PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1 [HD]

Summary

In this video, MIT philosophy professor Julia Markovits introduces utilitarianism, a moral theory stating that actions are morally right if they maximize happiness and minimize suffering. She explores how utilitarianism, historically championed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, dictates that the right action is the one that generates the greatest net happiness. Markovits provides examples, like a medical dilemma involving scarce resources, to illustrate the theory. She also discusses how utilitarianism separates the idea of what is valuable from how we should act, sparking deeper reflection on the theory’s practical implications.

Takeaways

• 🧠 Utilitarianism is a moral theory focused on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
• 📜 Jeremy Bentham was a key figure in the popularization of utilitarianism in the late 18th century.
• 🌍 Bentham's ideas were socially progressive, advocating for economic liberalization, women's rights, and animal rights, among others.
• ⚖️ According to utilitarianism, the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness over suffering.
• 📚 Utilitarianism divides into two parts: a theory of what is valuable and a theory of right action.
• 😊 The only intrinsically valuable thing, according to utilitarianism, is happiness and the absence of suffering.
• 💊 A practical example: a doctor with limited medicine should prioritize saving the most lives to maximize happiness.
• 🛑 Utilitarianism doesn't allow exceptions; it applies universally to any moral decision.
• 🔍 The theory suggests actions should be evaluated based on their expected value in terms of happiness.
• 🤔 It's possible to accept parts of utilitarianism (e.g., what is valuable) without fully accepting its approach to right actions.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video presented by Julia Markovits?

The main topic of the video is utilitarianism, a moral theory that focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.

How does utilitarianism define morally permissible actions?

Utilitarianism defines morally permissible actions as those that produce at least as much net happiness as any other available action. The right action is the one that creates the greatest balance of happiness over suffering.

Who is a key historical figure associated with the development of utilitarianism?

Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher, is a key historical figure associated with utilitarianism. He published 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation' in 1789, contributing significantly to its development.

What are the two main components of utilitarianism according to the script?

The two main components are: (1) A theory of what is valuable, which states that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only things inherently valuable, and (2) A theory of right action, which claims that the right action maximizes what is valuable.

Can you give an example of utilitarian decision-making from the video?

Yes, the example provided is a doctor with five doses of medicine and six patients. One patient, Needy, needs all five doses, while the other five can each survive with one dose. Utilitarianism would advise giving the medicine to the five patients to save more lives, thus maximizing happiness.

What are some rights that Jeremy Bentham defended, according to the video?

Jeremy Bentham defended many rights, including economic liberalization, freedom of expression, the separation of church and state, women's rights, animal rights, the right to divorce, the abolition of slavery and capital punishment, and the decriminalization of homosexual acts.

What makes Bentham's work on rights significant in the context of his time?

Bentham's work on rights was significant because he advocated for many issues that are now uncontroversial, but were ahead of his time in the late 18th century. His views reflected his commitment to utilitarian principles.

Is it possible to accept parts of utilitarianism without fully endorsing the theory?

Yes, it is possible to accept the utilitarian view of what is valuable (happiness and absence of suffering) without embracing its view on how we should act, and vice versa.

How does utilitarianism handle difficult moral decisions, such as the example of distributing medicine?

Utilitarianism handles difficult moral decisions by calculating which action will result in the greatest overall happiness. In the medicine example, it advises saving the five patients over the one because that action maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering.

Why does Julia Markovits find utilitarianism appealing as a moral theory?

Julia Markovits finds utilitarianism appealing because it offers a clear and straightforward way to make moral decisions, focusing on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. She also appreciates its historical association with important social and political reforms.

Outlines

00:00

🎬 Introduction to Utilitarianism

Julia Markovits introduces herself as an associate professor of philosophy at MIT and introduces the topic of the video: utilitarianism. She outlines that utilitarianism is a moral theory concerning the rightness and wrongness of actions based on their outcomes in terms of happiness and suffering. Julia also notes that the theory is simple yet popular and raises significant concerns.

🤔 What is Utilitarianism?

Julia provides a basic explanation of utilitarianism, describing it as the idea that actions are morally permissible if they produce as much happiness as any alternative. The theory emphasizes that the right action is the one that creates the greatest net happiness, and any other action is considered morally wrong. This principle is absolute, with no exceptions.

📜 Historical Roots of Utilitarianism

Julia explains the history of utilitarianism, highlighting its rise in prominence during the late 18th century, particularly through the work of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Bentham's 1789 work 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation' popularized the theory. Bentham was also known for his progressive political and social activism, including advocating for women's rights, animal rights, and prison reform, which Julia argues were influenced by his utilitarian views.

📊 Utilitarianism's Appeal and Challenges

Julia discusses the appealing aspects of utilitarianism, noting that it is difficult to resist certain elements of the theory. She explains that utilitarianism consists of two components: a theory of value (happiness and absence of suffering are inherently valuable) and a theory of right action (the right action maximizes value). Together, these make up the core of utilitarianism, which can be compelling but also raises important ethical dilemmas.

💊 A Case Study: The Doctor's Dilemma

Julia presents a case study to illustrate utilitarianism in action. She describes a scenario where a doctor has five doses of scarce medicine and must choose between saving one patient (Needy) who needs all five doses or saving five patients who each need one dose. Utilitarianism would suggest saving the five patients, as this maximizes overall happiness by preventing more suffering, even though it means allowing Needy to die.

🔍 Separating Value and Right Action

Julia concludes by noting that the two aspects of utilitarianism—what is valuable and what constitutes the right action—can be considered separately. One could agree with utilitarianism's view of what is valuable without endorsing its prescriptions for right action, or vice versa. She emphasizes the flexibility in interpreting utilitarian principles.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states actions are morally right if they produce the greatest balance of happiness over suffering. In the video, it is described as a theory where the morally correct action maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. This is the central concept of the video and is illustrated with examples like distributing scarce medicine to save the most lives.

💡Happiness

In utilitarianism, happiness is considered the ultimate value, the primary goal that actions should aim to maximize. The video explains that utilitarianism holds happiness, along with the absence of suffering, as the only things that are valuable in their own right. The example of saving five patients over one is used to demonstrate the pursuit of greater happiness.

💡Suffering

Suffering is presented as something to be minimized in utilitarian theory. The more an action reduces suffering, the more morally valuable it is. In the video, suffering is highlighted alongside happiness as a key factor in evaluating the morality of actions, such as when determining whether to save one patient or five.

💡Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an 18th-century British philosopher who popularized utilitarianism. The video credits him for advancing the theory through his work 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.' Bentham is also noted for advocating progressive social reforms, like women's rights and animal rights, grounded in his utilitarian views.

💡Theory of right action

The theory of right action in utilitarianism is the idea that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes value (happiness). The video uses this concept to show how actions should be judged based on their consequences, with the doctor’s decision to allocate medicine to save five people being an example of this.

💡Theory of value

The theory of value in utilitarianism claims that the only things intrinsically valuable are happiness and the absence of suffering. This concept explains why utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness. The video uses the scarcity of medicine as an example, showing that saving five lives is more valuable than saving one because it results in more overall happiness.

💡Moral theory

A moral theory provides a framework for determining what actions are right or wrong. Utilitarianism, as explained in the video, is one such theory, emphasizing outcomes and the maximization of happiness. The doctor example illustrates how utilitarianism applies moral theory to practical decisions.

💡Net happiness

Net happiness refers to the overall balance of happiness produced by an action, after accounting for any suffering it may cause. In the video, the concept is central to the utilitarian evaluation of actions, such as in deciding to save five people instead of one, because it maximizes the net happiness.

💡Absence of suffering

In utilitarianism, the absence of suffering is just as important as the presence of happiness. The video emphasizes that actions should not only promote happiness but also prevent suffering, which is why saving more lives (and preventing more suffering) is considered morally better.

💡Moral permissibility

Moral permissibility refers to whether an action is allowed according to a moral theory. In utilitarianism, an action is morally permissible if it produces at least as much net happiness as any other available action. The video uses the doctor scenario to demonstrate what is morally permissible—choosing to save the greatest number of lives.

Highlights

Introduction of Julia Markovits as an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that judges actions by the happiness or suffering they produce.

Utilitarianism asserts that morally permissible actions must produce at least as much net happiness as any alternative actions.

The right action, according to utilitarianism, is the one that creates the greatest balance of happiness over suffering.

Jeremy Bentham's work in the 18th century significantly contributed to the rise in prominence of utilitarianism.

Bentham's defense of utilitarianism is found in his 1789 work 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.'

Bentham was a social reformer who advocated for economic liberalization, freedom of expression, and several human rights, well ahead of his time.

Utilitarianism divides into two key parts: the theory of value and the theory of right action.

The theory of value holds that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only things intrinsically valuable.

Other things, such as money, have value only insofar as they contribute to happiness.

The theory of right action asserts that the correct action is the one that maximizes the amount of value.

Example of utilitarian decision-making: a doctor with limited medicine should save five lives over one to maximize happiness.

The example illustrates utilitarianism’s emphasis on maximizing collective happiness, even at the expense of individual suffering.

Utilitarianism’s two components—the theory of value and the theory of right action—can be accepted independently of one another.

The theory of right action does not necessarily require happiness to be the only valuable thing, as the example demonstrates.

Transcripts

(intro music)

Hi, I'm Julia Markovits,

and I'm an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

Today, I'm going to talk about utilitarianism.

So I spend my time thinking about morality,

about what makes actions morally right or morally wrong,

and I wanted to talk today about a very simple,

quite popular answer to that question,

a moral theory that goes by the name "utilitarianism."

Utilitarianism has a lot going for it,

but it also raises some very interesting worries,

and I'm going to talk a bit about some of those.

So utilitarianism is the view that actions are

morally permissible if and only if

they produce at least as much net happiness

as any other available action.

In other words, the more happiness and

less suffering that results from our actions,

the better the action is,

and the right action is the one that produces

the greatest balance of happiness over suffering.

In fact, according to utilitarianism,

any other action is morally wrong.

This utilitarian principle is supposed

to be absolute and all-encompassing.

It will tell you for any decision whatsoever

exactly what you should morally do,

and it admits of no exceptions.

Utilitarianism has been around for a long time,

but it gained a lot in prominence and popularity

in the late eighteenth century, due in part to the work of

a British philosopher named Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham published a long defense of utilitarianism,

called "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals

"and Legislation" in 1789,

but he was also a very politically and socially active guy.

In fact, he was an early defender of

economic liberalization, freedom of expression,

the separation of church and state, women's rights,

animal rights, the right to divorce,

the abolition of slavery, the abolition of

capital punishment, the abolition of corporal punishment,

prison reform, and even the

decriminalization of homosexual acts.

Remember, this was 1789.

Bentham recognized the moral importance of these rights,

many of which are now uncontroversial.

In this, he was well ahead of his time,

and in large part, I would think,

because of his embrace of utilitarianism.

That, for me, counts heavily in favor

of it as a moral theory.

And in fact, aspects of utilitarianism

can look very hard to resist.

We can break the utilitarian thesis up into two parts:

a theory of what is valuable, and a theory of

right action given what's valuable.

First, the theory of what's valuable.

It says that the only thing that's valuable in its own right

is happiness and the absence of suffering.

Other things, like money, might be derivatively valuable,

because it helps us get happiness.

Second, the theory of right action.

The right action is the one that maximizes,

produces the most of, what's valuable,

or if that's uncertain, that produces

the most expected value.

If you put those two pieces, the theory of what's valuable

and the theory of right action given what's valuable,

together, you get utilitarianism.

Here's a very simple example.

Let's say I'm a doctor, and I have only five doses left

of some very scarce medicine.

In an emergency situation, I'm left with six patients,

all of whom need the drug to survive.

But one of them, let's call her Needy,

will survive only if I give her all five doses of the drug.

The other five patients can survive on a single dose each,

and we can assume that I know

nothing else about these patients.

Utilitarianism will tell us to divide up the drug,

saving the five and allowing Needy to die.

Why?

Because saving the five lives preserves

much more happiness and prevents

much more suffering than saving just one life.

And in that case, that seems like the right answer.

It's important to notice that these

two elements of utilitarianism can be separated.

We can accept the utilitarian view of what's valuable

without embracing its claim about what that means

for how we should act,

And we can accept the utilitarian claim

that the right action is the one that makes the most value

without accepting the claim that happiness

and the absence of suffering are all that's valuable.

Subtitles by the Amara.org community