Intro to Consequentialism & Act Utilitarianism

Summary

This 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:00

📚 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.

10:02

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Normative ethical theory

Normative ethical theory refers to a branch of ethical philosophy that seeks to understand how we ought to act, or how we can determine what is morally right or wrong. In the video, the discussion shifts from the meta-ethical question of whether there is an objective morality to the normative question of how we make moral decisions in everyday life.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory where the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. The video explains that consequentialism is one of the most popular views among philosophers and is the starting point for discussing how to live a morally right life.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a specific form of consequentialism that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or pleasure. It is mentioned in the script as the most popular version of consequentialism, often used interchangeably with the term consequentialism.

💡Deontological ethics

Deontological ethics, also known as duty ethics, is another major ethical theory that emphasizes the inherent morality or immorality of actions based on whether they adhere to a set of rules or duties, rather than their consequences.

💡Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that focuses on the character of the moral agent, emphasizing virtues such as courage, honesty, and wisdom. The video mentions that the speaker is a virtue ethicist, contrasting his views with his wife's consequentialism.

💡Principle of utility

The principle of utility is central to utilitarianism and requires that a person chooses the action that maximizes happiness in any given situation. The video explains that this principle is used to determine the right action according to utilitarianism.

💡Hedonistic act utilitarianism

Hedonistic act utilitarianism is a type of utilitarianism that judges actions based on the amount of happiness or unhappiness they create. The video discusses this as one of the types of utilitarianism, focusing on the classical principles associated with it.

💡Act utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism where each individual action is evaluated for its moral worth based on its consequences. The video contrasts this with rule utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based on adherence to rules that produce good outcomes.

💡Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that evaluates actions based on whether they follow rules that, if generally adhered to, would maximize overall happiness. The video mentions this in the context of different types of utilitarianism.

💡Reflective equilibrium

Reflective equilibrium is a process in moral philosophy where one reflects on their moral intuitions and the implications of moral theories to reach a coherent set of moral beliefs. The video describes how this process can lead to the acceptance or rejection of a moral theory based on its alignment with firmly held moral views.

💡Moral intuition

Moral intuition refers to the immediate, often unconscious, judgments we make about the moral status of actions. The video discusses how moral theories can sometimes conflict with our moral intuitions, leading us to question or adjust our beliefs.

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