VAL02 Module Chapter 4 Utilitarianism PDF

Preview

Summary

ETHICS SUBJECT CHAPTER 1 TO 4 AND CPCRIM01 CHAPTER 1....

Description

ETHICS: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUATION CHAPTER IV: THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY Chapter Objectives After reading the lesson, students must apply the following; 1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics; 2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models; the quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham and the qualitative model of John Stuart Mill, and 3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios.

INTRODUCTION In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two "sovereign masters" - which he calls pleasure and pain. These "masters" are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne. Nature has placed mankind under the governance 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. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other, the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while. The principle of utility

recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law. The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier. Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure. Mill supports Bentham's principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure." Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill explains: 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. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is groundednamely, 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 pleasure inherent in themselves or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures and to calculate the resultant pleasure or pain; it is in relation to these aforementioned themes that a distinction occurs between Bentham and Mill. What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory of life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance

of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not only important principles- they are in fact the only principle in assessing an action's morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private conversations in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it preferable to alleviate poverty or. eliminate criminality? Why is it noble to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and the like? There is no other answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase happiness and decrease pain. What kind of pleasure is morally preferable and valuable? Are all pleasures necessarily and ethically good? Does this mean that because eating or exercising is good, it is morally acceptable to eat and exercise excessively? While utilitarian supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while others are suffering, it cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in extravagant pleasures at the expense of others. Suppose nobody is suffering, is it morally permissible utilitarian principles to maximize pleasure by wanton intemperance? While Bentham and mill agree on the moral value of pleasure, they do not have the same view on these question. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville, London, United Kingdom. He was the son of James Mill, a friend and disciple of Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill was home-schooled. He studied Greek at the age of three and Latin at the age of eight. He wrote a history of Roman Law at age eleven, and suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty. He was married to Harriet Taylor after twentyone years of friendship. His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled Utilitarianism (1861). Mill died on May 8, 1873 in Avignon, France from erysipelas. In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure: duration or length of the experience of pleasure, certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be pleasure. These indicators allow us to measure pleasure and pain in an action. However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these actions, we need to consider two more dimensions: fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain, another

dimension is to be considered-extent.' Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly. Mill dissents from Bentham's single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. We, as moral agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs are capable of. We undermine ourselves if we only and primarily desire sensuality; this is because we are capable of higher intellectual pleasurable goods. For Mill, crude bestial pleasures, which are appropriate for animals, are degrading to us because we are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human pleasures are qualitatively different from animal pleasures. It is unfair to assume that we merely pursue pleasures appropriate for beasts even if there are instances when we choose to pursue such base pleasures. To explain this, Mill recognizes the empirical fact that there are different kinds of pleasures: It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.? Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain. We can consider. for example, our experience of excessive eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right amount of food can be pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. The same is true when exercising. If the quality of pleasure is sometimes more important than quantity, then it is important to consider the standards whereby differences of pleasures can be judged. The test that Mill suggests is simple. In deciding over two comparable pleasures, it is important to experience both and to discover which one is actually more preferred than the other. There is no other way of determining which of the two pleasures is preferable except by appealing to the actual preferences and experiences. What Mill discovers anthropologically is that actual choices of knowledgeable persons point that higher intellectual pleasures are preferable than purely sensual appetites. In defending further the comparative choice between intellectual and bestial pleasures, Mill offers an imaginative thought experiment. He asks whether a human person would prefer to accept the highly pleasurable life of an animal while at the same time being denied of everything that makes him a person. He thinks that few, if any, would give up human qualities of higher reason for the pleasures of a pig. In the most famous quote in Mill's Utilitarianism, we read It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the

fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides, While it is difficult to understand how Mill was able to compare swinish pleasures with human ones, we can presume that it would be better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Simply put, as human beings, we prefer the pleasures that are actually within our grasp. It is easy to compare extreme types of pleasures as in the case of pigs and humans, but it is difficult to compare pleasures deeply integrated in our way of life. The pleasures of an Ilonggo eating chicken inasal and an Igorot eating pinikpikan is an example. This cannot be done by simply tasting inasal or pinikpikan. In the same way, some people prefer puto to bibingka or liking for the music of Eraserheads than that of the APO Hiking Society.

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions.

Mill explains: I have dwelt on this point, as being part of a perfectly just conception of utility or happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether, and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immediately a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutations superfluous. Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made

happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others. Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies the eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as examples of utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions, Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions: He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations. But to speak only of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of the 0utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or society at large. The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights-that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations-of anyone else. Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the world's total amount of pleasure and pain. This leads us to question utilitarianism's take of moral rights. If actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority?

JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society's pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility. He explains: I have throughout, treated the idea of a right residing in the injured person, and violated by the injury, not as a separate element in the composition of the idea and sentiment, but as one of the forms in which the other two elements clothe themselves. These elements are, a hurt to some assignable person or persons on the one hand, and a demand for punishment, on the other. An examination of our minds, I think, will show that these two things include all that we mean when we speak of violation of a right. When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion. if he has what we consider a sufficient claim, on whatever account, to have something guaranteed to him by society, we say that he has a right to it. Mill expounds that the abovementioned rights referred are related to the interests that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation. Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category of rights is directly associated with the individual's most vital interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person's right to life. Mill describes: To have a right, then is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him no other reason than general utility. If that expression does not seem to convey a sufficient feeling of the strength of the obligation, nor to account for the peculiar energy of the feeling, it is because

there goes to the composition of the sentiment, not a rational only but also an animal element, the thirst for retaliation; and this thirst derives its intensity as well as its moral justification, from the extraordinarily important and impressive kind of utility which is concerned. The interest involved is that of security, to everyone's feelings the most vital of all interests. In this context, our participation in government and social interactions can be explained by the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill's consequentialism. Mill further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights. We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions: ... It is mostly considered unjust to deprive any one of his personal liberty, his property, or any other thing which belongs to him by law. Here, therefore, is one instance of the application of the terms just and unjust in a perfectly definite sense, namely, that it is just to respect, unjust to violate, the legal rights of anyone. But this judgment admits of several exceptions, arising from the other forms in which the notions of justice and injustice present themselves. For example, the person who suffers the deprivation may (as the phrase is) have forfeited the rights which he is so deprived of: a case to which we shall return presently, Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying ...