Intro to Consequentialism & Act Utilitarianism
Summary
TLDRThis video script delves into normative ethical theories, focusing on consequentialism, also known as utilitarianism. It discusses the concept that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, with the aim to maximize happiness. The script introduces utilitarianism's principle of utility, advocating for actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number. It contrasts this with other ethical theories like deontology and virtue ethics, highlighting the debate between these approaches. The speaker also raises critical questions about utilitarianism's alignment with our moral intuitions, suggesting potential conflicts and inviting further exploration in subsequent discussions.
Takeaways
- 🔍 The discussion shifts from the foundations of morality to normative ethical theories, focusing on how to make morally right decisions in everyday life.
- 📊 Consequentialism, also known as utilitarianism, is a popular ethical theory where the morality of an act is determined solely by its consequences.
- 🤔 The script introduces three main ethical theories: consequentialism, deontological ethics (conscient ethics), and virtue ethics, with consequentialism being the starting point.
- 👨🏫 The lecturer contrasts their personal virtue ethics stance with their wife's consequentialism, highlighting the practical implications of these theories in daily life.
- 📚 The early proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, are mentioned, with Bentham's influence on modern prison systems noted.
- 🌟 Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility, which posits that one should choose the action that maximizes happiness in any given situation.
- 🔢 Hedonistic act utilitarianism, a type of utilitarianism, is discussed, emphasizing the importance of happiness and suffering in moral decision-making.
- 📝 Three principles of hedonistic act utilitarianism are outlined: actions are judged by their consequences, happiness is the key factor in assessing consequences, and everyone's happiness is equally important.
- 🤝 The theory suggests a moral obligation to improve the world, aligning with the intuitive belief that morality involves promoting well-being and reducing suffering.
- ⚖️ The script suggests that while consequentialism is intuitive, it may conflict with deeply held moral intuitions, such as the wrongness of rape or murder, which could lead to its rejection.
Q & A
What are the three main ethical theories discussed in the script?
-The three main ethical theories discussed in the script are consequentialism, deontological ethics (also called conscient ethics), and virtue ethics.
What is consequentialism and how does it relate to utilitarianism?
-Consequentialism is an ethical theory where the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. Utilitarianism is a popular version of consequentialism, focusing on maximizing happiness or minimizing suffering as the measure of good consequences.
Who are the early proponents of utilitarianism mentioned in the script?
-The early proponents of utilitarianism mentioned in the script are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
What is the principle of utility as described in the script?
-The principle of utility requires that in all circumstances, a person chooses the available action that maximizes happiness. It is the core principle of utilitarianism.
What are the three principles of hedonistic act utilitarianism?
-The three principles of hedonistic act utilitarianism are: 1) All actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by their consequences, 2) The amount of happiness created or unhappiness avoided is the only factor in assessing consequences, and 3) Every person's happiness counts exactly the same.
What is the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?
-Act utilitarianism evaluates the morality of an action based on its specific consequences, while rule utilitarianism evaluates actions based on whether they follow rules that generally produce the best outcomes.
How does the script suggest evaluating moral theories?
-The script suggests evaluating moral theories by comparing them against our firm moral intuitions and using a process called reflective equilibrium, which involves balancing our intuitions with the implications of the theory.
What is reflective equilibrium and how does it relate to moral theory evaluation?
-Reflective equilibrium is a process where one compares their firmly held moral views with the implications of moral theories, adjusting their intuitions or rejecting theories that conflict with their strongly held moral beliefs.
What are some potential arguments against consequentialism or act utilitarianism as hinted in the script?
-The script hints at potential arguments against consequentialism or act utilitarianism by suggesting that it may conflict with strongly held moral intuitions, such as the wrongness of rape, murder, or child molestation.
What is the significance of the term 'reductio ad absurdum' in the context of evaluating moral theories?
-The term 'reductio ad absurdum' refers to a form of argument where one shows a theory to be false by demonstrating that it leads to an absurd or unacceptable conclusion, such as justifying actions that are widely considered morally wrong.
Why might someone be interested in arguments against utilitarianism despite finding it intuitive?
-Someone might be interested in arguments against utilitarianism to critically examine its weaknesses and ensure that it aligns with all moral intuitions, even if it seems intuitively appealing.
Outlines
🔍 Introduction to Normative Ethics and Consequentialism
This paragraph introduces the topic of normative ethical theory, specifically consequentialism, and distinguishes it from discussions about the foundations of morality. The speaker sets aside questions about the objective nature of morality or its basis in religion and culture, focusing instead on how individuals make moral decisions in daily life. Consequentialism, also known as utilitarianism, is presented as one of the major ethical theories, alongside deontological ethics and virtue ethics. The paragraph outlines the basic idea of consequentialism: the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences. If the consequences are good, the action is morally right; if bad, it is morally wrong. The speaker also introduces the concept of different versions of consequentialism, with utilitarianism being the most popular and often used interchangeably with consequentialism. The historical figures Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are mentioned as early proponents of utilitarianism, and the principle of utility, which guides actions toward maximizing happiness, is briefly discussed.
📚 Principles of Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism
The second paragraph delves into the specifics of hedonistic act utilitarianism, also known as classical utilitarianism. Three key principles are outlined: (1) the moral rightness or wrongness of actions is judged solely by their consequences, (2) the primary consideration in assessing consequences is the amount of happiness created or unhappiness avoided, and (3) every person's happiness is to be considered equally. The paragraph emphasizes the mathematical and calculative nature of utilitarianism, where actions are chosen based on their potential to maximize overall happiness. The speaker also touches on the intuitive appeal of utilitarianism, suggesting that it aligns with the common-sense notion of promoting happiness and reducing suffering. Arguments in favor of utilitarianism are briefly mentioned, including the moral obligation to improve the world and the theory's ability to withstand objections better than other ethical theories. However, the main focus is on potential arguments against utilitarianism, which are said to be explored in more detail in subsequent discussions.
🤔 Evaluating Consequentialism Against Moral Intuitions
The final paragraph discusses the process of evaluating moral theories, such as consequentialism, against our firmly held moral intuitions. The concept of reflective equilibrium is introduced, where one's moral intuitions are compared with the implications of a moral theory, potentially leading to adjustments in one's beliefs. The speaker emphasizes the importance of not holding all moral intuitions as equally strong, allowing for the possibility of revising some intuitions in light of a compelling moral theory. However, if a theory contradicts deeply held moral convictions, such as condoning rape or slavery, it may be rejected. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that consequentialism might lead to conclusions that conflict with our strong moral intuitions, providing reasons to potentially reject the theory. The speaker indicates that further exploration of these issues will be covered in the next video.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Normative ethical theory
💡Consequentialism
💡Utilitarianism
💡Deontological ethics
💡Virtue ethics
💡Principle of utility
💡Hedonistic act utilitarianism
💡Act utilitarianism
💡Rule utilitarianism
💡Reflective equilibrium
💡Moral intuition
Highlights
Discussion on normative ethical theory shifts from the foundation of morality to how to make morally right decisions.
Introduction to consequentialism as a popular view on how to live a morally right life.
Consequentialism, also known as utilitarianism, is a major philosophical view that judges actions by their consequences.
Utilitarianism's popularity among philosophers and its association with consequentialism.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as early proponents of utilitarianism.
The principle of utility in utilitarianism requires choosing actions that maximize happiness.
Different versions of consequentialism and their approaches to determining good or bad consequences.
Hedonistic act utilitarianism as a type of utilitarianism focusing on happiness and suffering.
Three main principles of hedonistic act utilitarianism: consequences, happiness, and equal consideration of everyone's happiness.
Arguments for utilitarianism based on moral obligation to improve the world and its defense against objections.
Utilitarianism's claim that it is the only possible option in light of failures of other ethical theories.
The process of reflective equilibrium in evaluating moral theories against firmly held moral views.
Potential conflicts between utilitarianism and strongly held moral intuitions, such as the permissibility of rape or murder.
The importance of considering the implications of consequentialism and how it may challenge our moral intuitions.
Upcoming discussion on arguments against utilitarianism and its potential to run afoul of our moral intuitions.
Transcripts
so now we are talking about normative
ethical theory so the what we were
talking about before was is there a
objective morality is there universal
morality or is it just relative to
opinions or cultures or things like that
is god the foundation of morality but
now we're leaving aside those questions
about what's the foundation of morality
and now we're saying okay so in our
everyday lives as we go through and we
have to make decisions how do we make
those decisions and live a way that's
morally right or morally wrong right and
so now we're looking at those and i like
to think of them as kind of like
functions right where you say here's an
action and i put it in if you know
mathematical functions you fill in the
little x and then you get an answer
there so how do we live a morally right
life one of the more popular views is
what's called consequentialism we're
going to cover several different
views in the class we'll cover about
five there's three main theories though
that would be consequentialism
deontological ethics also called
conscient ethics and virtue ethics and
so those are the big three we'll say and
we're starting with consequentialism
which you'll also hear referred to as
utilitarianism and it's one of the most
widely held views among philosophers
virtue ethics has a lot of followers and
deontological maybe even a little more
than consequentialist but they're all
major views and my wife who is
definitely not sleeping on my office
floor next to me definitely not is a
consequentialist and so we always have
these uh discussions at home a lot
because i'm a virtue ethicist and she
always leans toward consequentialism in
things when we talk about and so this is
her preferred theory i like to say
and it is very popular one in philosophy
as well and the idea is that whether an
act is right or wrong depends entirely
on the consequences of the act if the
consequences are good the act is right
if the consequences are bad the act is
wrong
but then how do we determine you know
whether a consequence is good or bad it
sounds i mean that makes sense
in the beginning right you have this
idea that if the consequences of your
actions if you do something and then a
lot of this other good stuff happens or
more good comes about then that looks
sounds pretty good and if we do
something and more bad comes about that
that sounds pretty bad and that makes
good kind of intuitive sense to us but
then how are we to determine whether the
consequence is good or bad
and different versions of
consequentialism have different answers
the most popular
version of consequentialism
is called utilitarianism and in fact um
utilitarianism is so popular uh in
consequentialism that you'll often hear
those use interchangeably people will
talk about being a utilitarian when
they're talking about consequentialism
and so and you'll hear me do that a lot
too uh they just call consequentialism
um utilitarianism and so you'll because
that's what most most consequentialists
are uh utilitarian and so we're going to
focus mainly on a couple different types
of utilitarianism the early proponents
of
utilitarianism were jeremy bentham and
jon stewart mill jeremy bentham also
famous for kind of
developing the prison systems that we
have today so not a great thing but jon
stewart mill you might hear about him in
different contexts in your political
science classes and things like that as
well
the idea of utilitarianism is based on
the principle of utility and this
requires that in all circumstances this
is what the principle of utility is it
requires that in all circumstances
a person chooses the available action
that maximizes happiness so if you are
about to do something you don't have
every option available to you right
usually there's only a few different
things you can do in that situation you
know give to the person who's poor or
not give if you don't have any money you
can't give
if you can't change the laws of the
world that have made the person
in the situation they are there's only
certain things you can do and the
consequentialist says the thing the
action that's available to you according
to the principle of utility whichever
action out of all the actions available
to you the one that brings about the
most happiness
is the one that you should do and this
is a type of utilitarianism called
hedonistic act utilitarianism which
we'll talk about more it was a radical
idea at the time it's not so much now
most people now agree that you should
oppose suffering and promote happiness
um
that just seems kind of natural to think
that in morality we should do the things
that reduces suffering and makes
happiness or good good well-being more
prevalent
there are different types of
utilitarianism there's act
utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
there's hidden hedonistic utilitarianism
and preference
utilitarianism our focus is going to be
on act and rule
utilitarianism we're not hedonistic act
and rule utilitarianism we're not going
to talk too much about preference
utilitarianism although there's some
things that you can
read in the module about that as well
so let me talk to you about the three
principles of hedonistic act
utilitarianism this is called classical
utilitarianism
this is the type that you'll probably
most identify with and
is the easiest to follow
there are three principles of this the
first principle is that all actions are
to be judged right and wrong
solely by virtue of the consequences
nothing else matters only the
consequences matter when we're talking
about whether or not you should do an
action or a person should do an action
or a government should do an action we
look at the consequences and the
consequences alone determine whether or
not we should do it we don't consider
anything else just the consequences of
the actions the second principle is that
in assessing the consequences the only
thing that matters is the amount of
happiness
that is created or unhappiness that is
avoided
everything else is irrelevant so if you
reduce suffering
and increase happiness whatever action
is available to you that will either
increase the happiness or reduce the
most suffering that is the right thing
so that's the second principle the third
principle is that every person's
happiness counts exactly the same so you
can't count your happiness more than
anybody else's so there are other
ethical theories out there you know
called egoism where you only concern
yourself with your happiness that's not
what this theory is you do consider your
happiness but it counts for just the
same as anybody else's happiness so when
you do the math and this is a very mathy
type of
normative theory you do the calculations
and you count yourself and your own
happiness as well but you have to count
it just as one and then
add up all the happiness that
is brought to others or all the
suffering that is reduced for yourself
and for others so
every person counts equally that's
really important for this theory
now there are some arguments for this in
favor of this uh there's kind of a
presumption that there's a moral
obligation to make the world a better
place right that sounds like what
morality is uh you should do things that
make the world a better place uh that's
kind of our intuition on that and that
seems uncontroversial and that's exactly
what this theory says you're supposed to
do
um
and other people say well look
consequentialism can be defended against
uh
other objections and all the other main
theories seem to fail so
consequentialism is
our utilitarianism is the only possible
option so those are the ways that people
argue for i'm more interested in giving
arguments against it right now not
because i want to defeat it or anything
like that uh but just because i think um
as we're giving these theories this one
is very intuitive and i think that you
don't need a lot of motivation for
believing this theory is true but then
there are some real problems with it and
i want to talk about some of those now
so let me give you a couple of arguments
against
uh utilitarianism or act
consequentialism
remember that
we evaluate um this against our firm the
way that we're evaluating our theories
is we're looking at our firm moral
judgment so let me back up a little bit
there's this process called reflective
equilibrium and what we do in reflective
equilibrium is we look at what our
firmly held moral views are before we
look at the theories themselves so for
instance
rape is wrong right we're just going to
say that is a non-negotiable
murder is wrong i'm not talking about
killing a self-defense murder is defined
as taking the life of an innocent person
child molestation we can give a whole
list of things that are non-negotiable
right and so we think of those and we
and we hold those views just out of our
moral intuitions um and so then we're
going to look at what a moral theory
says and sometimes we change our moral
intuitions right we might be naturally
um
racist or something and we find out
through the moral theory that it's wrong
i know that's a stupid example that's
another clear you know example of what
something is wrong but we sometimes our
our moral intuitions are changed by the
moral theory but sometimes we reject a
moral theory because of what it does
because it it conflicts with our
strongly held moral intuitions now we
can't hold all of our moral intuitions
strongly these are just the things off
the top of our heads we have to you know
leave rooms for things like we're gonna
be discussing like abortion in this
class and we'll be discussing selling
human organs and we'll be discussing
access to health care and things like
that those kinds of things we want to
see what the moral theories say and we
adjust our intuitions about what's right
and wrong in those ideas based on the
moral theories but sometimes we just
would we'll reject a moral theory if it
runs afoul of our strongly held moral
intuitions
we've talked a little bit before about a
reductio ad absurdum argument so if we
say that okay this theory a consequence
of this theory is that it is okay to
rape then we go no that theory is wrong
then we don't know anything else about
that theory but we know that theory is
wrong because it says it's okay to write
because that's a strongly held moral
intuition so if a theory comes and sells
to something like slavery is okay our
murder is right or rape is right or
molesting a child is right or something
like that then we know that there's a
problem with the theory
right but sometimes we'll say well i
think you know
maybe the death penalty is okay but then
we look at a moral theory and we say
well if that moral theory is right then
the death penalty is wrong and if we
have more reason to believe the moral
theory so that's what we're doing we're
doing this balancing act that's why it's
reflective equilibrium wayne and things
we're so we're looking at our strongly
held moral intuitions we're looking at
what it says and that's what we're going
to do when we evaluate consequentialism
especially because it seems like
sometimes the implications of
consequentialism is something that we
think is obviously wrong
and so that gives us reason to reject uh
consequentialism so i thought i was
going to get deeper into that but
i'm just going to save the actual ways
so i'm going to give you a few reasons
to say that
to show you how maybe consequentialism
or act utilitarianism will run afoul of
our strongly held moral intuitions and
that would give you reason to reject the
theory and i'll do that in the next
video
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)