1

1

Ethical Theories -Utilitarianism

2

Individual

Institutional

Principle - Visible Policy - Goals

Virtue ethics Ethical learningand growth

Deontological ethics (Duty)

Teleological(Consequential)

ethics

A Schema of Ethical Theories

2

3

• In any ethical situation you have –

• a PERSON• whose ACTIONS• bring about certain CONSEQUENCES.

4

Utilitarianism

• In any ethical situation you have –

• a PERSON (virtue ethics)• whose ACTIONS (deontology)• bring about certain CONSEQUENCES

(consequentialism) -- Utilitarianism

3

5

Making Ethical Judgments inUtilitarianism

• Utilitarianism says that the Result or theConsequence of an Act is the realmeasure of whether it is good or bad.

• This theory emphasizes Ends overMeans.

• Theories, like this one, that emphasizethe results or consequences are calledteleological or consequentialist.

6

The Philosophy• Utilitarianism is “consequentialist”

• Consequentialist theories argue that themorality of an action is a function of whatfollows from it.

• This differs from Kant’s moral philosophy,which stated that the consequences of anaction are irrelevant when an individual isdetermining what is good and bad.

4

7

History• Utilitarian ways of thinking date back as far as

Plato, but 19th Century philosophers JeremyBentham and John Stuart Mill were the first topresent the philosophy in a “precise andsystematic form.”

• As far as authorship, Bentham was the first topresent the philosophy and Mill later polishedit and represented it.

8

HistoryBentham and Mill are similar toutilitarianism as Aristotle was to virtue.

Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill(1806-1873)

5

9

Jeremy Bentham• Principle of utility: Maximize good

in the world• “... the greatest pleasure of the

whole community, ought to be theend or object of pursuit. . . . Theright and proper end ofgovernment in every politicalcommunity, is the greatestpleasure of all the individuals ofwhich it is composed, say, inother words, the greatestpleasure of the greatest number.”

10

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

• We must consider,not just ourselves,but everyoneaffected

• Individualism: effecton community issum of affects onmembers

6

11

Bentham’s Formulation ofUtilitarianism

• Man is under two great masters, painand pleasure.

• The great good that we should seek ispleasure. (a hedonistic perspective)

• Those actions whose results increasepleasure or diminish pain are good.They have “utility.”

12

Jeremy Bentham’s HedonisticCalculus

• In determining the quantity of pleasurethat might be produced by an action, weevaluate the possible consequences byapplying several values:

• Intensity, duration, certainty oruncertainty, propinquity orremoteness, fecundity, purity, andextent.

7

13

Two Formulations of UtilitarianTheory

1) Principle of Utility: The best action isthat which produces the greatestpleasure and/or reduces pain.

2) Greatest Pleasure: We ought to dothat which produces the greatestpleasure and least pain for thegreatest number of people.

14

Moral Calculus• People affected• A• B• .• .• .• Z

• Total

• Pleasure Pain Difference• P(A) L(A) B(A)• P(B) L(B) B(B)• . . .• . . .• . . .• P(Z) L(Z) B(Z)

• P L B

8

15

An ExampleFor the sake of clarity, let’screate a unit, the hedon:+ hedon = pleasure– hedon = pain

Suppose a school yard bullygives a student, John, a blackeye. Was this action morallyright or wrong?

Giving John a black eye leads toless utility than playing soccer;therefore, according toutilitarianism, giving John ablack eye is wrong.

10 hedons– 21 hedonsTotal

+ 2 hedons– 2 hedons3 onlookers

+ 2 hedons– 20 hedonsJohn

+ 2 hedons+ 5 hedonsbully

Play soccerwith others

Give John ablack eye

Hedonsreceivedby…

Bully’s action

16

Bentham’s Arguments

• Common sense: common sense moraljudgments agree with Utility

• Arguments for other principles assumeUtility: “if people don’t follow this rule,bad things happen.”

• We can resolve conflicts; we must havea measure of value that allows us to dothat

9

17

John Stuart Mill1806-1873

• Bentham’s godson• Believed that

happiness, notpleasure, should bethe standard ofutility.

18

John Stuart Mill’s Adjustments toUtilitarianism

• Mill argues that we must consider thequality of the happiness, not merelythe quantity.

• For example, some might findhappiness with a pitcher of beer and apizza. Others may find happinesswatching a fine Shakespearean play.The quality of happiness is greaterwith the latter.

10

19

Mill’s Quality Arguments“As between his own happiness and thatof others, utilitarianism requires him to beas strictly impartial as a disinterested andbenevolent spectator. In the golden ruleof Jesus of Nazareth, we read thecomplete spirit of the ethics of utility. ‘Todo as you would be done by,’ and ‘to loveyour neighbor as yourself,’ constitute theideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”

20

Act and Rule Utilitarianism• Act utilitarianism (Bentham)

– Looks at the consequences of eachindividual act and calculate utility each timethe act is performed.

• Rule utilitarianism (Mill et al)– Looks at the consequences of having

everyone follow a particular rule andcalculates the overall utility of accepting orrejecting the rule.

11

21

Act v. Rule Utilitarianism

• Act utilitarianism (Bentham): an act is right if itmaximizes good

• Utility —> act• Rule utilitarianism (Maimonides): an act is

right if it accords with the rules that maximizegood

• Utility —> Rules —> Act• Disagree when a rule conflicts with utility

22

An Example - for reference onlyImagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved leaderhas been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’sbullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive.No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless person in theemergency room who is being kept alive on a respirator, who probablyhas only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without thetransplant, the leader will die; the homeless person will die in a fewdays anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. Thetransplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person andcarry out the transplant without the public ever knowing that they killedthe homeless person for his organs. What should they do?– For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a

general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs whenthey are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting sucha general rule would be highly negative and would certainlyundermine public trust in the medical establishment.

– For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy wereguaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in thisparticular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the deathof the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

12

23

The Continuing Dispute• Rule utilitarians claim:

– In particular cases, act utilitarianism can justify disobeyingimportant moral rules and violating individual rights.

– Act utilitarianism also takes too much time to calculate ineach and every case.

• Act utilitarians respond:– Following a rule in a particular case when the overall utility

demands that we violate the rule is just rule-worship. If theconsequences demand it, we should violate the rule.

– Furthermore, act utilitarians can follow rules-of-thumb(accumulated wisdom based on consequences in the past)most of the time and engage in individual calculation onlywhen there is some pressing reason for doing so.

24

CriticismsCriticismsof Utilitarianismof Utilitarianism

1. Responsibility

2. Integrity

3. Intentions

4. Moral Luck

5. Who does the calculating?

6. Who is included?

13

25

1. Responsibility• Utilitarianism suggests that we are

responsible for all the consequences of ourchoices.

• The problem is that sometimes we canforesee consequences of other people’sactions that are taken in response to ourown acts. Are we responsible for thoseactions, even though we don’t choose themor approve of them?

26

2. Integrity• Utilitarianism often demands that we put

aside self-interest. Sometimes this meansputting aside our own moral convictions.

• Integrity may involve certain identity-conferring commitments, such that theviolation of those commitments entails aviolation of who we are at our core.

14

27

3. Intentions• Utilitarianism is concerned almost

exclusively about consequences, notintentions.

• Intentions may matter is morally assessingan agent, even if they don’t matter in termsof guiding action.

28

4. Moral Luck

• By concentrating exclusively on consequences,utilitarianism makes the moral worth of our actions amatter of luck. We must await the finalconsequences before we find out if our action wasgood or bad.

• This seems to make the moral life a matter ofchance, which runs counter to our basic moralintuitions.– We can imagine actions with good intentions that have

unforeseeable and unintended bad consequences– We can also imagine actions with bad intentions that have

unforeseeable and unintended good conseqeunces.

15

29

5. Who does the calculating?

• Typically, the count differs depending on whodoes the counting

30

6. Who is included?• When we consider the issue of

consequences, we must ask who is includedwithin that circle.– Those in our own group (group egoism)– Those in our own country (nationalism)– Those who share our skin color (racism)– All human beings (humanism or speciesism?)– All sentient beings

• Classical utilitarianism has often claimed thatwe should acknowledge the pain andsuffering of animals and not restrict thecalculus just to human beings.

16

31

Summary• Utilitarianism can be appropriate for

policy decisions, as long as a strongnotion of fundamental human rightsguarantees that it will not violate rightsof small minorities.

32

Summary• Can we make interpersonal

comparisons of well-being?• Whose welfare counts?

(animals?)• Avg versus total happiness?

(pop?)• Should pleasure from crime

count?• Innocent person case; happy

slave case, etc

Hoffman et al

17

33

Ethical Theory - Egoism

34

EgoismEthical egoism• Egoism advocates individual self-interest as its guiding

principles• self interest is main ethical focus• many individuals strive to increase personal

wealth• Economists believe individual pursuit of profit &

wealth is optimal for society

18

35

Egoism – Adam Smith

• Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of themarket was an attempt to shifteconomic power from the rulingmonarchy to individuals.

• His proposed capitalist system wasunderpinned by the virtues of justice,fairness & honesty

36

Morality & Egoism• Act is morally right if it best

promotes an agent’s long – terminterest.

• It does not preach that we shouldnever assist others BUT ratherthat we have NO basic moral dutyto do so.

19

37

Egoism

• TWO KINDS OF EGOISM

–Psychological Egoism–Ethical Egoism

38

Psychological Egoism• The only moral obligation we have is to

ourselves• We act in the interest of others ONLY

if it is the best way to promote our ownself interest.

• All actions are selfishly motivated• Concerned that self interest is the

only thing that motivates anyone

20

39

Ethical Egoism• Ethical egoism is concerned with long-

term self-interest• Can apply to organizations, countries

and groups as well as individuals• Ethical egoism - a theory about how

people ought to behave

40

2 kinds of ethical egoism

• Individual ethical egoism• Universal ethical egoism

21

41

Individual egoism

• is the attitude that the egoist is going tolook after him/herself and no-one else,

• Morality is defined by the egoist’sinterests.

• “the prescriptive doctrine that all personsshould serve my self-interest”

42

Universal egoism

• is the position that everyone shouldlook after his own interests and todisregard the interests of other peopleexcept in so far as their interestscontribute to his own.

• “is the universal doctrine that allpersons should pursue their owninterests exclusively”

22

43

CF Utilitarianism• Greatest good for the greatest number• Action is right if they promote the greatest human

welfare, wrong if they do not• Utilitarianism is more community & socially

oriented than egoism

44

What ethical egoism does notclaim

• Does not require that we consider ourinterests and the interests of others.

• Does not say that we should avoidhelping others.

• Does not imply that pursuing ourinterests is always what we want to do.

23

45

External Criticism of EthicalEgoism

• Egoism justifies what we take to bewicked acts.– Not an objection the egoist will find

compelling.– Egoist is not concerned with justifying our

current moral intuitions.

46

Internal Criticism of theTheory

• Cannot handle conflicts of interest-Egoist Response: Only troubling if we believe that ethics must

resolve conflicts such that all can live together harmoniously.

• Ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary.

• Me vs. everyone else.

24

47

• Strength of the theory isthe focus on profits as amechanism for creatingsocial benefit

• Criticism of the theory:underlying assumptionsmay be flawed Enron’s management

argued that theiractivities were lawful

ConclusionEthical Egoism Approach