Utilitarianism

• Movie Clips
PG-13 Strong Language

• Bentham and Mill

– Principle of Utility
– Rule Utilitarianism

• Case Studies and

Discussion
 Thin Red Line
• Nick Nolte…how many of your men are
you willing to risk?
 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 often 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
 Gen. Omar Bradley at St. Lo
 Churchill and the Bombing of Coventry
 “Lifeboat” dilemmas
 “Medical triage” decisions
Rules of Engagement
Your thoughts…
 Utilitarianism
The “utility” (usefulness or moral rightness) of a policy
is measured by its tendency to promote the
“good” (or to prevent harm).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) :

“The good” is simply pleasure

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) :

“The good” is happiness - a more complex notion,
achieved by living a principled and prudent life”
Bentham
Benthamand andMills
Millswere
werereformers
reformersconcerned
concernedwith
with
political
politicalreform
reformand
andfranchising
franchisingthe
thepopulace
populace
 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. . .”
 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
Bentham
Benthamtried
triedto
toprovide
provideaascientific
scientificstandard
standardthat
thatanyone
anyonecould
couldapply
apply
inindetermining right from wrong…
determining right from wrong…
…as
…as opposed to subjective, dogmatic
opposed to subjective, dogmaticor or“intuitive”
“intuitive”ideas
ideasof
ofgood.
good.
 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.
This
Thisisiswhy
whyNavy
NavyOptions
Optionsmust
musttake
takeCalculus…
Calculus…
 Early Criticisms of
Bentham’s Approach
• Hedonism – 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
Bentham’s rebuttal: Vulgar or not, nature has placed us under two
masters, pleasure and pain - there is no other standard
 Those who walk away…
• Why did they walk?
• Would you stay or
would you walk
away?
• …or would you try
and change it?
– What important values
appear to be missing
in the Utilitarian
calculus?

LeGuin
LeGuinwon
wonthe
theHugo
HugoAward
Awardfor
forBest
BestShort
ShortStory
Storyin
in1974
1974
 Modern Criticisms
• Quantification and measurability of “the good”
• Incommensurate notions of “the good”
• Ignores other, morally relevant considerations
– Human Rights
– Justice
– Distribution of “the good”
• Difficult and often inconsistent in practice to
solve for U(x) and maximize this variable
• No supererogation
– No value in performing more than required
by duty
 John Stuart Mill’s Revisions:
Utilitarianism
• Elevate the “Doctrine of the Swine” –
– Pleasures of the intellect, not the flesh
– Qualitatively better, not quantitatively

• “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

“It
“Itisisbetter
betterto
tobe
beSocrates
Socratesdissatisfied
dissatisfiedthan
thanaafool
foolor
oraapig
pigsatisfied.”
satisfied.”
 John Stuart Mill’s Revisions:
Utilitarianism (Cont)
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.”

“…not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned.”

Notions like “rights” and “justice” are merely “rules of

thumb” that represent underlying calculations of overall
utility (rule utilitarianism)

IsIsthis
thiswhat
whatMill
Millreally
reallymeant?
meant?
 The Principle of Utility
(or Principle of Greatest Happiness)
says:

“The greatest happiness of all of those

whose interest is in question, is the
right and proper, and universally
desirable, end of human action.”

The
Thegreatest
greatestgood
goodfor
forthe
thegreatest
greatestnumber
number
 The Principle of Utility and the
Nautical Almanac - Mills
“Nobody argues that the art of navigation is
not founded on astronomy because sailors
cannot wait to calculate the Nautical
Almanac.
Being rational creatures, they go to sea
with it ready calculated;”

“…and all rational creatures go out upon

the sea of life with their minds made up on
the common questions of right and wrong,
as well as on many of the far more difficult
questions of wise and foolish.
- John Stuart Mill -

…stay with me… Mill – 147

Intro - 139
 The “Moral Almanac”
• 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

• Like the Nautical Almanac, we have a

“moral almanac”:
i.e., 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

…Our
…Ourmoral
moral“rules
“rulesof
ofthumb”
thumb” Mill – 147
Intro - 139
 The Principle of Utility
and
The 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

Protect the e quals

Do no harm Don’t lie t as
Don’t S innoceneted Trea
te al Help those in n Respect
life Mill – 147
Intro - 139
 Act vs Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
• Assesses the consequences
of our actions
– Is there justification in harming
someone?
• An act is right if, and only if, it
results in as much good as any
available alternative
Rule Utilitarianism
• Assess the consequences of
following particular rules:
– Is there justification in harming
a small number of people in
order to save a larger
number?
• An act is right if, and only if, it
is required by a rule that is
itself a member of a set of
rules, whose acceptance will
lead to greater utility for
society than any other
available alternative.
 Rule Utilitarinanism
• Set of utility-maximizing rules
– Simple rules of thumb you follow unless there is a
conflict between them
– “Help those in need”
• Resolve conflict between the rules
– “Keep your promises” vs “Help those in need”
e.g., What if you see someone in an emergency on your way to a meeting?

• Remainder rule:
– Do what your best judgment deems to be the ACT that
will maximize utility
 So how do you measure
good/bad consequences?
• The principle of utility (or Principle of Greatest Happiness) says:
– “The greatest happiness of all of those whose
interest is in question, is the right and proper, and
universally desirable, end of human action.”

• Happiness can then be looked at either long term or short term, physical
pleasure or intellectual happiness

• Should allow everyone affected by the act to “get a vote”

• We already reason like this in many cases

• Act Utilitarian: The principle should be applied to particular acts in

particular circumstances
 
• Rule Utilitarian: An action is right if it conforms to a rule of conduct that
has been validated by the principle of utility
 
 Your Thoughts?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF UTILITARIANISM?
• IS IT LOGICAL? INTUITIVE?
• IS THIS A MORAL THEORY YOU CAN USE TO
MAKE DECISIONS?
– Is pleasure vs pain the right metric?
• WHAT IS UTILITARIAN REASONING BASED ON?
– CONSEQUENCES – (OUTCOMES) – TELEOLOGICAL

1. RIGHT/WRONG DETERMINED BY GOOD/BAD OUTCOME

2. PLEASURE (+) PAIN (-)
3. HUMAN FLOURISHING (+) SUFFERING (-)
 Evaluating Actions by Their
Consequences
(Examples from the trivial to the life determining)

Example: (Not a deep moral issue)

Do I eat the donut this morning?
Considerations:
– Long term – at least 500 calories = ¼ pound to my body weight
– Short term pleasure – burst of sugar in my mouth
– Will make me sleepy after about 45 min.
– I love donuts, they make me happy
– My heart condition
– Other consequences to consider?
 Little More Complex…
EXAMPLE: CALCULATING THE CONSEQUENCES

Should I stay in the Navy or Marine Corps after obligated service?

How do I decide?

One way is to look at consequences and measure happiness.

happiness
stay in navy leave navy
Job security (+1000) Need to pay for college (-500)
Get to serve country (+200) Will miss the camaraderie (-100)
Will have obligated service (-300) Will not have to deploy (+600)
Travel around world (+100)
Variety of duty (+100)
Have to leave home (-600)

Weighted
WeightedValues:
Values:Commonly
CommonlyAccepted
AcceptedDecision-Making
Decision-MakingProcess
Process
How would a Utilitarian divide P300?

Option
Option P
P
A
A B
B C
C
Mona
Mona P100
P100 P150
P150 P300
P300

Larry
Larry P100
P100 P100
P100 P0
P0

Cora
Cora P100
P100 P50
P50 P0
P0
Triage
 Medical Triage Example

1) Will die without 2) Will live- 3) Might save if

extraordinary --don’t treat they get medical
measures now attention
Is this a “fair” concept?
• How do we morally justify letting people die without
medical attention?
 Shouldn’t we be trying to save every human life?

• How would you feel if you woke up on tent #1?

• How do we morally explain to the patient in tent #1 they

will not see a doctor?
Triage – Last Look
 Live or Let Die?
You are a battlefield surgeon, and one of the wounded has
been in a coma for several days, and the doctors believe
has brain damage and are not certain he will recover.

A new group of badly wounded arrive in need of immediate

surgery. You determine that they need four different
organs to live, and there are four surgeons standing by for
your decision.
– If you take the four organs from the comatose soldier,
you can save four people. (assume surgeries will be
successful)

Questions on the Case

– What kind of argument can you make for taking his
organs?
– What kind of argument can you make for not
taking his organs, and letting the other four die?
– What is the morally right thing to do?
– What kind of moral reasoning did you use?
Closing the Hatch
Crimson Tide
Questions on Closing the Hatch…
• Would you give the order to close the hatch?
• What moral reasoning did you use?

But…
if your principle as CO is protect the lives of
your men/women, then how do you justify
giving the order to intentionally kill one of
your men?

– Will this moral reasoning work in all

situations?

– How do you deal with your moral

conscience after closing the hatch?
 The Moral Point

• What is the difference between the case

“Live and Let Die” and “Closing the
Hatch”?
– In the case of the battlefield surgeon, you
were willing to let all five die, rather than
take the life of one, and
in the Crimson Tide case, you were willing
to take the lives of 3 to save 140…

– Why?

• Is it just Math:
….saving 140 vs saving 4?
….Is that how we make decisions?

• How can we explain the different moral

answers between the two cases?
 Problems and Pitfalls
Lead in to Kantian Ethics…

• Familiar Soviet proverb: “If you want to

make an omelet, you have to break a few
eggs”
– “Do the ends justify the means?”
• Are the requirements of justice and
protections of human rights negotiable at
the “bottom line?”
– See Ford Pinto…
 Criticisms
• Tyranny of the masses
– Cannibalism makes all but one person happy
• Ability to predict the future
– Forecast the consequences or the “ends”
• Which is fairer?
– Equal opportunity or equal happiness?
• $300 split 3 ways…
– Are numbers the best metric?
• 1 life for 1? …for 2?,,,for 5?...for 100?
 Teleological Ethics…
…Consequential Principles
Utilitarian Morality:
• An act is good/bad, right/wrong, depending on the
consequences or ends produced by that act

– If the consequences are good, the act is good.

– If the consequences are bad, the act is bad.

• Utilitarianism:
– Judges the act, not the person
– Does not consider intentions or motive
– So, good intentions could produce a “bad” act
– And “bad” people (with bad intentions) can produce a good act

So
Somuch
muchfor
forgood
goodintent!
intent!
 More Thoughts…
• Isn’t the military the
ultimate Utilitarian?
– We are willing to sacrifice
soldiers to achieve our
desired end state?

• Don’t Utilitarians use some

Kantian ethics? …They
have good intent!
Haqlaniyah, Al Anbar, Iraq (Dec. 19, 2006) - Marines assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd
Marines (2/3) amuse Iraqi children while on patrol through the city of Haqlaniyah,
during Maritime Security Operations (MSO) to develop the Iraqi Security Forces.

• Patriot Act?

• Value of the individual

– Equal claim to triage
treatment?