TICA El utilitarismo

So far, we have focused on questions about the nature of morality, such as is morality relative?, are moral judgments subjective?, are we all just a bunch of egoists?. All these are metaethical questions. Metaethics, as we already saw, is the study of the meaning and nature of ethical terms, judgments, and arguments. ow we!re entering into the realm of normative ethics. Normative ethics, as we already said, studies "rinci"les and norms about how we ought to live and try to develo" a theory of morality that will give us a general way of answering all the s"ecific moral questions in our daily lives. #hese theories try to answer questions such as$ %hat are the basic "rinci"les of right and wrong? %hat would a just society be? %hat things are ultimately worthwhile in life? %hat ma&es someone a good "erson? and so on. #he theories that we!re going to e'amine share several common features, among others let me call your attention to the fact that they are com"letely secular or non-religious theories of morality. #hey ma&e no use

of the idea of )od, they don!t derive any of their "rinci"les from religious "rinci"les. *owever, they are com"atible with religious beliefs. Among normative ethics, we!re going to focus on two different theories that try to answer the question about the "rinci"les of right and wrong from the common "oint of view that morality can be reduced to a matter of duties. According to these theories, when we as& a moral question about what we should do, we!re as&ing a question about what our duty is, or what we are obliged to do. A moral theory must tell us what we should do in terms of duties or obligations. %hat am + to do? is answered claiming that we have to follow a certain "rinci"le that tells us how to act in every occasion. #hese theories that a""eal to duty and obligation as the guiding "rinci"les for our actions are called deontological theories. %e can classify these theories in the following way$ Consequentialism. #he first theory says that the moral value of an action, that is, what ma&es is right or wrong, is the consequences it has. %e!re going to focus on utilitarianism as a re"resentative of this &ind of theory. Non-consequentialism. #his theory says that the moral value of an action doesn!t lie in the consequences, but that some actions are wrong in themselves, and not just wrong because they have bad

consequences. -+nstead of the consequences, they count, for instance, the intention that motivates it, regardless of the consequences. #his &ind of theory is basically re"resented in this course by Kants ethics..

Consequentialism /onsequentialism claims that we have only one basic duty$ to do whatever has the best consequences. A consequentialist or teleological theory starts with an inde"endently s"ecified conce"tion of the good -one not defined in terms of other moral conce"ts. and then defines right actions and just institutions as those that ma'imi0e the good, and the moral worth of "ersons as having the qualities of character most li&ely to lead to right actions. A non1consequentialist theory would say that the goodness of an action does not de"end on its consequences, but that there are things that are bad in themselves, regardless their consequences. 2et me give an e'am"le to ma&e this clear$ Su""ose that your wife -or your husband. is diagnosed as having terminal cancer3 but she doesn!t &now about this. She as&s you about the diagnosis. %hat should you do? Should you tell her the truth 4 or should you lie?

A consequentialist would say that lying has better consequences for her, considering that she would be ha""ier not &nowing about her illness. 2ying is not wrong in itself, it is relative to the consequences it has. +f you were a consequentialist, you would thin& that the end justifies the means. A non1consequentialist would "robably thin& that lying is bad in itself, and that no situation justifies lying. 6our wife has a right to &now, and you!d be treating her wrongly is you lie 4 even &nowing that lying would ma&e her ha""ier and would have better consequences. -7'am"le ta&en from )ensler, Ethics, (58..

Utilitarianism 9tilitarianism claims that the morality of an action de"ends on how much it advances human ha""iness. Although it has roots in views about the unique value of "leasure and ha""iness that go bac& as far as 7"icurus and the )ree&s, utilitarianism arose in late (:th1 and early (8th1century 7uro"e as a doctrine of social reform. -a. ;entham!s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation -(<:8. advanced the "rinci"le of utility as a standard for judging laws and social institutions. -b. =ohn Stuart Mill was "robably the most influential (8th1

>

century utilitarian, but he develo"ed the theory in some different directions than ;entham. 9tilitarianism has as its "oint of de"arture the now very common to us view that the basic motivation of human actions is the "ursuit of "leasure and the avoidance of "ain. #his is how ;entham starts his te't -". >:5.. #hen ;entham goes on to e'"lain what he calls the Principle of utilit $ the greatest ha""iness of the greatest number.

9tilitarianism is a "articular version of consequentialism. %e can summari0e its consequentialist character in this way$ !"# $ctions are to %e &udged right or 'rong solel % virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. (ight actions are) simpl ) those that have the %est consequences. #his claim im"lies that there are no intrinsic values. ?alues are de"endent on the consequences of our actions. #hings and actions are not valuable in themselves, but their value de"ends on the consequences of our actions. #here is only one thing that is valuable in itself, according to utilitarianism$ ha""iness. #he value of our actions, their rightness or wrongness, is de"endent on how much they advance ha""iness.

9tilitarianism defines the good as ha""iness, understood as the net balance of "leasure over "ain. According to =ohn Stuart Mill, ha""iness is the ultimate good, the whole theory rests on this "rinci"le, and there is no "roof for it, because there are no "roofs for ultimate "rinci"les -read ". >:< and >88. +n *tilitarianism, Mill ma&es clear his "roject since the beginning of the boo&. +n the first "aragra"h, he says that his "roject is to determine the criterion of right. +n cha"ter ,, he sets out this criterion, following ;entham$ actions are right in "ro"ortion as they tend to "romote ha""iness3 wrong as they tend to "roduce the reverse of ha""iness. -". >:<.. #his is a utilitarian theory of right -and wrong.. +n short, we can formulate the utilitarian principle in the following way$ !+# ,e ought to do 'hatever ma-imi.es the %alance of happiness over unhappiness for ever one affected % our action. +n assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of ha""iness or unha""iness that is caused. 7verything else is irrelevant. #hus right actions are those that "roduce the greatest balance of ha""iness over unha""iness.

;entham also tal&s about the calculation of consequences in terms of "leasure and "ain. Bne has to engage in a felicific calculus to determine the rightness of wrongness of an action -". >:@.. #he morally right action, according to ;entham and Mill, is the one that tries to bring about as much ha""iness as "ossible in the world. #he third claim of utilitarianism is that !/# In calculating the happiness or unhappiness that 'ill %e caused) no ones happiness is to %e counted as more important than an one elses. Each persons 'elfare is equall important. As Mill "ut it in *tilitarianism, ta&ing distance from other consequentialist theories such as ethical egoism$ -read >8C.. 9tilitarianism is an egalitarian theory, one that considers in an im"artial way the interests of everyone. Bne of its basic claims is that ever one must count for one and not more than one. #hat one unit of ha""iness has the same im"ortance, no matter whose ha""iness it is. %e are going to analy0e some of the egalitarian im"lications of utilitarianism below.

<

Utilitarianisms conception of happiness ;y ha""iness, ;entham and Mill understand "leasure, and the absence of "ain3 by unha""iness, "ain, and the "rivation of "leasure. According to ;entham, "leasure is the only intrinsic good, and "ain the only intrinsic evil. ;ut ;entham did not ma&e any further distinction between forms of "leasure. #he more amount of "leasure of any &ind, the better. *is version of utilitarianism was attac&ed as a "ig "hiloso"hy, as ignoring the value of higher "ursuits. +t "uts "ush"in on the same level as "oetry, say. +ndeed, ;entham said, quantity of "leasure being the same, "ush"in is as good as "oetry. *owever, Mill tries to bring some nuances to ;entham!s theory and tells us that not all "leasures are the same or count equally. Mill tries to account for the value of what we normally regard as higher "ursuits which may not seem to have as much felt satisfaction associated with them. *e treats the good as ha""iness, and this is resolvable into "leasure, but it should be remar&ed that "leasure comes in different qualities. Mill differentiates between &inds of "leasure. Dleasures are different in quality, and there are some &inds that are more valuable than others. Mill would refer the com"arison of these qualities to those who had e'"erienced both. +t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a "ig satisfied3 better

to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the "ig, are of a different o"inion, it is only because they only &now their own side of the question ->:8.. +t is interesting to note also that utilitarianism was revolutionary because whereas most moralities regard "leasure as something sinful -thin& about /hristian and ?ictorian moralities., utilitarianism says that we should "ursue "leasure. +n this way, it is a liberating theory$ morality doesn!t have to go against our own natures, but it has to hel" us in develo"ing them. 2et!s not o""ose "leasure3 let!s try to "ursue it. 9tilitarianism can get to the same conclusions as Ereudian theories or as the se'ual revolution of the AC!s$ let!s try to create a morality that doesn!t negate "leasure and the body -se'ual re"ression is the source of many "sychological and social "roblems, it creates neurotic individuals., but one that liberates these im"ulses and hel"s us "romoting their develo"ment -Feich and Marcuse..

0uestions Go you agree with this conce"tion of ha""iness? %hy or why not? Gon!t you thin& that all our actions try to achieve ha""iness? #hin& about the father of last class claiming that what is most im"ortant for him is that his son be ha""y.

 %hy do "eo"le value more intellectual "leasures than bodily "leasures? %hy do "eo"le give more value to the intellect than to the body? #o an e'amined life than to an unreflective life? Socrates said than an une'amined life was not worth living, do you agree? %hy?

Egalitarianism 9tilitarianism was born as "art of an egalitarian social movement that too& "lace in the (:th1 and (8th centuries. Since its origin, utilitarianism was committed to equality$ it is a theory that claims that everybody must be treated equally. 7very "erson to count for one and no one to count for more than one. -Many other theories, such as natural rights theories -which were the theoretical basis for the Erench Fevolution and the American Geclaration of +nde"endence., had this egalitarian character long before utilitarianism. %e can even say that the /hristian religion was one of the first egalitarian theories when it claimed that we!re all children of )od in the same way.. 2ast class we tal&ed about ethical egoism. #his theory can be classified among consequentialist theories because it claims that it is our duty to do whatever has the best consequences for myself 4 regardless of the consequences for other "eo"le. %hat is more advantageous for myself is what has the best consequences for myself. *owever, we already said that

(C

this theory is unacce"table because of its self1other asymmetries$ it doesn!t treat "eo"le in an im"artial way -besides of its disastrous consequences if generali0ed.. +t is not im"artial, since it gives more weight to my own interests than to the interests of other "eo"le 4 and this favors forms of non1 egalitarianism, such as racism, classism, se'ism, etc. *owever, most forms of consequentialism, and utilitarianism in "articular, acce"t the requirement of im"artiality and acce"t that the interests of everyone must have the same value. -Most modern ethical theories are egalitarian in their basic "rinci"les..

((