UTILITARIANISM /
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Rels 300 / Nurs 330
10 September 2015
Group #1
Burns, Laura
Stevenson, Mason
Fraser, Kayla
MacDonald, Mary
Hingston, Olivia
Group #2
Smith, Shannalee
Gougeon, Felipe
MacDougall, Abbey
Allen, Jasmine
Gillis, Carly
Johnson, Christeen
Group #3
Thompson, Mary
Livingstone, Annie
Maciel, Analiese
Smith, Jennifer
Berry, Rachel
Gillis, Erin
Group #4
Mattie, Joni
Visentin, Christina
Bond, Shya
McLellan, Bailey
Briere, Tess
Gillis, Heather
Group #5
Piché, Angela
Baisley, Ashley
Burke, Carrie
Murphy, Jillian
Corcoran, Courtney
Gillis, Kenzie
Group #6
Schofield, Katelyn
Bernas, Alex
Myers, Jamie
Denaro, Chelsea
Croft, Lauren
Smith, Maggie
Group #7
Taylor, Emma
Carroll, Kathleen
Poirier, Baillie
Festeryga, Deirdre
DeCoste, Victoria
Hughes, Tanner
Group #8
Williams, Kailyn
Clarke, Lauren
Redden, Julie
Mombourquette, S
Douglas, Patti
Hum, Katherine
MORAL THEORY
Group #10
Downing, Allison
Sibley, Nicole
MacDonald, Brittany
Roach, Christian
Eisan, Brianna
Group #9
Davis, Savannah
Savary, Murphy
Cunningham, Cassy
MacAulay, Alyssa
Downey, Erica
UNIT 1 GROUPS
9 to 30 September
300/330 appleby
Sharing in Groups
What was the most
important thing you did this
past summer?
Share something about
yourself that few classmates would know about
you.
What do you want to be
doing five years from now?
What is one goal you have
for this year?
3
300/330 appleby
QUIZ #1
UTILITARIANISM / CONSEQUENTIALISM
10 September 2015
4
300/330 appleby
5
Consequentialism
(aka, utilitarianism)
Decide what action to take on the basis of what the
results or consequences of the action will be.
List the good consequences, then the bad
consequences of each possible action;
then choose the one with the most good
consequences.
Best consequences for me = ETHICAL EGOISM
Best consequences for others = ETHICAL ALTRUISM
Best consequences for all involved = UTILITARIANISM
300/330 appleby
6
UTILITARIANISM (aka consequentialism)
An act is moral if it brings more good
consequences than bad ones.
Utilitarianism is concerned with goals, purposes,
ends, results and consequences
goals or ends evaluated are pleasure or overall
happiness,
and pain or overall unhappiness
300/330 appleby
7
Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832)
English philosopher concerned
with social reform
• proposed utilitarian calculus of pleasures for
evaluating proposals for social reform
• what social reforms would truly benefit the
largest number of people in society [and not
just the wealthy or privileged]?
• Right actions = more pleasure than pain
• Wrong actions = more pain than pleasure
300/330 appleby
8
Bentham’s
“radical egalitarianism”
• Calculate the sum of all of the values and potential
pleasure for a potential action, taking into consideration all
people affected
• Calculate the sum of pain and pleasure for an alternative
potential action, taking into consideration all people
affected
• Bentham called this the Hedonic Calculus
“We are to do the thing that will provide the greatest
amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain to
the greatest number of people” (p.6)
300/330 appleby
9
• All pleasures count equally
“Hockey is as good as opera” (p.6)
• Everyone counts equally; no person gets
preferential consideration
The Prime Minister’s pleasure is no more
important than the poorest citizen’s
• All pains must be recognized and considered
Every being with a capacity for suffering must be
included in the calculation.
• Possibly including animals in the calculus
300/330 appleby
10
Criticisms levelled against
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
1. Some pleasures should count for more than
others.
2. The pleasures and privations of some should
count for more than others.
3. Why should pleasure be the primary value?
Does pleasure have intrinsic value that
outweighs values such as love or justice?
4. How can pleasures and pains be calculated in
a manner that can be accurately weighed?
300/330 appleby
11
John Stuart Mill
(1803-1873)
Proposed calculation of
utility based on happiness
rather than pleasure:
 Happiness = pleasure +
absence of pain
 Unhappiness = pain +
absence of pleasure
Happiness has intrinsic
value; other values
promote or undermine
happiness
+ not all goods are equal
 some are qualitatively
more significant or
preferable
 e.g., intellectual &
aesthetic pleasures are
more valuable than the
pleasures of bodily needs
and desires
300/330 appleby
12
Greatest Happiness Principle
Mill says happiness = the supreme principle of
morality
• Morally right actions promote happiness
• Morally wrong actions lead to unhappiness (or pain,
or privation of pleasure)
 The happiness of all people is to be considered equally
 Mill is still concerned to promote the greatest good for
the greatest number of people
 No persons are more important than others; no special
relationships of love or obligation influence the
calculation
300/330 appleby
13
“Do as you would be done by … love
your neighbour as yourself.”
“The happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of
what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s [or
individual’s] own happiness, but … the happiness of
every individual, as nearly as possible in harmony with
the interest [or good] of the whole.”
The goal of an agent’s good [or right] conduct or moral
behaviour is measured by the well-being [or good] of
the whole, not just you as an individual.
• Not just a self-centred analysis or goal
300/330 appleby
14
“The Subjection Of Women” (1869)
Mill was concerned with both social arrangements and legal
status:
• He wrote that the legal subordination of women to men is
wrong; the patriarchal family structure in which women are
subordinate to their husbands is “patently unjust”
• women are unjustly restricted in their development and
spheres of action; men may become “brutal” in their
behaviour toward their wives and children
• There is NO “natural order” of dominance
• Women are fully capable of equality with men
Mill similarly argued against slavery which was still promoted by
some
300/330 appleby
15
Criticisms leveled against
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Difficult to assess qualitative values of happiness
2. What is the standard by which pleasures are
measured?
•
By what standard would pizza, beer & hockey be
measured as less valuable than a gourmet meal,
wine and Shakespeare? (p.8)
3. Who determines what counts as “higher” and “lower”
pleasures?
4. Is it likely that everyone would agree on these
matters?
1.
300/330 appleby
16
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24032031
BBC News
WALES
10 September 2013
Organ donation: Presumed consent to start
in December 2015
People in Wales will be presumed to have agreed
for their organs to be donated after death from
December 2015.
17
300/330 appleby
An act is moral if it brings more good
consequences than bad ones.
What is the action to be
evaluated?
What would be the good
consequences?
How certain are the good
consequences?
What would be the bad
consequences?
How likely is it that they would occur?
How extensive are the bad
consequences?
Are there alternatives?
Right actions =
more pleasure
than pain
Wrong actions =
more pain than
pleasure
The happiness of
all people is to be
considered
equally
300/330 appleby
18
Sub-categories:
1. ACT UTILITARIANISM
A person ought to act so as to produce the greatest
balance of good over evil, everyone considered.
For each action:
• weigh the interests of all involved with no preferences:
• interests of oneself and others – strangers and loved
ones alike and equal
• no particular obligations, e.g. of parents to children
• net balance of good over evil = utility
• Consistent with the Golden Rule – treat others as you
would have them treat you
• No action is inherently good or evil (apart from its
consequences)
300/330 appleby
19
Sub-categories:
2. RULE UTILITARIANISM
A person ought to act according to the RULE that, if
generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of
good over evil, everyone considered.
 Which rules maximize utility, not just in this one instance,
but in all similar situations and cases where a decision
must be made?
 Right actions satisfy moral rules
300/330 appleby
Utilitarianism checklist:
What is the action to be evaluated?
No action is intrinsically right or wrong
What would be the good consequences?
How certain are the good consequences?
What would be the bad consequences?
How likely is it that they would occur?
How extensive are the bad consequences?
 Are there alternative possible actions?
Perform same calculation for these actions
20
300/330 appleby
21
Make a decision:
What action will minimize harm and maximize
benefit for the greatest number of people?
300/330 appleby
22
Limitations & Strengths
Limitations
1. How do you determine the right action when 2 or more
consequences have no commonalities or standard for
comparison, e.g., health or education, freedom or
security
2. It is always impossible to foresee ALL of the possible
consequences
3. If happiness is the only intrinsic value, then values such
as justice, dignity & rights have value only as
foundations for happiness
300/330 appleby
23
Limitations & Strengths
Strengths
1. Consequences ARE important in making choices
2. Preferential concern or personal obligations can mask
the well-being of others; sometimes difficult allocation
decisions must be made
3. Non-human (or “sub-human”) well-being may indeed be
a component of happiness
300/330 appleby
24
August 26, 2012
BERLIN -- A German court has ruled that circumcising
young boys on religious grounds amounts to bodily harm
even if parents consent to the procedure.
Cologne state court said the child's right to physical
integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents' rights…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/german-courtcircumcision_n_1628405.html
300/330 appleby
25
The president of Germany's Central Council of Jews, Dieter
Graumann, called the ruling "unprecedented and
insensitive," urging the country's parliament to clarify the
legal situation "to protect religious freedom against
attacks.“
• Graumann said the circumcision of newborn Jews has
been practiced for thousands of years and "every country
in the world respects this religious right."
Muslims also circumcise young boys, while many parents
request it on health grounds.
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/german-court-circumcision_n_1628405.html
300/330 appleby
26
Perform a utilitarian calculation for
infant male circumcision
• Potential good
consequences or benefits
• Potential bad
consequences, risks or
harms
• How certain are the
potential good or bad
consequences?
• How important, serious or
extensive are the potential
good or bad
consequences?
• Who will reap the
potential good benefits?
• Who will suffer the
potential bad
consequences?
• Are there alternative
actions that should be
considered?
300/330 appleby
27
Make your decision
Should infant males be routinely circumcised?
• Which policy will be likely to minimize harm and maximize
benefit for the greatest number of people?
300/330 appleby
28
According to Utilitarianism:
• There is no “inherently right” answer to the question of
circumcision outside of particular situations and contexts
The right thing to do may differ
• in different circumstances
• for different people
• at different times and locations
300/330 appleby
29
• No answer or action is “inherently right”
• What does “inherently” mean in this case?
• In and of itself, the action of surgically removing a fold of skin at the
tip of the penis is neither an ethical action nor an unethical action
• No person has a universal DUTY to be circumcised or to perform
circumcisions