Utilitarianism
Objectives from reading:
• EMP (24 pages)
– Moral Reasoning in Western Culture (Lucas),
pp. 115-117; Utilitarianism and the Greatest
Good (Lucas), pp. 119-121; Utilitarianism
(Mill), pp. 123-131; Utilitarianism, (Pojman),
pp. 133-137; The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas (LeGuin), pp. 139-142.
• CSME (5 pages)
– Leave No One Behind (Rubel), pp. 3-5;
– Hiroshima: The First Use of Nuclear
Weapons (Valaquez and Rostenkowski) pp.
75-76.
Comprehend the moral basis and
standard of Utilitarianism
• What is Utilitarianism?
• What is the difference between
Mill & Bentham’s concept of
utilitarianism?
• Difference between “rule” &
“act” utilitarianism
• What are the strengths &
weaknesses of utilitarianism as a
moral theory?
• Understand the “Principle of
Utility.”
Those Who Walk Away From Omelas
Why do some people walk away?
What is the author saying about
utilitarianism?
How many of your troops
are you willing to risk?
 The Range of Ethics
Duty Ethics
Absence of Relativism Consequentialism
Deontological
Virtue
Teleological Ethics
Ethics
Normative Utilitarianism Kantian – Duty Aristotle
The Relativism
Criminal Truth Honor
Descriptive Most Pleasure
“I KILLED HIM Relativism Justice Character
AND I DON’T
CARE” Individual Greater Net Rights Habituation
Relativism Happiness
Divine Law Stoicism
The Accepted Based On :
Delinquent Practices Consequences Natural Law
Outcomes
“I DON’T CARE
ABOUT THAT”

“CATCH ME IF Rule Based Moral Theories

YOU CAN.” Character
Based
 What do Moral “Theories” Offer?

• We don’t require moral theories to tell us that lying and homicide

are wrong, and helping those in need is a good thing to do.

• Moral theories
– explain WHY these things are right and wrong, and
– give me REASONS for believing them so

• Moral theories also

– help illuminate “grey areas,”
– clarify difficult problems, or
– resolve conflicts that arise
 What are the Characteristics of a Good
Moral Theory?
• Clear and unequivocal:
– tell us what actions are right (or wrong) and WHY
• Reliable:
– Offers straightforward answers in a wide variety of situations & able to resolve
conflicts when they arise
• Comprehensive:
– Covers not only individual actions, but social and political practices, institutions,
and policies
• Psychologically realistic:
– Doesn’t depend on false assumptions about what people are like
• Yields predictable results in familiar situations
• Is not wildly at odds with our habits, intuitions, and customary
responses to ordinary problems
 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

 “Lifeboat” dilemmas
 “Medical triage” decisions

Isn’t the military a decidedly “Utilitarian” organization?

Is this good or bad???
 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 and Mills were reformers concerned with
political reform and franchising the 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. . .”
 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 is why Navy Options must take 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 won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 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 value in performing more than required by duty

Because the “good” hinges on the happiness of the

majority, utilitarianism is often associated with
democracy. 
On further contemplation, however, might it just as easily
be associated with Hitler’s Germany?
 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 is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool or a pig 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)

Is this what
Mill
really 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 greatest good for the greatest number

 The Principle of Utility

“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.
Pojman – 151-152
 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
 
 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
– Am I a SWO?
– Other consequences to consider?
 A Little More Complex…

EXAMPLE: CALCULATING THE CONSEQUENCES

Should I stay in the Navy 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 Values: Commonly Accepted Decision-Making Process
 How would a Utilitarian divide the $$?

Option$
A B C
Person A $100 $33.33 $80

Person B $0 $33.33 $40

Person C $0 $33.33 $0
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

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 C.O. 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?
 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?
 Hiroshima

• GROUP A: Use Utilitarian Reasoning to

argue for dropping the bomb

• GROUP B: Use any reasoning to argue

against dropping the bomb

• Which choice brings about the “greatest

happiness?”

• Is “happiness” always the critical point?

• Who decides…What if the US lost the war?
• Is victory = tyranny of the masses?
 Leave No One Behind

• 2 Options
– Send the second helo
– Don’t risk another rescue

• What is right?
• How did you decide?
 Reading & Homework for Next Class
Intro to Military Justice

• Naval Law, 3rd Edition

– Chapter 1: Background of Military Justice -16 Pages
– Chapter 2: Fundamentals of Military Justice- 5 Pages
Objectives from reading & homework:

jag.navy.mil Comprehend the purpose, scope and constitutional

basis of US Navy Regulations & the UCMJ and relate
– UCMJ these regulations to personal conduct in the military
service.
– Manual for Courts Martial
 Comprehend JO roles/responsibilities relative to the
(MCM 2000) military justice system and be aware of the essential
publications relating to military justice.
– JAG Manual
Know how discipline and punishment differ.
– US Navy Regulations
 Know the correct requirements for using Extra
Military Instruction (EMI).

Be aware of administrative methods used to maintain

good discipline.