Module 2.

LU#3

DB: Utilitarianism

Thalia C. Sanders

Classical Utilitarianism can be stated as an action that is right and if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone. The utilitarian principle has four distinct theses: 1. Consequentialism. The principle that holds that the rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences. It is by virtue of this thesis that utilitarianism is a teleological theory. 2. Hedonism. Utility in this statement of the theory is identified with pleasure and the absence of pain. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure and only pleasure is ultimate in goodness. 3. Maximalism. A right action is one that has an abundant of good consequences, but also the greatest amount of good consequences even when taken together with the bad consequences. 4. Universalism. The consequences to be considered are those of everyone.

What strengths do you see with the moral theory of Utilitarianism? The strengths that I see in Utilitarianism is the objections that John Stuart Mill (1806-1878), and from this purpose on we refer to him as simply Mill, had to Jeremy Benthams theory (1748-1832) in his major publication called Utilitarianism (1863). Together, the two English reformers started a movement in the nineteenth century and fashioned themselves into a single coherent whole. Mill and Jeremy Bentham would grace history as the creators of classical Utilitarianism, in which they were the cocreators of what they felt they had was a powerful instrument for social, political, economic, and legal change. Mill attempted to develop a defensive version of the utilitarian position which is as follows: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Great Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness we are intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the deprivation of pleasure. Mills objections consisted of differing in the strict quantitative treatment of pleasure by introducing the idea that pleasures also differ in quality. Utilitarian reasoning obligates us to include only the interests of everyone in our calculations, not to act in a way that advances every individual interest. There are two types of classical utilitarianism Act- and Rule-Utilitarianism. The action can be judged to be right by virtue of the consequences of performing that action. However RuleUtilitarian eliminates the difficult task of calculating the consequences of each individual act. However, when utilizing Utilitarianism as Benthams idea of a precise quantitative method for decision making it is fully realized in cost-benefit analysis; which holds that any project in which the dollar amount of the benefits exceeds the dollar amount of the

1 | Page

PHL-1330-DL01-61991

Week 4: DB

Module 2. LU#3

DB: Utilitarianism

Thalia C. Sanders

damages is worth pursuing, but among the different projects, the one that promises the greatest net benefits as measured in dollar bills, ought to be chosen. Nevertheless there is a narrow focus on economic efficiency in the allocation of resources; cost-benefit analysis is not used for personal morality. Cost-benefit analysis is used to select both the means to the ends, and the ends themselves. Non-utilitarians who reject the use of cost-benefit analysis to settle questions about ends, like the rights of consumers and the value of environmental protection and there would be no argument with a requirement that we pursue morally justified ends in the most efficient manner. Here is a Case story that was used to show the strength of Utilitarianism. Case 2.3: Beech-Nuts Bogus Apple Juice. In 1981, Lars Hoyvald joined Beech-Nut, a competitive baby food industry. The company was in second place to Gerber and received only 15 percent of the market. In 1979, Nestle was the Swiss food giant that bought Beech-Nut. In 1982, Hoyvald was faced with strong evidence that Beech-Nut apple juice for babies was made from concentrate that included no apples. Moreover, Hoyvald weighed the price (shadow pricing and price fixing), the low-cost apple concentrate and the avoidance of test that showed the presence of corn syrup. Nevertheless, the inquiry was dismissed by employees. However a private investigator, who worked for the Processed Apple Institute discovered that the Universal plant was producing only sugared water. He reported his findings to Beech-Nut and Lavery, and invited them to join a suit against Universal. The Hoyvald, the President, was reluctant about solving the problem because he felt that the juice was harmless and it tasted like apple juice, and provided some nutrition. His main objective at this point was to make good on a promise and that was to turn a profit of $7million for the year of 1982. The recall would cost about $3.5 million. He stated that the reason he did not act more decisively, was because he would have to close the company down. Hoyvald shipped the stocks of Beechnut apples juice to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, where he reduced the price down to half of the cost in America. By November 1982, he only had 20,000 cases of Beech-Nut apple juice that he continued to sell, until March 1983. In the end, the state and federal investigators tried and convicted Beech Nuts Hoyvald and Lavery on charges of consumer fraud, and sentenced to one year and one day. They had also settled a $2 million fine. In addition to the fine, the company settled a class action suit for $7.5 million dollars brought by the consumers. In the end, Nestle kept Hoyvald and Lavery on the payroll and paid their legal expenses, which amounted to millions of dollars.

2 | Page

PHL-1330-DL01-61991

Week 4: DB

Module 2. LU#3

DB: Utilitarianism

Thalia C. Sanders

871 F2d 1181 United States V. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation

What weaknesses or concerns do you see with the theory of Utilitarianism? The Classical Utilitarianism has a Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill theory. The Utilitarian theory holds that consequences are important for determining what is right, and there are three arguments that attack consequences statements. Utilitarianism is a radical doctrine that is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be compromised because of the results (Rachels, page 112). Utilitarianisms say that right actions are the ones that produce the most good, and good is happiness. Utilitarians believe that we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. The notion of personal rights cannot be argued in favor of an utilitarian; because it is a notion that places limits on how individuals may be treated. Meanwhile, the critics of Utilitarianism suggest the Justice Argument, because the argument would have the best outcome would result in negative behavior such as treating someone negatively or unfairly. Therefore, the Utilitarian theory is incompatible with the argument of justice. Next, the argument of backward-looking reason holds that Utilitarianism cares only about the consequences of our action. Utilitarianism makes the past irrelevant. If you are the type of person who feels obligated to keep your promise to a small child so that they can expect consistency and you value this behavior and believe that is important then this argument seems faulty. Jeremy Benthams version of utilitarianism is set forth in the following passage: By the principle of utility, it is meant that the principle which either approves or disapproves every action, regardless of what it might be. The approval or disapproval is done so according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in questions: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. For instance, Bentham assumed that a precise quantitative measurement of pleasure and pain was possible, and he outlined a procedure that he called the hedonistic calculus. However, Utilitarianism does not provide or require the thesis of hedonism; but many things besides pleasure have been regarded as good by utilitarianism theorists, including friendship (getting along amicable with a diversity of people) and aesthetic (going dancing or social drinking) enjoyment, personality intelligence goes along way. On the contrast, it is John Stuart Mill, whose adaptive theory gives no guidance for comparing the quality with the quantity of pleasure. Mill and Jeremy Bentham assumed that the amount of pleasure produced by any action can be subtracted from the amount of pleasure to yield the net amount of

3 | Page

PHL-1330-DL01-61991

Week 4: DB

Module 2. LU#3

DB: Utilitarianism

Thalia C. Sanders

pleasure. The thesis of Universalism requires us to consider the pleasure and pain of everyone alike. However, not honoring your word, or coming in late and breaking your promise or showing up to an event with an attitude may be right as far as the utilitarian theory is concerned, if it has better consequences than any other course of action. Therefore, Utilitarianism is not a theory that follows the rules, or per says the rules of thumb, like treat others as you would have them treat you, and treat others really well. There are many weaknesses but the theory of Utilitarianism is at odds with Justice and individual rights, and doesnt account for backward-looking reasons in justifying conduct. And yet Utilitarians dont want to base their assessment on false information. (Rachels, page 102) The second defense: The Principle of utility is a guide for choosing Rules, but not acts, is a theory of Utilitarianism that does not assume that when everyone lies that everyone will be evaluated by reference to the Principle of Utility. The new version of Utilitarianism modifies the theory so that individual actions arent judged by the Principle of Utility. A Utilitarian has a set of rules that probably dont have an exception, because individuals acts are judged right or wrong if they are acceptable by these rules. The new version of the theory of Utilitarianism is the RuleUtilitarianism and is distinguished from the original theory of Utilitarianism, which is non-other than Act-Utilitarianism. Now the rules dont tell us to always choose the act that promotes the most happiness in our particular circumstances; but if they are changed then there is no response to anti-utilitarianism arguments, which says that you can incriminate the innocent, to break our promises, and to violate the privacy of personal property etc.; because the concerns of Utilitarianism calculates the benefits. Therefore, the distinction between the two versions of utilitarianism means that one in which we calculate the consequences of each act and other in which consider the consequences of following the/a relevant rule. Act Utilitarianism is an action that is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone; it is a simpler theory. Rule Utilitarianism is an action that is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules; and the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone; and gives firmer grounds to the rules of morality and role obligation which are problems for all teleological theories. Lastly, in the Court case of York v. Story (1963) USCA. People have rights, which Utilitarianism dont make a notion of a personal right because it places limits on how an individual may be treated, to them the past is irrelevant. Moreover right action is said to increase the worlds supply of these things. Further, as the district court noted, while all forced observations or inspections of the naked body implicate a privacy concern, it is generally considered a greater invasion to have one's naked body viewed by a member of the opposite sex. - in Canedy v. Boardman, 1994 and 10 similar citations

4 | Page

PHL-1330-DL01-61991

Week 4: DB

Module 2. LU#3

DB: Utilitarianism

Thalia C. Sanders

E. J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis (New York: Praeger, 1976). R. B. Brandt, Toward Credible Form of Utilitarianism, in Morality and the Language of Conduct, ed. Hector-Neri Castaneda and George Nakhnikian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963), 107-43 Leonard Bruder, Jail Terms for 2 in Beech-Nut Case, New York Times, 17 June 1988, see p. 1. Business Ethics. Strayer University. Custom edition. http://www.prenhall.com/boatright. Taken from: Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Fourth Edition. John R. Boatright. 2003. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. James Rachels and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 2010. New York: McGraw-Hill.

5 | Page

PHL-1330-DL01-61991

Week 4: DB