Utilitarianism

Counting Costs &Making Tough Calls

Military decision-making, and public policy generally (including economic policy), frequently make use of “outcomes-based” reasoning

The “right” decision, action, or policy is defined as the one that optimizes the balance of benefits over harms for all affected. For example:

President Truman’s decision to use nuclear force on Hiroshima Churchill and the Bombing of Coventry “lifeboat” dilemmas “medical triage” decisions

Crimson Tide

Problems and Pitfalls “Do the ends justify the means?” Familiar Soviet proverb: “If you want to

make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs”

Are the requirements of justice and protections of human rights negotiable at the “bottom line?”

Utilitarianism

The “utility” (usefulness or moral rightness) of a policy is measured by its tendency to promote the “good” (or to prevent harm).

“Act utilitarianism” – Jeremy Bentham [“the good” is simply pleasure]

“Rule utilitarianism” – John Stuart Mill [“the good” is happiness, a more complex notion, achieved by living a principled and prudent life]

Bentham’s “Act” Utilitarianism “Nature has placed mankind under the governancy of two

sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

“The principle of utility . . . Is that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question”

“By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. . .”

Net Utility For every human action, X, there is a quantity

u(X) associated with that action, called the “net utility” of that act.

This net utility of X is the sum of all the benefits (B) minus the harms (H) of the action X

The net utility of X must be calculated for all individuals, i, affected by X; thus:u (X) = B(x) - H(x), for all i

An action is “morally right” if it has a higher net utility than any alternative.

Bentham’s “Hedonistic Calculus”Prin of Morals & Legislation, Ch IV

Bentham envisioned an actual calculus of pain and pleasure, something like the following:

For every act (or choice), x (where x’s effects are a function of time), there is a quantity U(x), the net utility of X for time t, such that

Let : I= intensity of XD= duration of XC = certainty of XP= propinquity of XF = fecundity of XR = purity of XE = extent or distribution of X, then

U[x(t)] =

0

)]([)]([)]([)]([)]([)]([)]([t

dttxEtxRtxFtxPtxCtxDtxI

Criticisms of Bentham’s ApproachHedonism – a moral theory “fit for

swine”Atheistic – leaves out God (and by

extension, any higher-order moral considerations)

Promotes selfishness – calculus of pure self-interest

Modern Criticisms Quantification and measurability of “the good” Incommensurate notions of “the good” Ignores other, morally relevant considerations

(e.g., human rights, and justice – distribution of “the good”)

Difficult and often inconsistent in practice to solve for U(x) and maximize this variable

Obligation overload (no supererogation)

John Stuart Mill’s Revisions: “Rule” Utilitarianism

“Doctrine of the Swine” – how DO we determine what sorts of actions or activities are the things that bring genuine happiness?

ANS: consult those with experience and expertise to judge; the “wisdom of humanity”

Utilitarianism is NOT equivalent to selfishness. Mill writes:

“. . .between his own happiness and that of another, utilitarianism requires that one be strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.”

Mill’s Response to Atheism “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we

read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”

Utility is NOT a “godless” doctrine. “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other.”

Mill’s Innovations – Qualitative Happiness versus mere Quantitative Pleasure

“Happiness” is NOT simply equivalent to pleasure

“lower quality pleasures” (shared with other animals – e.g., food, sex)

“higher quality pleasures,” uniquely human, involving our so-called higher faculties

Notions like “rights” and “justice” are merely “rules of thumb” that represent underlying calculations of overall utility (rule utilitarianism)

The Principle of Utility and the Nautical Almanac sailors do not customarily calculate

declinations, equations of time, or zone meridian passages of celestial bodies themselves, each time they wish to chart their position.

Instead, these observations are calculated in advance from fundamental astronomical principles, and then printed for reference in the Nautical Almanac

The “Moral Almanac”

Likewise, we shouldn’t have to derive right and wrong in specific instances each time we face a dilemma, directly from the basic rules of morality

We, too, have a “moral Almanac”: the rules, laws, religious teachings, moral traditions and customs of the past -- all of which reflect accumulated human wisdom about the kinds of actions and policies that tend to promote utility

The Principle of Utility andThe Moral Almanac

“Principle of Utility” performs three vital functions:

1) Explains the foundations, and offers justification, for our moral rules, laws, and customs, or

2) Exposes the inadequacy of unjust laws or customs that do NOT promote utility; and

3) Offers us a means for resolving conflicts between rules and laws, or deciding vexing cases on which traditional moral rules and laws are silent