter with Stevens, and with the concurrence of Brooks, told Parker his time was up. He killed him with a penknife, and the three made use of him for survival.On the 20 th day, Dudley, after discussing the matter with Stevens, and with the concurrence of Brooks, told Parker his time was up. He killed him with a penknife, and the three made use of him for survival.

Rescue at sea Four days later, as Dudley noted in his diary (read in court): “On the 24 th day, shortly after breakfast, we were rescued at sea.”Four days later, as Dudley noted in his diary (read in court): “On the 24 th day, shortly after breakfast, we were rescued at sea.” The men were taken back to England, where Brooks turned states’ evidence, and Dudley and Stevens were put on trial.The men were taken back to England, where Brooks turned states’ evidence, and Dudley and Stevens were put on trial.

Moral Reasoning – Type 1 Consequentialist: what determines the morality of actions are the consequences it has for those affected.Consequentialist: what determines the morality of actions are the consequences it has for those affected. Bentham & Mill: “Do that which conduces to the greatest utility for all.” Utility = balance of pleasure, happiness, benefit over pain, misery, harm. Bentham I.1-14

What Impacts the Morality of Their Action? UTILITARIANUTILITARIAN –Necessity – survival/happiness at stake –Parker’s condition vs. others –Other men had families, Parker an orphan –Set an example for others? –What is the “greater good in the long run”? NON-UTILITARIANNON-UTILITARIAN –Cannibalism intrinsically wrong? –Killing intrinsically wrong? –Consent – Parker did not consent

Utilitarianism’s Strengths Offers a universal moral theory for a pluralistic society— without relying on religious doctrines “Hedonic calculus” --Who affected/how much --What =possible actions? --Probable outcomes? --Multiply = “greatest good for greatest number” Universal Scope How to act in particular situations How to determine laws and policies based on “common will” and “common good” What moral traits and habits to cultivate Claims to explain or refute other theories Refutes selfish theories, dogmatic or custom theories Explains alternative theories (Kant/theories of “intrinsic” rights/duties, Virtue Ethics)

UTILITARIAN DILEMMAS LEGACY, what are the ethics of truth and agreement, compared to the “greater good”?LEGACY, what are the ethics of truth and agreement, compared to the “greater good”? HEINZ DILEMMA, property and legal rights vs. humane rights, predictability of outcomes, care for loved ones = special obligations?HEINZ DILEMMA, property and legal rights vs. humane rights, predictability of outcomes, care for loved ones = special obligations? PATROL, military necessity vs. non- discrimination, rights of soldiers vs. civiliansPATROL, military necessity vs. non- discrimination, rights of soldiers vs. civilians CHEROKEE VALLEY, right of eminent domainCHEROKEE VALLEY, right of eminent domain

Objection #1 to Utilitarianism: It justifies violating rights Man on the bridge, “Transplant” and Lifeboat situation—Willy ParkerMan on the bridge, “Transplant” and Lifeboat situation—Willy Parker “Legacy”“Legacy” “Heinz Dilemma”“Heinz Dilemma” “Cherokee Valley”—respect for group values. Rights“Cherokee Valley”—respect for group values. Rights “Patrol”*“Patrol”* Eminent domain—individual rights vs. common goodEminent domain—individual rights vs. common good *Objection #2: predicting the future

Objections to Utilitarianism Violates individual rights Relies too much on predicting future benefits and harms Assumes there is a “common measure” of value

Ethical dilemma Flooding and building a dam in “Cherokee Valley” would  $1B in business and skilled jobs and provide electricity to 2M people.Flooding and building a dam in “Cherokee Valley” would  $1B in business and skilled jobs and provide electricity to 2M people. A traditional community of 300 Cherokee have lived there, under treaty, for 150 years.A traditional community of 300 Cherokee have lived there, under treaty, for 150 years. The state can abrogate the treaty, by appeal to eminent domain, and purchase their property at fair value, but they object.The state can abrogate the treaty, by appeal to eminent domain, and purchase their property at fair value, but they object. Should the state build the dam?Should the state build the dam?

Ethical dilemma: Singer’s Argument 1.If we are able to prevent great harm* without comparable cost, we have a moral duty to do it. 2.We in the developed world can prevent great suffering in poor countries without comparable cost. 3.Therefore we have a duty to do it. *Whether someone is nearby or distant makes no difference in a global world. *Whether someone is nearby or distant makes no difference in a global world.

Singer’s Argument: Criticisms 1.We have no duty to aid the poor, though we may wish to out of charity: Singer collapses this distinction. 2.Singer’s argument ignores the option of giving a reasonable amount of aid, while preserving our own happiness and well-being. 3.Singer’s claim that distance or personal feelings we have for the victims is irrelevant is contrary to human nature.

Objection #3 to Utilitarianism: Is there a common basis of value? –Cherokee Valley: how important is tribal memory? –Patrol: how important is the mission? –Pinto, Philip Morris studies –Thorndike study

What, if anything, does the Thorndike study prove? That it is possible to fix a common measure, even if the results are somewhat surprising, and different people might measure things differently.That it is possible to fix a common measure, even if the results are somewhat surprising, and different people might measure things differently. That the whole project is absurd, and there are very great qualitative differences among pleasures and pains, though we may all agree on a ‘bottom line’ of misery (hunger, disease, slavery, etc.)

Ethical dilemma: Are there “higher” and “lower” pleasures? Mill: “ I would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. There are qualitatively higher and lower pleasures, not just quantitatively greater and lesser; those who experience both, know better.”Mill: “ I would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. There are qualitatively higher and lower pleasures, not just quantitatively greater and lesser; those who experience both, know better.” Bentham: “If numerically equal, pinball is as desirable as poetry.”Bentham: “If numerically equal, pinball is as desirable as poetry.”