NORTH SOUTH

UNIVERSITY
Lecture 06
PHI 104
Introduction to Ethics
Normative Ethics:
Consequentialism/
Utilitarianism
 One way of thinking about this is to
compare the benefits and costs of each
alternative. Whichever has the greater net
benefit is the best alternative.
 Such an approach begins with the belief that we
can measure and compare the risks and benefits of
various actions. The idea is that actions are morally
better or worse depending on whether they
produce pleasure or pain or, more abstractly, on
how they affect human well-being and happiness.
Unlike egoism, utilitarianism focuses on the sum of
individual pleasures and pains. It is not my
pleasures or pains that matter—but the cumulative
happiness of a number of people.
Utilitarianism suggests that we ought to
consider the totality of consequences of a
policy or action. Forms of utilitarianism will
differ depending on how we understand
what sorts of consequences or interests
matter. Complexities arise in defining key
concepts such as happiness, interest, and
well-being.
Utilitarianism has to provide an account of
whose interests or happiness matters.
Jeremy Bentham, one of the founding
fathers of utilitarianism, extended his
utilitarian concern in a way that included all
suffering beings, including nonhuman
animals.
The classical formulation of utilitarian
moral theory is found in the writings of
Jeremy Bentham (1748– 1832) and John
Stuart Mill (1806–1873).
Utilitarianism:
Bentham
Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832)
An Introduction to
the Principles of
Morals and
Legislation (1789)
“The greatest
happiness for the
greatest
numbers”
Bentham holds that
pleasantness is the
only quality because of
which an experience is
good or valuable.
“Each man ought
to seek his own
maximum
pleasure”.
Inestimating the
amount of pleasantness
caused by an action,
seven factors need to be
taken into
consideration:
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Certainty
4. Propinquity: the nearness in time of the
pleasant result.
5. Fecundity: the power of the pleasant
experience to produce further pleasant
experiences.
6. Purity: freedom from intermixture with
unpleasant experiences
7. Extent: the number of persons affected
by it
The Hedonic Calculus
Bentham also wanted a theory that considered
all people (the ‘greatest number’) when making
laws or moral decisions. He came up with the
idea of a ‘hedonic calculus’ that could measure
different amounts of pleasure. The calculus
used seven aspects of pleasure that Bentham
thought could be measured. If an action has
high amounts of these seven things, then it
should be followed. The hedonic calculus
included:
Remoteness – how near it is
Purity – how free from pain it is
Richness – to what extent it will lead to
other pleasures
Intensity – how powerful it is
Certainty – how likely it is to result
Extent – how many people it affects
Duration – how long it lasts
Some Utilitarian philosophers would argue that
there are situations when you can use the
hedonic calculus as a method of determining the
overall effects of an ethical decision or action.
For example, these could include choosing how
to spend National Lottery money (a playground
used by 1,000 children or a stair-lift for 10), or in
deciding how to prioritise health care spending,
including what procedures should be carried out
in a hospital (4 X-ray units or 1 machine used for
laser eye surgery).
A good example of Act Utilitarianism is this:
when faced with a road traffic accident a
paramedic will treat a pregnant woman first.
This is because in any given situation, the
pregnant woman and her unborn child have a
greater potential for future happiness than any
individual involved in the crash. Not only are
two people treated, but the unborn child may
live a longer life than the other casualties. This
is both quantity focused and a teleological
approach.
Utilitarianism:
Mill
John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism
(1861)
Mill’s account of
utilitarianism may be
summarized in the
five statements:
1.Pleasure is the
only thing that is
desirable.
2.The only proof
that a thing is
desirable is the fact
that people do
actually desire it.
3.Each person’s own
pleasure or happiness is
a good to that person, so
the general happiness is
a good to everybody.
4.Men do desire
other objects, but
they desire them as a
means to pleasure.
5.If one of two pleasures is
preferred by those who are
completely acquainted with
both we are justified in saying
that this preferred pleasure is
superior in quality to the
other.
The moral end is not
merely the maximum
amount of happiness but
“the greatest happiness
of the greatest number”.
 Peter, a 32 year old, suffered horrific injuries as the result of
the collapse of a bridge over which he was driving his car. He
has been classified as being in a persistent vegetative state for
the past five years. Although Peter’s brain stem is still
functioning, his heart is beating and he can breathe
spontaneously, he is dependent on oral feeding for the
continuation of his life. The doctors in charge of his case have
come to the decision that Peter’s life is no longer of value to
him and have requested that they be allowed to withdraw his
food supply. It is legal for doctors to withdraw medical
support, however, feeding a patient is regarded as part of
palliative care and not a medical treatment. Peter’s parents
have taken the case to court in order to prevent his doctors
from withdrawing his feeding tubes. What decision would you
advise the judges to make in this case?
Exercise
Ethical Problem Analysis: 5G

Should we implement 5G Technology?

1gigabit/sec. speed
Faster speed of thought robotic
communication
More self-efficient driving cars
Digital divide deepens
It will require an enormous amount of
energy to run

Class Work
Ethical Problem Analysis:
Social Credit Systems
a personal scorecard for every person and
business in China, based on their level of
trustworthiness, and
that participation would be mandatory for
every Chinese citizen by the year 2020.
it will attempt to rate people in four
areas: “honesty in government affairs”
“commercial integrity” “societal integrity”
and “judicial credibility” .
PROBLEMS?
1. The imperative to maximize happiness
whenever possible is too strict. There are
many instances where I could create more
happiness by doing act a rather than act b,
but where act b is still morally permissible.
For instance, I could buy milk for two
families in Africa with the ten dollars I
spend on a movie ticket. But it’s crazy to
think that I’m doing something wrong
every time I go to the movies.
2. Sometimes maximizing happiness seems
more than just right. Suppose I jump on a
hand grenade to save four of my fellow soldiers
in battle, and get killed in the process. What I
did wasn’t just right, but was above the call of
duty. But since utilitarianism says that the only
right acts are the ones that maximize
happiness, Mill can’t acknowledge the heroism
of my act. He has to say that it was the only
right thing to do, and that sounds strange.
3. How are we supposed to calculate the
utility for any given situation? We can’t
predict the future, and even if we could,
there are so many factors to most
situations that it seems impossible for us
to ever have a good idea of what the best
possible consequence will be.
4. Utilitarianism seems to require us to do
things that are not obviously morally
permissible. I can sometimes increase the
overall happiness in the world by doing
awful things (stealing, murdering, lying,
etc.) Moral theories should not condone
this sort of behaviour.
THANK YOU!!!