The Famous 'Sheriff' Counterexample to Utilitarianism

Summary

In 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:01

🚔 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.

10:04

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that posits the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome, specifically the extent to which it maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. In the video, this theory is central as it is the subject of critique through McCloskey's Sheriff example. The example challenges utilitarianism by suggesting that it may require morally repugnant actions, such as framing an innocent person, for the greater good.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is a broader ethical theory that asserts the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. It is mentioned in the video as the overarching category to which utilitarianism belongs. According to consequentialism, actions are to be evaluated based on the goodness of their outcomes, which ties directly into the discussion of the Sheriff example and its implications for utilitarianism.

💡Aggregation

Aggregation, in the context of the video, refers to the process of summing up the individual benefits and harms to determine the overall goodness of a situation. It is a key component of utilitarianism and is challenged by McCloskey's example, which suggests that simply adding up the total pleasure or pain may not account for the distribution of consequences among individuals.

💡Hedonism

Hedonism is the theory that pleasure is the highest good and the proper aim of human life. In utilitarianism, as discussed in the video, hedonism is used to determine what is good for an individual—maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The video script uses hedonism to explain how utilitarianism evaluates the goodness of a situation for an individual.

💡Counterexample

A counterexample is a specific instance that contradicts a general claim or theory. In the video, McCloskey's Sheriff example serves as a counterexample to utilitarianism, suggesting that the theory leads to morally unacceptable conclusions. The counterexample is used to argue against the validity of utilitarianism by providing a scenario where its principles result in an action most would deem morally wrong.

💡Sheriff Example

The Sheriff example, introduced by H. J. McCloskey, is a hypothetical scenario used to challenge utilitarianism. In the video, it is described as a situation where a sheriff must decide whether to frame an innocent person to prevent riots that would lead to many deaths. This example is central to the critique of utilitarianism presented in the video, as it illustrates the theory's potential to demand morally questionable actions for the sake of overall utility.

💡Moral Intuition

Moral intuition refers to the immediate and instinctive judgment about the moral correctness of an action or situation. The video discusses how McCloskey leverages moral intuitions against utilitarianism, arguing that our intuitive moral responses often conflict with the theory's conclusions. The Sheriff example is used to highlight this conflict, as most people's moral intuitions would reject the idea of framing an innocent person, even for the greater good.

💡Distribution of Pleasure and Pain

The distribution of pleasure and pain refers to how these moral values are spread among individuals within a situation. The video script critiques utilitarianism for not considering the distribution, focusing only on the total sum of pleasure and pain. McCloskey's insight, as mentioned in the video, is that utilitarianism's failure to account for distribution can lead to morally problematic outcomes.

💡Biting the Bullet

Biting the bullet is a philosophical term used to describe accepting an uncomfortable or unpalatable consequence of one's beliefs or theories. In the video, J. J. C. Smart is said to 'bite the bullet' by accepting that, according to utilitarianism, framing an innocent person might be the morally right action in the Sheriff example. This illustrates the willingness to accept difficult implications of one's philosophical stance.

💡Moral Theory

A moral theory is a systematic set of principles intended to guide human conduct. In the video, utilitarianism is the primary moral theory under discussion. The video explores whether utilitarianism, as a moral theory, can provide correct guidance on moral actions by examining its response to the Sheriff example and the moral intuitions it challenges.

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