Utilitarianism / Consequentialism Rels 300 / Nurs September 2014

Consequentialism (aka, utilitarianism) Decide what action to take on the basis of what the results or consequences of the action will be. List the good consequences, then the bad consequences of each possible action; then choose the one with the most good consequences. Best consequences for me = ETHICAL EGOISM Best consequences for others = ETHICAL ALTRUISM Best consequences for all involved = UTILITARIANISM 300/330 appleby 2

UTILITARIANISM (aka consequentialism) An act is moral if it brings more good consequences than bad ones.  Utilitarianism is concerned with goals, purposes, ends, results and consequences pleasure happiness,  goals or ends evaluated are pleasure or overall happiness, pain unhappiness  and pain or overall unhappiness 300/330 appleby 3

Jeremy Bentham ( ) English philosopher concerned with social reform proposed utilitarian calculus of pleasures for evaluating proposals for social reform what social reforms would truly benefit the largest number of people in society [and not just the wealthy or privileged]? Right actions = more pleasure than painRight actions = more pleasure than pain Wrong actions = more pain than pleasureWrong actions = more pain than pleasure 300/330 appleby 4

Bentham’s “radical egalitarianism” Calculate the sum of all of the values and potential pleasure for a potential action, taking into consideration all people affected Calculate the sum of pain and pleasure for an alternative potential action, taking into consideration all people affected the Hedonic Calculus Bentham called this the Hedonic Calculus “We are to do the thing that will provide the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain to the greatest number of people” (p.6) 300/330 appleby 5

for Bentham… All pleasures count equally “Hockey is as good as opera” “Hockey is as good as opera” (p.6) Everyone counts equally; no person gets preferential consideration The Prime Minister’s pleasure is no more important than the poorest citizen’s All pains must be recognized and considered Every being with a capacity for suffering must be included in the calculation. Possibly including animals in the calculus 300/330 appleby 6

Criticisms leveled against Bentham’s Utilitarianism 1. Some pleasures should count for more than others. 2. The pleasures and privations of some should count for more than others. 3. Why should pleasure be the primary value? Does pleasure have intrinsic value that outweighs values such as love or justice? 4. How can pleasures and pains be calculated in a manner that can be accurately weighed? 300/330 appleby 7

John Stuart Mill ( ) happiness Proposed calculation of utility based on happiness rather than pleasure:  Happiness = pleasure + absence of pain  Unhappiness = pain + absence of pleasure Happiness has intrinsic value; other values promote or undermine happiness + not all goods are equal  some are qualitatively more significant or preferable  e.g., intellectual & aesthetic pleasures are more valuable than the pleasures of bodily needs and desires 300/330 appleby 8

Greatest Happiness Principle happiness = the supreme principle of morality Mill says happiness = the supreme principle of morality Morally right actions promote happiness Morally wrong actions lead to unhappiness (or pain, or privation of pleasure)  The happiness of all people is to be considered equally  Mill is still concerned to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people  No persons are more important than others; no special relationships of love or obligation influence the calculation 300/330 appleby 9

“Do as you would be done by … love your neighbour as yourself.” “The happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s [or individual’s] own happiness, but … the happiness of every individual, as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest [or good] of the whole.” The goal of an agent’s good [or right] conduct or moral behaviour is measured by the well-being [or good] of the whole, not just you as an individual. Not just a self-centred analysis or goal 300/330 appleby 10

“The Subjection Of Women” (1869) Mill was concerned with both social arrangements and legal status: He wrote that the legal subordination of women to men is wrong; the patriarchal family structure in which women are subordinate to their husbands is “patently unjust” ▫ women are unjustly restricted in their development and spheres of action; men may become “brutal” in their behaviour toward their wives and children ▫ There is NO “natural order” of dominance ▫ Women are fully capable of equality with men Mill similarly argued against slavery which was still promoted by some 300/330 appleby 11

Criticisms leveled against Mill’s Utilitarianism 1.Difficult to assess qualitative values of happiness 2.What is the standard by which pleasures are measured? ▫ By what standard would pizza, beer & hockey be measured as less valuable than a gourmet meal, wine and Shakespeare? (p.8) 3.Who determines what counts as “higher” and “lower” pleasures? 4.Is it likely that everyone would agree on these matters? 300/330 appleby 12

300/330 appleby 13 BBC News WALES 10 September 2013 Organ donation: Presumed consent to start in December 2015 People in Wales will be presumed to have agreed for their organs to be donated after death from December 2015.

An act is moral if it brings more good consequences than bad ones. What is the action to be evaluated? What would be the good consequences? How certain are the good consequences? What would be the bad consequences? How likely is it that they would occur? How extensive are the bad consequences? Are there alternatives? Right actions = more pleasure than pain Wrong actions = more pain than pleasure The happiness of all people is to be considered equally 300/330 appleby 14

Sub-categories: 1. ACT UTILITARIANISM A person ought to act so as to produce the greatest balance of good over evil, everyone considered. For each action: weigh the interests of all involved with no preferences: interests of oneself and others – strangers and loved ones alike and equal no particular obligations, e.g. of parents to children net balance of good over evil = utilitynet balance of good over evil = utility Golden RuleConsistent with the Golden Rule – treat others as you would have them treat you No action is inherently good or evil (apart from its consequences) 300/330 appleby 15

Sub-categories: 2. RULE UTILITARIANISM A person ought to act according to the RULE that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil, everyone considered.  Which rules maximize utility, not just in this one instance, but in all similar situations and cases where a decision must be made?  Right actions satisfy moral rules 300/330 appleby 16

Utilitarianism checklist: þ What is the action to be evaluated? þ No action is intrinsically right or wrong þ What would be the good consequences? þ How certain are the good consequences? þ What would be the bad consequences? þ How likely is it that they would occur? þHow extensive are the bad consequences? þ Are there alternative possible actions? þPerform same calculation for these actions 300/330 appleby 17

þ Make a decision: What action will minimize harm and maximize benefit for the greatest number of people? 300/330 appleby 18

Limitations & Strengths Limitations 1. How do you determine the right action when 2 or more consequences have no commonalities or standard for comparison, e.g., health or education, freedom or security 2. It is always impossible to foresee ALL of the possible consequences 3. If happiness is the only intrinsic value, then values such as justice, dignity & rights have value only as foundations for happiness 300/330 appleby 19

Limitations & Strengths Strengths 1.Consequences ARE important in making choices 2.Preferential concern or personal obligations can mask the well-being of others; sometimes difficult allocation decisions must be made 3.Non-human (or “sub-human”) well-being may indeed be a component of happiness 300/330 appleby 20

300/330 appleby 21 August 26, 2012 BERLIN -- A German court has ruled that circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to bodily harm even if parents consent to the procedure. Cologne state court said the child's right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents' rights… circumcision_n_ html

The president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, Dieter Graumann, called the ruling "unprecedented and insensitive," urging the country's parliament to clarify the legal situation "to protect religious freedom against attacks.“ Graumann said the circumcision of newborn Jews has been practiced for thousands of years and "every country in the world respects this religious right." Muslims also circumcise young boys, while many parents request it on health grounds. circumcision_n_ htmlhttp:// circumcision_n_ html 300/330 appleby 22

Perform a utilitarian calculation for infant male circumcision Potential good consequences or benefits Potential bad consequences, risks or harms How certain are the potential good or bad consequences? How important, serious or extensive are the potential good or bad consequences? Who will reap the potential good benefits? Who will suffer the potential bad consequences? Are there alternative actions that should be considered? 300/330 appleby 23

Make your decision Should infant males be routinely circumcised? Which policy will be likely to minimize harm and maximize benefit for the greatest number of people? 300/330 appleby 24

According to Utilitarianism: The right thing to do may differ in different circumstances for different people at different times and locations There is no “inherently right” answer to the question of circumcision outside of particular situations and contexts 300/330 appleby 25

No answer or action is “inherently right” ▫ What does “inherently” mean in this case? In and of itself, the action of surgically removing a fold of skin at the tip of the penis is neither an ethical action nor an unethical action No person has a universal DUTY to be circumcised or to perform circumcisions 300/330 appleby 26

With whom do you work well? 1.Write your name on a sheet of paper 2.If you wish, you may add the name of someone with whom you would like to work in a group. 3.If there is someone with whom you already know you don’t work well, you may add the name of that person in [brackets] I will try to put you in a group which includes your preferred person and excludes the person indicated in [brackets]. 300/330 appleby 27