Moral Cluelessness

Summary

This video explores the 'cluelessness objection' to utilitarianism, which argues that we can't predict the long-term or indefinite consequences of our actions, making it difficult to apply the utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness. The speaker considers whether this uncertainty leads to moral skepticism, questioning if we can ever know the right action to take. Despite this challenge, the speaker suggests that the cluelessness objection doesn't necessarily refute utilitarianism but highlights the limitations of human understanding in a morally complex world. The video concludes by considering how a pessimistic view of morality might still coexist with utilitarian principles.

Takeaways

• 😀 Utilitarianism asserts that the right action is the one that maximizes happiness, regardless of location or individuals affected.
• 😀 The cluelessness objection to utilitarianism argues that we cannot predict the long-term or infinite consequences of our actions, making it difficult to determine the right course of action.
• 😀 In scenarios like the trolley problem, utilitarianism suggests actions based on short-term outcomes (e.g., saving five people over one), but the long-term effects remain unknown.
• 😀 The cluelessness objection implies that we are morally 'clueless' about the true consequences of our actions, especially when these consequences stretch far into the future.
• 😀 Even actions that seem morally obvious in the short term (e.g., saving lives) could lead to unintended, unforeseen outcomes that complicate our moral decisions.
• 😀 One response to the cluelessness objection is that utilitarianism might lead to moral skepticism, where we know what is objectively right but are unable to apply this knowledge due to our ignorance of long-term consequences.
• 😀 Some utilitarians argue that while the principle of maximizing happiness remains true, the application of this principle in daily life is guided by general rules of thumb, acknowledging human cognitive limitations.
• 😀 Metaphysical indeterminacy is another possible response, suggesting that the consequences of our actions may not even have a fixed fact of the matter, as the world could be inherently unpredictable.
• 😀 The example of a world without reliable principles of induction (or one with metaphysical indeterminacy) shows that even if utilitarianism is theoretically valid, we may never be able to consistently apply it in practice.
• 😀 Ultimately, the cluelessness objection leads to a pessimistic conclusion about morality, suggesting that the world is uncooperative with moral reasoning, but this does not negate the validity of utilitarianism itself.

Q & A

What is the central issue raised by the cluelessness objection to utilitarianism?

The central issue is that utilitarianism requires us to predict the long-term consequences of our actions in order to maximize happiness. The cluelessness objection argues that we are fundamentally incapable of knowing these long-term consequences, making it difficult to apply utilitarian principles effectively.

How does utilitarianism determine the right action in a given situation?

Utilitarianism determines the right action by identifying which action maximizes happiness, considering all affected parties impartially. The goal is to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of when or where the happiness occurs or who the bearer of happiness is.

What example does the speaker use to illustrate the cluelessness objection?

The speaker uses the trolley problem as an example. In this scenario, a utilitarian would say it’s better to kill one person to save five, but the cluelessness objection points out that we cannot predict the future consequences of our actions, such as whether the one person who is killed could have had a significant positive impact, like curing cancer.

What is the suggestion that utilitarianism might lead to moral skepticism?

The suggestion is that if we accept the cluelessness objection, it could lead to moral skepticism—where we acknowledge that we don't know what the right action is because we can't predict the long-term consequences. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate utilitarianism, but it makes it difficult to guide behavior based on it.

How does two-level utilitarianism address the cluelessness problem?

Two-level utilitarianism differentiates between the theoretical principle of utilitarianism, which determines the right action, and the more practical, everyday decision-making process. It suggests that in everyday situations, we should follow general rules of thumb or common sense rather than calculating happiness outcomes, due to our cognitive limitations.

What role does metaphysical indeterminacy play in the cluelessness objection?

Metaphysical indeterminacy suggests that the world may not have definite, predictable consequences for actions. If the future is indeterminate or governed by random events, it would be impossible to know the outcomes of our actions, complicating the application of utilitarianism, which relies on knowing the consequences of our actions.

What is the speaker’s view on whether the cluelessness objection refutes utilitarianism?

The speaker does not see the cluelessness objection as a refutation of utilitarianism. Instead, they argue that it leads to a pessimistic conclusion about morality, where it becomes clear that we cannot reliably know the consequences of our actions, but this doesn’t invalidate the utilitarian framework itself.

What is the distinction between moral principles and everyday behavior in the context of utilitarianism?

In utilitarianism, moral principles tell us the theoretically correct action—whichever maximizes happiness. However, due to human cognitive limitations, in everyday life, people may apply more intuitive rules or general guidelines to navigate moral decisions, instead of calculating the exact consequences of each action.

How does the speaker compare the cluelessness objection in utilitarianism to a personal welfare dilemma?

The speaker compares it to a situation where someone is in prison with two buttons—one that will open the door and one that will kill them. If the outcome is determined randomly, there's no fact of the matter about which button to press, but that doesn’t negate the person's concern for their own welfare. Similarly, the cluelessness objection suggests we can't know the consequences of actions but still value the moral goal of maximizing happiness.

How does the speaker relate the cluelessness objection to the idea of a chaotic world without reliable moral outcomes?

The speaker suggests that if the world were completely chaotic, where actions had no predictable outcomes, we could not reliably act in accordance with utilitarian principles. However, this would not necessarily mean that utilitarianism is false—it would just indicate that in such a world, no actions could be deemed right or wrong. The speaker views this as an extension of the pessimistic view of morality brought on by the cluelessness objection.