Consequentialism

Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill THIS IS BENTHAM’S REAL HEAD

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

• The Greatest Happiness Principle:

Humans only act for the sake of pleasure and to avoid pain. The good is pleasure.

• The Hedonic Calculus – calculate utility of each possible action

HEDONISM

• Both Bentham and Mill are “Hedonistic Utilitarians” • Hedonism has two versions that we must attend to: Psychological Hedonism – The claim that human action is motivated by pleasure/pain.

Ethical Hedonism – The claim that pleasure is good and pain is bad/evil.

Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus

1. Intensity (The relative strength of the sensation) 2. Duration (how long it lasts) 3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the sensation is to follow the act)

4. Propinquity

or remoteness (how immediate is the sensation)

5. Fecundity

effects) (likelihood of producing further utility 6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or is it mixed?) 7.

Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY POINT, NOT JUST YOU]

Bentham’s Moral Theory

Bentham’s Theory of Value: The good is pleasure. Each action has an objective value determined by the hedonic calculus Bentham’s Theory of Right Conduct: every agent is morally obligated to perform the action which will

maximize

pleasure overall for everyone involved.

Mill’s Utilitarianism

Mill defends and extends Bentham’s view against criticisms.

There are subtle changes which make Mill’s view superior These changes result from the attempt to answer specific objections.

•

Mill’s Moral Theory-Right Conduct

“ The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest 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 is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question.” (Mill Util, II, para 2)

Mill’s Theory of Right Conduct

•

TRC-U: actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

Mill’s Moral Theory- Value

•

“But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” (Mill, Util, II, Para 2).

Mill’s Theory of Value •

TV-U: Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends.

The Objections:

• Mill formulated his version of Utilitarianism in response to specific objections which had undercut Bentham’s version • These objections either attacked utilitarianism for denying that humans were special or by denying that it was practical.

The Doctrine of Swine Objection

1. Util. assumes that pleasure is the good (Moral Hedonism) 2. Util. assumes that we only act for the sake of pleasure (Psychological Hedonism) 3. This is how animals behave, not humans 4. Thus, Util. requires that humans be like animals (like swine).

5. Hence we should reject Util. because humans are not swine.

Types of Pleasure Reply

a) So What. If Psychological Hedonism is true then it is true.

b) Two Types of Pleasure: Higher and Lower c) Higher Pleasures are superior (the comparison proof)

Too High for Humanity Objection

1. Util. requires that we act for the sake of the greatest good.

2. This might require a human to act to their own disadvantage or death.

3. This is an unrealistic expectation, most humans are constitutionally incapable of altruism (ought implies can) 4. Therefore, Util. requires more from humans than they are capable of. 5. Therefore, Util. cannot be the correct account of human morality.

Individual Goods comprise the General Good Reply

a) The good of all is the same as the sum of all individual goods b) Individuals can always pursue their own goods c) If every individual pursues their own pleasure that is the same as pursuing the good of all.

d) [Economic Analogue?]

Lack of Time Objection

1. Util. requires that we calculate the value of every possible act and chose the best.

2. Such a calculation is beyond the ability of human beings 3. Such calculations would take a great deal of time 4. We must therefore either act without calculating or calculate in place of action – we lack time to do both.

5. Therefore, we cannot fulfill our obligations under Util.

Rule of Thumb Reply

a) Not every action requires a new calculation b) The history of humanity provides adequate evidence of general rules of utility c) Traditional morality reflects these general rules d) Obeying traditional morality yields the same basic result that would result from calculation

Mill’s Hedonic Calculus

1. Intensity (The relative strength of the sensation) 2. Duration (how long it lasts) 3. Certainty or uncertainty (How likely the sensation is to follow the act) 4. Propinquity or remoteness (how immediate is the sensation) 5. Fecundity (likelihood of producing further utility effects) 6. Purity (is the sensation of a single kind or is it mixed?) 7.

Extent (for all who are affected…) [KEY POINT, NOT JUST YOU] 8. Type (higher or lower?)

Mill’s Moral Theory

The basic gist of Mill’s moral theory is this: Human beings pursuing their own happiness (primarily intellectual happiness) will over time produce a world that contains the greatest net amount of happiness. Therefore, each person has a moral obligation to maximize their own pleasure (or at least to structure their life so as to permit the pursuit of pleasure).

General Objections to Mill’s Utilitarianism

• Immoral to Promulgate • Illegitimate Aggregation of Goods • Cannot Quantify Utility • Allows the ends to justify the means -Lives for Headaches -Innocent Spelunker -Dying Promise Case

A Complication…

•

Act-Utilitarianism:

The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined through case-by-case calculation •

Rule-Utilitarianism:

utility The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by rules that generally tend to promote overall

A Question (or two, to keep in mind)…

• If Act utilitarianism is too complicated consequentialists must be rule utilitarians. • BUT How do we determine the moral rules?

• And is there any difference between rule utilitarianism and Kantian ethics?

Is Utilitarianism Correct?

The factors in favor of consequentialism generally seem less than conclusive.

What are the other options?

-Morality based on Rules/Principles -Morality based upon Character

Principle based Moral Theories

• Objective moral theories require that something govern morality which does not depend upon individual persons or cultures. • Consequentialism assumes this must involve an objective source of value • Principle based moral theories assume that moral principles play this role.

• The most important principle based theory is due to Kant.

Kantian Ethics

• Immanual Kant • German Philosopher • Konigsberg, Prussia (Kalliningrad, Russia) • Single-handedly formalized moral philosophy

Morality and Reason

• Kant’s main insight is this: If all men are rational and morality is rooted in reason, then morality will have the same content for all and make the same demand on everyone.

Perfectly objective moral theory…

Kant’s Theory of Value

• Kant’s moral philosophy is all about conduct. But he begins his most influential moral work with these words: “The only thing that is good in itself is a good will.” The only thing we should value is the fact that a person is motivated to do what duty requires of them.

Moral Motivation

• Kant does make a controversial claim about motivation.

• Mill and Hume say that all motivation is rooted in desire (BDI model) • Kant says that some motivation is rooted in desire but some is based upon reason alone.

Kant’s Theory of Right Conduct – Part I

• In broad outline Kant claims that an act is forbidden if it is incompatible with reason and required if not doing it is incompatible with reason.

• There is no MORAL value in the consequences of an action only in the MOTIVATION behind the action.

• Consequences can yield only non-moral value.

Commands of Reason

• Kant’s main problem is how to determine the commands of reason, in particular those commands which comprise the so called moral law • There are two kinds of commands of reason: moral commands and non-moral commands.

Maxims

• • In order to see how these commands are commands of reason we need to introduce the notion of a ‘MAXIM’

A Maxim

= a subjective practical principle, a rule of rational action that you give yourself, it involves a description of your action.

Hypothetical Imperatives

• If your maxim gives a command of reason that applies to a particular person, in a particular situation, or relative to a desire, then the command is

not

a command of morality.

• Kant calls these HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES (HI) - An imperative is a command of reason - It is hypothetical because it only applies under certain conditions

Practical Reasoning

• Hypothetical Imperatives are commands of reason related to the achievement of goals that we desire or solving problems • How do I get to Memphis?

• How do I fix my Toilet?

• Why are they commands of reason: because they relate means and ends —our selection of a means is determined by the end (goal).

Categorical Imperatives

• If a command of reason applies to

all

rational agents in

all

circumstances, situations, and

without regard to desire

then the command is a moral command or reason • Kant calls commands of the moral law CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES (CI) - It is categorical because it commands all members of a group: Rational Agents

Categorical Imperatives II

• Kant offers several ways to test potential actions (maxims) to see if they agree with the Moral Law (i.e. if they express CIs) We will look at two: 1. The Universal Law Test 2. The Humanity Test

CI as Universal Law (UL)

CI UL: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be come a universal law” Applications: -The Shopkeeper - Lying Promise - Suicide

Application of UL (1)

•

Shopkeeper

[Maxim from self love I will act so as to treat people such that I can maximize my gain at their expense] Inconsistency: Will self love and gain while I also will that I be used by others

Application of UL (2)

•

Suicide

[Maxim: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction] Inconsistency: will self-love (preservation) and from self-love that you die (non preservation)

Application of UL (3)

•

Lying Promise

[ Maxim: when I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know I can never do so.] Inconsistency: I will that I commit myself and that I not be committed.

CI as Equal Regard (ER)

CI H: “Act in such a way that you treat another, always at the same time as

humanity

an end

, whether in your own person or in the person of and never

simply as a means”

- An end is a being capable of setting its own goals and making choices.

- If I treat you as a mere means, I make choices for you and substitute my goals for goals you might choose.

Application of ER (1)

•

Shopkeeper

[Maxim from self love I will act so as to treat people such that I can maximize my gain at their expense] Problem: If how I treat you varies based upon my desire, then I chose for you how you will be treated.

Application of ER (2)

•

Suicide

[Maxim: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction] Problem: If I kill myself, I deny my future self choice. I subordinate my existence to my suffering. I would not choose to die in other situations.

Application of ER (3)

•

Lying Promise

[ Maxim: when I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, although I know I can never do so.] Problem: If keeping a promise depends upon my needs then I reserve the right to determine for you whether you benefit or not from my promise.

Kant on Right Conduct II

Moral vs Legal Actions The importance of motive reveals the distinction:

Act from duty

: Moral Act

Act from desire, but in accord with duty

: Legal Act

Only

Moral acts have value!

Very hard to tell if an act is moral —motive MUST be PURE

Kant on Right Conduct III

Legal acts are still morally RIGHT, but they do not contribute to the moral worth of the world (the good will).

There are many duties: Perfect duties —specific commands Imperfect Duties – non-specific commands

Morality and Reason (2)

Why think that the commands of reason are moral commands?

Perfect Moral Agent (God) Imperfect Moral Agents (Humans) God WILL do what reason demands Humans OUGHT to do what reason demands.

Autonomy and Morality

• The essence of Kant’s moral theory can be reduced to the notion of AUTONOMY. • - Gk:

Auto

-Self,

Nomos

reason to yourself.

comes from that object.

-Law • The be autonomous is to give the (moral) law of • If you let something outside of yourself (e.g. an object of desire) command your will then the law • External law is called “Heteronomy” • The Law from within is pure, based in reason alone, thus autonomous.

John Rawls (20

th

c. Kant?)

(Dead) American Philosopher John Rawls reformulated the Kantian insight in his

A Theory of Justice

which was the theoretical basis for much of late 20 th . C. social policy in the US.

Rawls’ two principles: Maximum equal liberty (maximize liberty consistent with equal liberty for all) Difference (differences in liberty, power, authority, etc. must benefit ALL members of a society)

Comments on Kant

• Theory of Motivation is wrong • No way to be moral (pure action is impossible) • Exceptionless?

• Absolutism does not resolve conflicts • Multiple descriptions/Many Maxims for one act

Virtue Ethics

The third main objectivist moral theory focuses on the moral agent.

The aim of a virtue theory is to explain how and why we should live and structure our lives.

Virtue ethics was first made clear by Aristotle Virtue ethics is teleological but not consequentialist

Aristotle

Aristotle • Greek philosopher • Student of Plato • Trained as Natural Scientist and Physician

The Highest Good for Humanity(1)

• Virtue ethics is teleological (goal directed), but the goal is not to achieve certain consequences.

• The goal is to perfect the character of the person. Character is a state of the soul.

• A person’s character helps determine their desires and reactions, so character will help to govern action.

• A person of good character will not be disposed to do what we might call ‘evil’.

The Highest Good for Humanity(2)

• • The goal for Aristotle is the “Highest Good” 1.

2.

3.

What goal does all human activity aim at?

Wealth? (no…) Honor? (no…) Pleasure? (no…)

ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY AIMS AT HAPPINESS

4. Wisdom?

What is Happiness?

• The Greek term is:

Eudaimonia:

Eu – Good Daimonia – state of being or state of spirit.

This is not the same as ‘feeling happy’.

Happiness is more complex than a mere feeling

The Good Life for Humanity

For Aristotle Ethics was part of Politics.

The aim of politics was to determine the best form of government: A government that would allow people to live the good life The study of ethics was to determine the good life for humanity.

Happiness is the good life

To experience

Eudaimonia

is to live the good life. Aristotle’s task is to determine what the good life for human beings looks like To discover the nature of the good life Aristotle looks at the essence of a human being, the human soul

The Platonic Soul

Aristotle’s view is a reaction to Plato’s thought.

The Platonic Soul had 3 parts: 1. Appetitive – desires 2. Spirited – sensory and motivating, the will 3. Rational – thinking Human psychology was seen as a battle between the Appetites and Reason for control of the will The Just Soul for Plato is ruled by reason assisted by the spirited soul.

The Aristotelian Soul

• Aristotle’s picture of the soul also has 3 parts: 1. The Nutritive Soul -- life 2. The Appetitive Soul – desires and action 3. The Rational Soul –reason BUT only the Rational soul was essentially human.

This insight is cashed out through Aristotle’s so called

Function Argument.

The Function Argument (1)

• What is the function (

Ergon)

of Man?

• The proper human function is some activity of the human soul, which only humans can do. Therefore it is the function of the reasoning or rational part of the soul. • (Aristotle argues for this claim by elimination) 1) Plant souls are nutritive, so anything we do in common with plants is not uniquely human.

2)Animal souls are both appetitive and nutrative, so anything we do in common with animals is not uniquely human.

3)What is left is the rational soul.

The Function Argument (2)

1. The proper human function is the function of the reasoning or rational part of the soul. 2. The Human Soul expresses its rationality in two ways: (a) by having reason (understanding or thinking, intellectual activity), and (b) by obeying reason (practical problem solving, knowing how to do things).

3. Human life is either a capacity or an activity. Life is best seen as an activity, since we wouldn't call something with the capacity to live, but which doesn't actually live alive. 4. Combining (1), (2), and (3) Aristotle concludes that: The proper function of a human being is, the activity of the human soul which expresses its reason either by having it, or by obeying it. (Translation: The uniquely human thing about us is that in our activities we try to understand about the world and how to best do things).

The Function Argument (3)

1. For any thing of type F, e.g. a flute, an F (flute) and an excellent F (excellent Flute) will have the same proper function.

2.

A human being’s proper function is "the activity of the human soul which expresses its reason either by having it, or by obeying it.“ 3. The Good Life (excellent life/virtuous life) will be a life where our function is done well. 4. Doing a thing well is the same thing as doing it with its proper virtue.

5. The GOOD LIFE (Human Good), therefore, is "the activity of the human soul which expresses its reason either by having it, or by obeying it" which expresses the proper virtue(s) 6. If more than one virtue is involved, the Good will be the most complete virtue.

Comments on The Function Argument

• The difference between life and good life is the presence of something good (or excellent).

• A complete virtue is a virtue that cannot be enhanced by adding more X