1. Consequentialism, Equality, and Felicity David Hume Jeremy Bentham James Mill John Stuart Mill Henry Sidgwick Peter Singer

2. Happiness, not pleasing God or following abstract rules, is the end of moral thought. Intrinsic goods: Something that is good “for its own sake.” Happiness (pleasure, felicity, etc.) is the only intrinsic good. Instrumental goods: something that is good because it is useful for the attainment of some intrinsic good. All things (principles, rights, virtues, etc.) are good only insofar as they are a means to happiness. Social and Personal ethics are guided by one principle, Utility.

3. --John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)... the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments. Utilitarianism

4. The question of whether any act, law or policy is good or bad depends on the consequences that result. Being moral requires making rational predictions regarding the outcomes of our behavior. The only relevant moral consideration is how much happiness or pleasure (vs. suffering) will result. All parties who are effected by an act, law, or regulation are to be considered equally. No person’s happiness is more or less valuable than anyone else’s. The Principle of Utility is universally binding.

5. --James Rachels (1941-2003) “In deciding what to do, we should, therefore, ask what course of conduct would promote the greatest amount of happiness for all those who will be affected. Morality requires that we do what is best from that point of view.” The Elements of Moral Philosophy

6. 1) Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. 2) In assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness (pleasure or suffering) that is caused. 3) In calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

7. By what criteria shall we predict consequences? Intensity: What is the strength of pain or pleasure produced by an act? Duration: How long with the pain or pleasure produced last? Certainty: How probable is it that the predicted results will occur? Propinquity: How near in time is the result? Fecundity: How many further pleasures or pains are likely to be produced by the act? Purity: How free from pain will the resulting pleasure be? Extent: How many sentient beings will be affected by the act?

8.  Matthew Donnelly was a physicist who had worked with X-rays for 30 years. Perhaps as a result of too much exposure, he contracted cancer and lost part of his jaw, his upper lip, his nose, and his left hand, as well as two fingers on his right hand. He was also left blind. Mr. Donnelly’s physicians told him that his condition was terminal and that he had about a year to live, but he decided that he did not want to go on living in such a state. He was in constant pain—one writer said that, “at its worst, he could be seen lying in bed with teeth clinched and beads of perspiration standing out on his forehead.” Knowing that he was going to die eventually anyway, and wanting to escape this misery, Mr. Donnelly begged his three brothers to kill him. Two refused, but one did not. The youngest brother, 36-year-old Harold Donnelly, carried a.30-caliber pistol into the hospital and shot Matthew to death.

9. 1) The morally right thing to do, on any occasion, is whatever would bring about the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. 2) On at least some occasions, the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness may be brought about by mercy killing. 3) Therefore, on at least some occasions, mercy killing may be morally right.

10. “The dictates of religion would coincide, in all cases, with those of utility, were the Being, who is the object of religion, universally supposed to be as benevolent as he is supposed to be wise and powerful But among the votaries of religion (of which number the multifarious fraternity of Christians are but a small part) there seem to be but few (I will not say how few) who are real believers in this benevolence. They call him benevolent in words, but they do not mean that he is so in reality.”

11. Sometimes, an act can be wrong even when no suffering results. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide adequate support for basic rights Utilitarianism doesn’t sufficiently honor promises or prior commitments. Utilitarianism is too demanding to be followed consistently. Utilitarianism doesn’t honor personal ties and commitments. Not all consequences can be measured and/or compared effectively.

12. You think someone is your friend, but really he ridicules you behind your back. No one ever tells you, so you never know. You are never caused any unhappiness by this. Can Utilitarianism account for the wrong done to you?

13. “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self- protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” --John Stuart Mill

14. Rights limit the acts of others upon us, regardless of the consequences that might be derived. But if the violation of a person’s (or some minority group’s) rights would likely lead to a greater net happiness, can a utilitarian object to the violation of those rights?

15. An eighteenth-century Danish poet, Johan Herman Wessel, wrote the tale of “The Blacksmith and the Baker” in verse. The story concerns a rather mean blacksmith who killed a man in a barroom brawl while in a drunken rage. The blacksmith is about to be sentenced to death by a judge when four upstanding citizens speak on his behalf. Their argument is that the man is the only blacksmith in this small town and his services are desperately needed. It would accomplish nothing to execute him, but it would be severely detrimental to the welfare of the community to deprive people of his skills. The judge is sympathetic to their plea but responds that the law requires a life for a life. If he let a murder go unpunished, it would undermine respect for the law and be harmful to the fabric of society. The citizens point out that the town has an old and scrawny baker who is on the last leg of his life. He is a somewhat disreputable and unpopular fellow, although he is innocent of any crime. Since the town has two bakers, he would not be missed. So, for the greatest good of the greatest number, the judge lets the blacksmith go while framing the baker and making him pay for the murder with his life. The old baker wept pitifully when they took him away.

16. You’ve accepted an invitation to attend your friend’s baby shower. Honestly, you’re not really looking forward to spending the day with all of their relatives and friends, playing silly games and opening gifts. The day before the shower, you’re invited to a Warriors game. You love basketball. You’re sure, though your friend will be disappointed, the pleasure you’d receive at going to the game will greatly outweigh the suffering caused by her disappointment.

17. How far is one required to go in balancing happiness? Consider the problem of world hunger. Does utilitarianism create a slippery slope to near poverty? Is there a distinction between moral obligation and supererogatory actions. Is the push to maximize happiness too great a burden?

18. Does the strict equality required by the utilitarian principle undermine the possibility Thought experiment: Emergency Room Surgeon Are Loyalty, Parental Responsibility, National Interest, or other such principles at odds with utilitarian ends?

19. WHAT’S YOUR LIFE WORTH? SOCIETAL COST COMPONENTS FOR FATALITIES, 1972 NHTSA* STUDY Component1971 Costs Future productivity losses Direct$132,000 Indirect41,300 Medical costs Hospital700 Other425 Property damage1,500 Insurance administration4,700 Legal and court3,000 Employer losses1,000 Victim’s pain and suffering10,000 Funeral 900 Assets (lost consumption)5,000 Miscellaneous accident costs200 Total per fatality:$200,725 *This chart is from a federal study showing how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculated the value of a human life. The estimate was arrived at under pressure from the auto industry. The Ford Motor Company has used it in cost-benefit analyses arguing why certain safety measures are not “worth” the savings in human lives. The calculation above is a breakdown of the estimated cost to society every time someone is killed in a car accident.

20. The denial that the option posed by the opposing arguments actually do lead to the best consequences. The denial of rights always leads to bad circumstances... Peeping Toms are caught, breaking promises loses friends... Rule Utilitarianism: Not particular acts, but classes of acts. Rules and laws are established by reference to the principle of utility. Individual acts are then measured by reference to the rules. We don’t need to change the theory, its the intuitive morals that need to change. Can common sense be trusted? Was slavery considered to be common sense? Implications for equality? Should we extend the theory to animals and beyond?

21. “What general rules of conduct tend to promote the greatest happiness?” Rules that lead to the greatest happiness are good. Particular acts are judged in reference of the rules.

22. Admittedly utilitarianism does have consequences which are incompatible with the common moral consciousness, but I tended to take the view “so much the worse for the common moral consciousness.” That is, I was inclined to reject the common methodology of testing general ethical principles by seeing how they square with our feelings in particular instances. --J.J. Smart, “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics”