Lesson Objectives:

1. To know the definition of  Utilitarianism
2. To understand Jeremy Bentham's view of utilitarianism
3. To understand Kant's view of utilitarianism and his categorical imperative
4. To understand the appeal of utilitarianism
5. To understand the criticisms of utilitarianism.

Definition:

An ethical system based on usefulness - net efficiency, pragmatism - the purpose of all action should be to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number. "Pain & pleasure are the measure."  (Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832)

Utilitarian slogan;  the greatest good for the greatest number
Good is defined as that which maximizes pleasure.

Thus the best (or most just) society is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number

Question:

Do pleasure and pain dictate many of our daily activities?
Comfort in clothing & shoes, warmth of clothing, nauseating versus delectable dishes...

Bigger question:
Do pleasure and pain dictate/govern ALL of our actions?
In other words, can you think of one example where we would act for a reason other than personal pleasure  or for the avoidance of pain? Consider a mother who gives up her child on the Titanic. She happens to be an atheist  

The emphasis is on calculating quantitatively  the general population's projected consequential utility among competing alternatives.

Bentham begins An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and legislation as follows: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure."

Skinner says what is real is pleasure and pain.

Concerns:

• Should pleasure be the standard for morality? Can the human mind calculate the pain or pleasure that would result from any given action?  Can pleasure alone form a valid distinction between right and wrong?
• Can the end justify the means?
• Motives don't enter the picture.

Two Further Criticism of  Utilitarianism

1.  The rights of minorities

Moichael Boylan presents the following story/ case study:
In Northern Ireland there is a small, remote town that  is 20% Irish Catholic and 80% Irish Protestant, each living in its own section. A  young Protestant girl is raped and murdered. The Protestants form a committee and tell the constable: "We believe you are a Catholic sympathizer.  We have sealed off the Catholic section of town so no one can enter or leave.  Hand over the criminal by sundown, or we will torch the town, killing 1,000 people. Don't call for help; all communication is disabled.   By sundown, the constable asked a friend "should I randomly pick one Catholic to save 999 people. You know  there's no way the two of us can stop a mob."

Two issues re. above case from a utilitarian view:

1. The right of the majority to determine what is justice
   Moral absolutism vs. moral relativism.
   80% happy (Protestants)
   

Way around this:  Rule Utilitarianism
1. Identify the difficulties  and create general rules  that are justified by utilitarian principles, such as:
All accused criminals are entitled to a fair trial
The killing of an innocent party is illegitimate

Both of these rules are good for society in the long run & can thus be obeyed

2. Second Concern - the Additive Nature:

1. Whether pleasures and pains are additives, making it more of a crime to kill two than to kill one. Can we say the loss of two or more lives is morally worse than the loss of one?  Boylan's Trolley Dilemma captures this:

You are the engineer of a trolley which has gotten almost out of control.
Your only choice is to switch at Lincoln Junction to A or B track
On a track is a stuck school bus with 50 children
On B track is a homeless person whose poorly fitting shoe is caught in the trolley tracks

Do you have any moral justification for going  to track a (school bus) rather than track B (homeless)?