The Famous 'Sheriff' Counterexample to Utilitarianism
Summary
TLDRIn this philosophical discourse, the video explores the utilitarianism moral theory, focusing on H.J. McCloskey's counter-example involving a sheriff who must decide between executing an innocent man to prevent riots or allowing many deaths to occur. The video discusses the theory's consequentialism and aggregation principles, questioning whether the moral theory can justify such actions. Jay Smart's response to McCloskey's objection is also examined, where he defends utilitarianism by accepting the uncomfortable conclusion that framing an innocent person could be morally right in certain extreme circumstances.
Takeaways
- 🔍 The script discusses a famous counterexample against utilitarianism introduced by philosopher H. J. McCloskey, which involves a sheriff and an innocent man.
- 🤔 Utilitarianism is a moral theory that suggests actions should be judged based on the greatest total pleasure or the least total pain for all affected individuals.
- 📚 The example is summarized by J. J. C. Smart, a utilitarian philosopher, who defends the theory against McCloskey's objection.
- 👮♂️ The scenario involves a sheriff who can prevent riots and save hundreds of lives by framing and executing an innocent man.
- 🤝 Utilitarianism, as a form of consequentialism, is based on the idea that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes.
- 🧩 The counterexample challenges the utilitarian principle of aggregation, which posits that the goodness of a situation is the sum of individual goods.
- 🚫 McCloskey argues that utilitarianism's disregard for the distribution of pleasure and pain leads to morally repugnant outcomes, such as punishing the innocent.
- 🔄 Smart's initial response to the counterexample suggests that the risk of being discovered framing an innocent person could outweigh the benefits.
- 🔄 McCloskey's rejoinder involves tweaking the scenario to ensure the sheriff will not be discovered, thus maintaining the counterexample's challenge to utilitarianism.
- 💡 Smart ultimately defends utilitarianism by accepting the uncomfortable conclusion that, in certain extreme cases, framing an innocent person might be the morally correct utilitarian action.
Q & A
What is the main argument against utilitarianism presented in the script?
-The main argument against utilitarianism presented in the script is the Sheriff's Dilemma, introduced by H. J. McCloskey. It challenges utilitarianism by suggesting that in certain situations, such as preventing riots by executing an innocent man, utilitarianism may require actions that are morally repugnant.
What is utilitarianism according to the script?
-Utilitarianism, as described in the script, is a moral theory that posits we are morally required to perform the action that will produce the greatest total amount of pleasure over pain for all involved.
What is the role of aggregation in utilitarianism?
-Aggregation in utilitarianism refers to the theory that the goodness of an outcome is determined by the total or sum of how good the situation is for individual people, without considering the distribution of pleasure and pain among them.
What does the term 'hedonism' mean in the context of utilitarianism?
-Hedonism, within the context of utilitarianism, is the theory that a situation is good for an individual to the extent that it maximizes their pleasure and minimizes their pain.
What is a counterexample in moral philosophy as discussed in the script?
-A counterexample in moral philosophy, as discussed in the script, is a specific instance that goes against a general claim or moral theory, used to challenge the validity of that theory by demonstrating a situation where the theory's conclusion is morally unacceptable.
What is the Sheriff's Dilemma and how does it challenge utilitarianism?
-The Sheriff's Dilemma is a hypothetical scenario where a sheriff must decide whether to frame and execute an innocent person to prevent riots that would kill hundreds. It challenges utilitarianism by creating a situation where the theory suggests that the morally right action is to sacrifice one innocent person for the greater good, which goes against common moral intuitions.
How does J.J.C. Smart respond to McCloskey's objection in the script?
-J.J.C. Smart, a utilitarian philosopher, responds to McCloskey's objection by arguing that in the scenario presented, utilitarianism indeed suggests that the sheriff should frame the innocent person to prevent the greater harm of hundreds of deaths. Smart defends this conclusion by emphasizing the severity of the riots and the greater number of innocent lives that would be lost.
What does 'biting the bullet' mean in the context of the script?
-In the context of the script, 'biting the bullet' refers to J.J.C. Smart's acceptance of the uncomfortable conclusion that, according to utilitarianism, framing an innocent person is the morally right action in the Sheriff's Dilemma scenario, despite the moral discomfort it causes.
Why does the script suggest that the problem with the Sheriff's Dilemma is fundamentally with the aggregation aspect of utilitarianism?
-The script suggests that the problem with the Sheriff's Dilemma is fundamentally with the aggregation aspect of utilitarianism because aggregation focuses solely on the total sum of pleasure and pain without considering the distribution or who specifically experiences these outcomes, which leads to morally contentious conclusions.
What is the significance of the Sheriff's Dilemma in the broader discussion of moral philosophy?
-The significance of the Sheriff's Dilemma in moral philosophy is that it highlights the potential conflict between utilitarianism's focus on overall outcomes and our intuitive moral judgments about individual rights and justice, prompting a deeper examination of the theory's adequacy in addressing complex moral dilemmas.
Outlines
🔍 McCluskey's Critique of Utilitarianism
The paragraph introduces H. J. McCloskey's critique of utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist moral theory advocating for actions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. McCloskey presents a counterexample involving a sheriff who must decide whether to frame an innocent man to prevent riots that would result in many deaths. This example challenges the utilitarian principle of aggregation, which focuses on the total sum of pleasure and pain without considering distribution. The paragraph sets the stage for discussing the philosophical debate between utilitarianism and its critics.
🚔 The Sheriff's Dilemma and Utilitarianism's Challenge
This paragraph delves into the hypothetical scenario of a sheriff who can prevent a riot that would lead to hundreds of deaths by executing an innocent man. It highlights the utilitarian perspective that the sheriff is morally required to frame the innocent to achieve the best outcome in terms of overall pleasure and pain. The paragraph emphasizes the moral conflict this scenario presents, as it goes against the intuition that framing an innocent person is inherently wrong. It also points out that the crux of the issue lies in the utilitarian principle of aggregation, which is indifferent to the distribution of consequences among individuals.
🤔 Smart's Defense of Utilitarianism
The final paragraph discusses J.J.C. Smart's response to McCloskey's critique. Smart, a utilitarian philosopher, acknowledges the dilemma but argues that utilitarianism might still lead to the conclusion that the sheriff should not frame the innocent due to the risk of undermining public trust in the justice system. However, he concedes that if the sheriff is confident in not being caught, then utilitarianism would support framing the innocent to prevent the greater harm of the riots. Smart ultimately defends the utilitarian conclusion, even though it is uncomfortable, by emphasizing the severity of the riots and the greater number of innocent lives that would be lost. He 'bites the bullet' by accepting the utilitarian stance that, in this extreme scenario, framing the innocent is morally right.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Utilitarianism
💡Consequentialism
💡Aggregation
💡Hedonism
💡Counterexample
💡Sheriff Example
💡Moral Intuition
💡Distribution of Pleasure and Pain
💡Biting the Bullet
💡Moral Theory
Highlights
Introduction to the famous argument against utilitarianism by H. J. McCloskey.
The concept of a counter-example in moral philosophy.
Jay Jay See Smart's defense of utilitarianism against McCloskey's objection.
Utilitarianism defined as the moral theory that prioritizes the greatest total of pleasure over pain.
Consequentialism as a broader moral theory focusing on outcomes.
Aggregation theory's role in utilitarianism, emphasizing the total sum of individual goods.
Hedonism's influence on utilitarianism, focusing on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
The McCloskey's Sheriff example as a challenge to the aggregation aspect of utilitarianism.
The scenario where a sheriff must decide between framing an innocent to prevent riots or allowing many deaths.
Utilitarianism's stance that the sheriff is morally required to frame the innocent to prevent greater harm.
McCloskey's critique that utilitarianism permits morally repugnant actions like framing the innocent.
The philosophical debate on whether a single counter-example can disprove a general moral theory.
Smart's initial response suggesting that utilitarianism might not require the sheriff to frame the innocent due to the risk of being discovered.
McCloskey's rejoinder that the scenario can be adjusted to ensure the sheriff won't be caught framing the innocent.
Smart's ultimate acceptance of the utilitarian conclusion that framing an innocent person is morally right in this scenario.
The philosophical concept of 'biting the bullet' and its application to Smart's defense of utilitarianism.
The challenge posed to students to consider whether framing an innocent person is ever morally right, questioning the validity of utilitarianism.
Transcripts
that is his McCluskey's insight he
realized that utilitarianism was based
on a principle that doesn't care about
who gets what consequences this time we
are talking about what is probably the
most famous argument against
utilitarianism that has ever been
suggested in the history of moral
philosophy and this is a famous argument
involving a sheriff it comes originally
from the philosopher H Jay McCluskey
McCluskey introduced this example and
the example is what's called a counter
example which is a specific type a
counter example is a specific type of
objection to a claim or a moral theory
we'll come back to exactly what a
counter example is I'll say something
briefly about that but actually I think
I have another video about counter
examples if I do then I will link to it
somewhere if I don't then I won't but we
didn't read anything by H get Jay
McCluskey we read for this course
something written by Jay Jay see smart
smart
was a philosopher who lived and worked
mostly in Australia in the 20th century
I believe he died in 2012 and he was a
utilitarian so he was defending
utilitarianism but he knew that
McCloskey had you know introduced this
really famous really powerful objection
to utilitarianism and so the portion of
smart that we read for today is the
portion where he first summarizes
McCluskey's Sherriff example and then he
responds to that example he responds to
the the objection to utilitarian
and so we're gonna talk about both of
those today first however let's remind
ourselves a little bit about
utilitarianism right so utilitarianism
as we've said before in this course is
the moral theory that says that we are
required morally required to do whatever
action will produce the the outcome with
the greatest total of pleasure - pain
that's your Tillet Arianism and we saw
right that utilitarianism is a version
of consequentialism and consequentialism
is the sort of more general
moral theory that says you have to do
whatever is going to produce the best
outcome whatever is going to have the
best consequences so it's the
consequences or outcome outcomes that
matter what makes an outcome good well
what makes an outcome good according to
the utilitarian is answered by another
theory that we've been calling
aggregation aggregation is the theory
that an outcome is good a situation
involving lots of people is good if the
total or the sum of how good that
situation is for individual people is
the greatest
so aggregation is just the addition
theory of the goodness of situations but
then well so you figure out what to do
based on the consequences says
consequentialism and then you figure out
how good the consequences are which is
the best consequences you figure that
out by adding up how good those
consequences or those situations are for
individual people but then you have the
question of well what makes a situation
good for individual people and the
answer to that according to the
utilitarian is hedonism hedonism is the
theory that says that a situation is
good for an individual person if it
maximizes to the degree to which it
maximizes their pleasure and minimizes
their pain
hedonism says that pain is the thing
that matters ultimately for people it's
the thing that's good for people or
sorry pleasure
the thing that's good for people and
pain is the thing that's bad for people
okay so utilitarianism as we've been
saying in this course is the combination
of these three sub theses notice that
this sheriff example that we're going to
talk about today summarized by JJC smart
originally from HJ McCloskey or whatever
this example is going to put pressure on
aggregation it's going to put pressure
on the idea that what makes a
circumstance or a situation good is the
total sum of how good it is for all the
individual people here in one sentence
is the objection to utilitarianism
here we go suppose that the sheriff of a
small town can prevent serious riots in
which hundreds of people will be killed
only by framing and executing as a
scapegoat an innocent man okay so we
understand what the scenario is some
crime has been committed some terrible
thing has happened and the people are
convinced that someone did it they think
they know who did it and the sheriff
knows that that person is innocent but
the sheriff can't convince these
agitated citizens and if they don't get
what they see as justice they're going
to riot and it's just definitely gonna
happen that hundreds of people are going
to be killed
in these riots and so the thought is
this is the thought and it's not in this
sentence right but the thought is so
utilitarianism says that the sheriff
must is morally required to frame the
innocent person and have the innocent
person killed executed even though they
did not commit the crime just so that
well just so that this riot won't occur
in which well indeed hundreds of people
would die because utilitarianism says
that you have to just do the addition
you have to you have to add up all of
the pain caused by not framing the
innocent man and then consider the
alternative add up all the pain and
pleasure that will result from framing
the innocent man and it's just obvious
that framing this person is the better
outcome when it comes to the sum of pain
and pleasure
so utilitarianism says that the sheriff
has to frame an innocent person but the
thought goes McCluskey's thought the
thought is but that's awful framing an
innocent person is a terrible terrible
thing and so if utilitarianism gets this
result well then it's not the right
moral theory
it's a moral theory that's supposed to
tell us which actions are right and
which actions are wrong but it tells us
that this profoundly wrong action is
right so it's the wrong theory that's
the sense in which this is a putative
counter example it's an example that
goes counter to the generalization right
utilitarianism is a theory and it's
basically just a generalization it says
all the actions like this are good and
all the actions like that are bad and so
when you have a general statement like
that you can disprove a general
statement like that with a single
example a single example that goes
counter to that general statement right
if you can find a single example of some
action that utilitarianism says is good
but is actually bad like this then
you've proven that utilitarianism isn't
correct it isn't true it isn't a true
generalization about which actions are
good and which actions are bad that's
the sense in which it's a counter
example the counter example is just one
type of objection to a philosophical
theory or to any general claim that's
the objection if you've understood
what's going on then you should feel the
force of this objection you should think
Oh utilitarianism is in trouble it's in
desperate trouble this is bad because
you should think Oh God framing an
innocent person is terrible and so any
moral theory that says it's good is just
out of whack
it gets the wrong result in this case
notice also that the problem is
fundamentally a problem with the
aggregation portion of utilitarianism
aggregation just says that if you want
to know how good a situation or an
outcome is then you just do addition
two plus six equals eight you get get
that same result as if you did four plus
four that also equals eight here's the
thing about addition addition doesn't
care about the distribution of things
you still get the same number eight even
if you have more over here than you have
over here right
you still get eight if you divide them
equally evenly
you still get eight aggregation as a
theory about what makes a situation good
for people it doesn't care about the
distribution of pleasure and pain it
just cares about the total it just cares
about the sum so utilitarianism doesn't
care if someone is innocent for a crime
of a crime punishing them might be the
right thing to do even if they are
innocent so long as punishing them will
result in the most pleasure in the least
pain that is his McCluskey's insight he
realized that utilitarianism was based
on a principle that doesn't care about
who gets what consequences and so he's
trying to put pressure on that theory by
leveraging the fact that we have a moral
intuition that it does matter who did
what right it does matter what
consequences you get based on your own
actions
so he's leveraging that fact to attack
utilitarianism and show that it's an
incorrect flawed moral theory okay
that's the objection that's the counter
example that's the main thing I wanted
to get through you know in this lecture
or whatever but it's worth talking about
smarts response okay so here's what
smart says initially smart points out
that you know a utilitarian could
respond to this example and say well
look actually utilitarianism gets the
result that you know the sheriff
shouldn't punish the innocent man
shouldn't frame the innocent person
right and have them executed because you
know when you frame someone there's
always a big risk
a significant risk that you're going to
be found out and if you're found out
then that's going to undermine the faith
that the people in the society have in
the justice system and when you
undermine their you know their faith in
the justice system
terrible terrible consequences result
much worse even than the riot and so the
thought is utilitarianism gets the right
result that's a first utilitarianism
response that smart notices but smart
admits that McCluskey has a rejoinder he
has a reply to that which is just this
you can keep tweaking the scenario right
you can add the fact that the sheriff is
very good at framing people knows about
himself that he's very good at framing
people he knows that he'll get away with
it
he's trying to do the morally right
thing but he knows he can pull off
framing someone and not get caught what
if he knows that right if he knows that
then we have a new situation a new
scenario and it seems to function as a
counter example to utilitarianism so
smart just ends up admitting that yes
utilitarianism the moral theory gets the
result in some situations like this that
the morally required thing the morally
right thing is to frame an innocent
person and smarts ultimate response to
this as a utilitarian is just to say yes
you're right but that's the right answer
framing the innocent man is actually the
morally right thing to do that's what
smart says and he argues for this just
by emphasizing how serious these riots
might be how bad they are remember in
the riots smart says people will die and
those people are innocent too
it's not an easy choice for the sheriff
but at the end of the day smart says
although it's it's it's uncomfortable to
frame an innocent person for a crime
it's actually the right thing to do
because hundreds of people hundreds
hundreds much more than the one innocent
person
that just needs to be framed and
executed right hundreds of innocent
people will die and so smart just as we
say in in you know in philosophy smart
just bites the bullet biting a bullet is
something that you do when you have to
undergo some very painful surgery right
in order to weather the pain you you
bite on a bullet well smart just bites
the bullet he has to take the pain of
admitting that framing an innocent
person is the right thing to do
the question of course that you should
be asking yourself is whether that's
right
whether framing the innocent person in
this situation is the morally right
thing to do if it is then utilitarianism
seems like a plausible moral theory if
framing an innocent person is never the
right thing to do then you must think
that utilitarianism is false
you
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)