Utilitarian

Type of ethical theories
• It is customary to divide ethical theories
into two groups usually called –

1.Teleological – Utilitarianism
2.Deontological – Immanuel Kant

Type of ethical theories
• A third kind of ethical theory is one based
on the concept of virtue
• Aristotle’s ethics is the best example of
theory of this kind

Teleological Theories
• The word "teleology" is derived from the
Greek word "telos" that means "ends.“
• In this theory, you would consider the ends,
or the outcomes of your decision
• One of the most common branches of this
theory is utilitarianism

Teleological Theories
• Teleological theories hold that the rightness
of actions is determined solely by the
amount of good consequences they
produce.
• Actions are justified on teleological theories
by virtue of end they achieve ,rather than
some features of the actions themselves.

• This theory can be utilized in decision-
making by first identifying what the
dilemma entails and several alternative
choices to solve it.
• Next you would predict what consequences
would be associated with each alternative.

• You would then choose the solution that
you believe would bring about the best
possible consequence for the situation.
• Remember, in this theory "the means
justify the ends."

Deontological Theory (Duty)
• The word "deonto" means "duty" in Greek.
• A person using a deontological theory
would consider the basic duties and rights
of individuals or groups and act in
accordance with those guidelines
• You would make a decision based on what
you consider your moral obligations or
duties.

• Your action will be guided by a set of moral
principles or rules.

Deontological Theories
• Deontologists typically hold that certain
actions are right not because of some
benefit to ourselves or others but because of
the nature of these actions or rules from
which they follow.
• Thus bribery is wrong ,some say by its very
nature ,regardless of the consequence.

KANTIAN VS. UTILITARIAN
• UTILITARIANISM
• Greatest Happiness Principle
• The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon
the consequences. (the END Justifies the MEANS)

• KANTIAN ETHICS
• Supreme Principle of Morality
• The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon
universal laws of action (the END never Justifies the
MEANS)
• It is all about DUTY

Virtue ethics
• In virtue ethics the judgment or the
character of the person is considered the
most basic guide to decision-making
• The person makes moral decisions based
upon which actions would make one a good
person.

• Virtue-based ethical theories place much
less emphasis on which rules people should
follow and instead focus on helping people
develop good character traits, such as
kindness and generosity.
• These character traits will, in turn, allow a
person to make the correct decisions later
on in life.

The creators of classical utilitarianism were

Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill
(1748-1832) (1806-1873)

Jeremy Bentham
1748-1832

• Bentham believed that we should try
to increase the overall amount of
pleasure in the world.

The principle of utility
• The principle requires that consequences be
measured in some way so that the pleasure
and pain of different individuals can be
added together and the results of different
courses of action compared .
• Bentham assumed that a precise quantitative
measurement of pleasure and pain was
possible, and he outlined a procedure that he
called hedonistic calculus (hedonistic =
pleasure)

• The procedure is to begin with any one
individual whose interest is affected :

• Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on
the one side , and those of all the pains on the
other . The balance ,if it be on the side of
pleasure ,will give good tendency of the act
upon the whole, with respect to the interest of
that individual person ; if on the side of
pain ,the bad tendency of it on the whole.

• If this process is repeated for all other
individuals whose interest are effected ,
the resulting sum will show the good or
bad tendency of an action for the whole
community

A good example of utilitarianism is:

• Say there is a train coming toward a group of 5
people tied to the tracks and you're standing by
the lever to make the train go onto a different path
that is heading towards yourself. A utilitarian
would pull the lever to make the train head in
his/her direction. Killing one person creates a
greater amount of good than killing 5 people

Utilitarianism
The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral
decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good
to the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism is a based on maximising
utility or happiness.

A good act increases A bad act increases suffering or
reduces happiness.
happiness or reduces
pain.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical
system, which means it is concerned with
consequences.

Bentham theory is open to some rather obvious
objections

• The thesis of hedonism (pleasure) : critics at
the time complained that pleasure is too low to
constitute the good for human beings and
pointed out that even pigs are capable of
pleasure , which lead to the charge that
utilitarianism is “pig philosophy” fit only for
swine.

Mill’s Version
He attempted to develop a more
defensible version.

John Stuart Mill
1806-1873
• Greatest happiness principle , holds
that the actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness ,
wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness
• Believed that happiness, not pleasure,
should be the standard of utility.

• Mill claimed , by holding that the human
beings are capable of enjoying higher
pleasures than those experienced by
swine.

• Because human beings, but not pigs , can
enjoy the arts and intellectual pursuits .

Utilitarianism
• Utilitarian theory hold that the rightness of
actions is determined solely by the amount of
consequences they produce.

•Our obligation , or duty , in any situation is to
perform the action that will result in the greatest
possible balance of good over evil.

Utilitarianism
•The right thing to do, in any situation, is
whatever would produce the best overall
outcome for all those who will be affected by
your action.

•An action is right if and only if produces the
greatest balance of pleasure over pain for
everyone

The morality of an action is determined
solely through an assessment of its
consequences and nothing else…

The morally right action, the one we
ought to perform, is the one that
produces the greatest overall positive
consequences for everyone.

Cost and Benefit

• Really utilitarianism is asking us to do a
cost/benefit (or suffering/happiness)
calculation for every decision we make.

For any given action, we must calculate:
– How many people will be affected, negatively
(dolors) as well as positively (hedons)

– How intensely they will be affected

– Similar calculations for all available
alternatives

– Choose the action that produces the greatest
overall amount of utility (hedons minus dolors)

Utilitarianism
“The greatest happiness for the
greatest number”
1. The right thing to do is whatever would
have the best overall consequences.
2. Which consequences matter? What’s
important is human welfare—we want
people to be as well-off as possible.
3. Each person’s welfare is equally
important.

Utilitarian principle
1. Consequentialism : The principle holds
that the rightness of actions is determined
solely by their consequences .
2. Hedonism : Hedonism is a the thesis that
pleasure and pleasure is ultimately good .

3. Maximalism : the right action is one
that has not merely some good
consequences but the greatest amount of
good consequences

4. Universalism : The consequences to be
considered are those of everyone.

Discussion points

How do you think a utilitarian
would respond in the following
situations and why?

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making
ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth
£15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the
government that the dealership donated a van worth
£30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an
opportunity to make the children happy.

Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled
with people waiting to be rescued; there are five
people on one rock and four on the other. Assume that
you cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only
one able to rescue either group.

Which group would a utilitarian rescue?

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is
very contagious and has no known cure. The health board
have locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the
rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread
very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected
people are released. The police have been called in to kill the
30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

Would a utilitarian agree with this action?

Discussion points

Now think again…

You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends
meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth £15,000 for
free if you will falsely report to the government that the
dealership donated a van worth £30,000. You really need the van
and it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy.

A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities found
out the truth about what had happened. They removed the van
from the orphanage and sacked you because of the fraud. The
orphanage was unable to find a replacement and has had to be
closed down as a result.

You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled with
people waiting to be rescued; there are five people on one rock
and four on the other. Assume that you cannot rescue both
groups and that you are the only one able to rescue either group.

After you have rescued the group of five they begin to fight with
each other about whose fault it was that they ended up stuck on a
rock. As they argue it becomes clear that you have rescued a
group of criminals who had been trying to steal a yacht from a
family on holiday when it hit a rock and sunk. The group of four
you didn’t save were that family.

30 people have been infected with a deadly disease which is
very contagious and has no known cure. The health board
have locked them in a room to keep them isolated from the
rest of the community as they believe the disease will spread
very quickly and kill large numbers of people if the infected
people are released. The police have been called in to kill the
30 people and eradicate the risk of danger.

The day after the 30 people had been wiped out to protect
others a cure is found for the disease.

Is morality really as simple as
utilitarianism makes out?
• Can we be held responsible for consequences we cannot always predict
and that may be as a result of other people?
• Can we really be expected to put aside our personal interests to always do
what is best for the greatest number of people?
• Are intentions not as important as consequences when making moral
decisions?
• Do utilitarians not leave moral decisions up to luck because we have to
decide how to act and then wait to see what the consequences are to know
if we have behaved in a morally correct manner or not?
• Who decides what is right and wrong for the greatest number of people?

Act and Rule Utilitarianism
• Act utilitarianism
– An action is right if and only if it produces the
greatest balance of pleasure over pain for every
one
• Rule utilitarianism
– An action is right if and only if conforms to a
set of rules the general acceptance of which
would produce the greatest balance of pleasure
over pain for every one

Act utilitarianism

This is based on the consequences of actions. If an
action will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people then it is the correct moral action
according to utilitarianism.

For example, if 20 people were held hostage by four
criminals, it would be correct for the police to kill the
four criminals to save the 20 people. In other words, the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Rule utilitarianism

Many rules are made to ensure the greatest good for the
greatest number, therefore following these rules is the
right moral choice.

For example, everyone obeys road traffic rules, like
stopping at red lights, which makes the roads safer for
everyone.

• Imagine the following scenario.

A prominent and much-loved leader has been rushed to the
hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He
needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive.
No suitable donors are available, but there is a homeless
person in the emergency room who is being kept alive on
a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and
who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader
will die; the homeless person will die in a few days
anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled.
The transplant team could hasten the death of the
homeless person and carry out the transplant without the
public ever knowing that they killed the homeless person
for his organs. What should they do?

• For rule utilitarians, this is an easy
choice. No one could approve a
general rule that lets hospitals kill
patients for their organs when they are
going to die anyway. The
consequences of adopting such a
general rule would be highly negative
and would certainly undermine public
trust in the medical establishment

• For act utilitarians, the situation is
more complex. If secrecy were
guaranteed, the overall consequences
might be such that in this particular
instance greater utility is produced by
hastening the death of the homeless
person and using his organs for the
transplant.

• In classical Utilitarianism an action is
judged by the virtue of consequences of
performing that action. As result , telling lie
or breaking a promise is right if it has better
consequence than any alternative course of
action.

• Utilitarian morality thus seems to place no
value on observing rules such as “Tell the
truth” or “Keep your promise”

• An act is right if and only if it conforms
with a learnable set of rules, the adoption of
which by everyone would
maximize utility
• To make this a little clearer, a person might
say:
There are certain ‘easy-to-grasp’ rules of
action that, if everyone follows them, will
make for the greatest ‘balance of
pleasure/happiness over pain’ (utility).

Of course, in certain cases it may easily be
seen that breaking the rule leads to greater
utility, but even here the act must surrender
to the rule. This is because it is better (i.e. it
increases utility) if everyone keeps the rule
rather than if everyone considers it
breakable in certain situations.

Concluding Assessment
• Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy
decisions, as long as a strong notion of
fundamental human rights guarantees that it
will not violate rights of small minorities.

Basic Insights of Utilitarianism
• The purpose of morality is to make the
world a better place.
• Morality is about producing good
consequences, not having good intentions
• We should do whatever will bring the most
benefit (i.e., intrinsic value) to all of
humanity.

The Purpose of Morality
• The utilitarian has a very simple answer to
the question of why morality exists at all:
– The purpose of morality is to guide people’s
actions in such a way as to produce a better
world.
• Consequently, the emphasis in
utilitarianism is on consequences, not
intentions.

Fundamental Imperative
• The fundamental imperative of
utilitarianism is:
Always act in the way that will produce the
greatest overall amount of good in the world.
– The emphasis is clearly on consequences, not
intentions.

The Dream of Utilitarianism:
Bringing Scientific Certainty to Ethics
• Utilitarianism offers us a powerful vision of the
moral life, one that promises to reduce or
eliminate moral disagreement.
– If we can agree that the purpose of morality is to make
the world a better place; and
– If we can scientifically assess various possible courses
of action to determine which will have the greatest
positive effect on the world; then
– We can provide a scientific answer to the question of
what we ought to do.

Section Two.

Standards of Utility:
A History of
Utilitarianism

Happiness
• Advantages • Disadvantages
– A higher standard, – More difficult to
more specific to measure
humans – Competing
– About realization of conceptions of
goals happiness

Section Three.

The Utilitarian Calculus

The Utilitarian Calculus
• Math and ethics
finally merge: all
consequences must be
measured and
weighed.
• Units of measurement:
– Hedons: positive
– Dolors: negative

Hedon is a term that utilitarians use to designate a unit of pleasure. Its opposite is a dolor, which is a unit of pain or
displeasure. The term "hedon" comes from the Greek word for pleasure.

What do we calculate?
• Hedons/dolors may be defined in terms of
– Pleasure
– Happiness
– Ideals
– Preferences
• For any given action, we must calculate:
– How many people will be affected, negatively (dolors) as well as
positively (hedons)
– How intensely they will be affected
– Similar calculations for all available alternatives
– Choose the action that produces the greatest overall amount of
utility (hedons minus dolors)

Example:
Debating the school lunch program
Utilitarians would have to calculate:
– Benefits
• Increased nutrition for x number of children
• Increased performance, greater long-range chances of success
• Incidental benefits to contractors, etc.
– Costs
• Cost to each taxpayer
• Contrast with other programs that could have been funded and
with lower taxes (no program)
– Multiply each factor by
• Number of individuals affected
• Intensity of effects

How much can we quantify?
• Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify
than happiness or ideals
• Two distinct issues:
– Can everything be quantified?
• Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life
(love, family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things
(productivity, material goods) may get emphasized precisely because
they are quantifiable.
• The danger: if it can’t be counted, it doesn’t count.
– Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?
• Are a fine dinner and a good night’s sleep commensurable? Can one
be traded or substituted for the other?

How much can we quantify?
• Pleasure and preference satisfaction are easier to quantify than
happiness or ideals
• Two distinct issues:
– Can everything be quantified?
• Some would maintain that some of the most important things in life (love,
family, etc.) cannot easily be quantified, while other things (productivity,
material goods) may get emphasized precisely because they are quantifiable.
• The danger: if it can’t be counted, it doesn’t count.
– Are quantified goods necessarily commensurable?
• Are a fine dinner and a good night’s sleep commensurable? Can one be
traded or substituted for the other?

66

Concluding Assessment
• Utilitarianism suffers from more problems.
But it remains a strong ethical theory
because in principle at least one can simply
calculate the right thing to do. One is given
a clear guide to action.
• Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy
decisions, as long as a strong notion of
fundamental human rights guarantees that it
will not violate rights of small minorities.

• Let us imagine you are a doctor driving to a patient, a young mother who is about to give birth. It
looks like she will need a caesarian section. It is late at night and you come across a car accident on
the country road you are travelling on. Two cars are involved in the accident and both drivers are
unconscious and have visible injuries. One of the men is the father of the child you are going to
deliver, and the other man is very old. You do not know the extent of their injuries but in your
opinion, without immediate medical help, one or both may die. You as a Utilitarian are now faced
with one of three possible solutions:
• You help the young mother who's about to give birth.
• You help the young woman's husband.
• You help the old man.

• The outcome of felicific calculus would suggest:
• Attending to the mother first is your primary concern as the doctor. The death of both mother and
child is almost a certainty if you do not act now, whereas the death of the men is uncertain.
Furthermore, the pain of the mother is clearly greater than that of the men at this time. There is a
greater richness and purity in saving the life of a young child who has, in all probability, a long
happy life ahead. Meanwhile the extent and duration of the utility created by these two people is a
clear likelihood.
• Attending to the young husband is the next priority. The pleasures of a new family—its intensity,
duration, extent, richness, and purity—are all clear probabilities. If, as the doctor, you attend him
first his wife and child would in all probability die. The man would then experience pain. The pain
experienced by the widowed husband is likely to outstrip any pleasure to be gained from continued
life without his loved ones.
• Attending to the old man is the last priority. The duration and certainty of his future pleasure are
questionable owing to his age—he has all but lived his life. This is sometimes known as the 'good
innings' argument, according to which the older you are the less claim you have to life.[citation
needed]

• Certainly, the doctor should not be limited
to the three choices, though the whole
purpose of the exercise rests on it being a
closed universe. To maximize the felicific
calculus, he should try to secure external
help by calling another doctor to help the
mother, and by asking people nearby and
the emergency services to deal with the
accident

• Act utilitarianism states that, when faced
with a choice, we must first consider the
likely consequences of potential actions
and, from that, choose to do what we
believe will generate most pleasure. The
rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by
looking at potential rules of action. To
determine whether a rule should be
followed, he looks at what would happen if
it were constantly followed.

• If adherence to the rule produces more
happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that
morally must be followed at all times. The
distinction between act and rule
utilitarianism is therefore based on a
difference about the proper object of
consequentialist calculation — specific to a
case or generalized to rules

• Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for
advocating general rules that will in some
specific circumstances clearly decrease
happiness if followed. Never to kill another
human being may seem to be a good rule,
but it could make self-defense against
malevolent aggressors very difficult

• Rule utilitarians add, however, that there
are general exception rules that allow the
breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking
increases happiness, one example being
self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces
rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and
makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians
retort that rules in the legal system (i.e.
laws) that regulate such situations are not
meaningless. Self-defense is legally
justified, while murder is not.

Pleasure
• Advantages • Criticisms
– Easy to quantify – Came to be known
– Short duration as “the pig’s
philosophy”
– Bodily
– Ignores higher
values
– Could justify living
on a pleasure
machine

Lockheed in Japan
• Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was in very
precarious financial situation .
• It had failed to get contracts with several
European carriers.
• Lockheed had avoided bankruptcy in 1971.
• The survival of Lockheed was riding on the effort
to sell the new L-1011 TriStar passenger jet to All
Nippon Airways Japan .

• Carl Kotchian ,President of Lockheed
visited Japan to sell the aircrafts.
• Shortly after landing in Tokyo , Kotchian
met a representative of Marubeni
corporation a trading company engaged to
arrange a meeting with Kakuei Tanaka , the
prime minister of Japan.
• The representative of Marubeni , Okubo ,
informed Kotichian that a pledge of five
hundred million yen would be required to
set up such a meeting.

• Kotichian was hesitant about making an
irregular payment of this size to the highest
official in Japanese Government.
• But he agreed to pledge the amount requested
and the meeting was held with the PM .
• After a complex negotiations ,executives of
ANA were on the verge of placing an order
for six planes with an option to buy 8 more.

• Carl Kotichian received a telephone call
from Okubo informing him that the sale
was assured if he would do three things.
• Two of them were minor , but the third was
a bombshell.
• Kotichian was asked to have $ 400,000 in
Japanese yen ready the next morning. Of
this amount $ 300,000 was to be paid to the
president of ANA .
• The figure was based on $ 50,000 for each
of six planes ordered.

• The remaining $ 100,000 was to be divided
among six Japanese politicains .
• Kotichian protested but eventually the
amount was paid.
• Kotichlian returned to company’s
headquarters in California amid general
celebrations and apperently forgot about
the pledge of five hundred million yen for
prime minister Tanaka .

• Marubeni reprenstative Mr Okubuo
informed that if he did not honor the pledge
Lockheed never be able to do business in
Japan again .
• And he hinted darkly that the president of
Marubeni , who had made the offer to
Tanaka ,would have to leave the country.
•

Strengths of teleological theory
• They are in accord with much of our
ordinary moral reasoning .

• Teleological theories provide a relatively
precise and objective method for moral
decision making.

An Example
• Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved leader has
been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by an assassin’s bullet. He
needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to survive. No suitable donors
are available, but there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is
being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live,
and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the leader will die; the
homeless person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the hospital is
very well controlled. The transplant team could hasten the death of the
homeless person and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing
that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should they do?
– For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a
general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when they are
going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a general rule
would be highly negative and would certainly undermine public trust in
the medical establishment.
– For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were
guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this particular
instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death of the
homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

Utilitarian

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Utilitarian (20)

Utilitarian

Editor's Notes