[Jutice course] Lecture 3 - Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham

Summary

This transcript explores the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, emphasizing the principle of maximizing overall happiness or utility. It delves into the ethical implications of applying utilitarianism through cost-benefit analysis, exemplified by controversial cases like the Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens lifeboat case and the Ford Pinto fuel tank issue. The discussion raises questions about valuing human life in monetary terms, the treatment of minorities, and the feasibility of quantifying all values on a single scale, challenging the audience to consider the limitations and applications of utilitarian thinking.

Takeaways

• 📚 Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, introduced utilitarianism which focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility.
• 🧮 Utilitarianism is often applied through cost-benefit analysis, a method used by companies and governments to assign monetary values to the benefits and costs of different proposals.
• 🚬 A controversial example of cost-benefit analysis was conducted by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic, which calculated a net gain from smoking despite the health costs.
• 🚗 The Ford Pinto case highlighted the ethical issues with cost-benefit analysis when it assigned a monetary value to human life in deciding car safety improvements.
• 💰 Critics argue that placing a dollar value on human life is inherently wrong, as some things, like life itself, are considered priceless.
• 🤔 Some participants in the discussion believe that cost-benefit analysis is necessary for making practical decisions, even if it's not perfect.
• 📉 The study by psychologist Edward Thorndike in the 1930s attempted to quantify various life experiences in monetary terms, suggesting all values can be measured.
• 🌽 The most expensive item in Thorndike's study was living in Kansas, indicating people's strong aversion to it.
• 🐛 Eating a live worm was considered more costly than having a tooth pulled, showing the subjective nature of valuing experiences.
• 🤝 The debate over utilitarianism raises questions about whether individual rights and minority interests can be adequately respected in a system that focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number.

Q & A

What is the main principle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy?

The main principle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy is to maximize the general welfare or the collective happiness, also known as maximizing utility, which is the overall balance of pleasure over pain.

How did Bentham arrive at the principle of maximizing utility?

Bentham arrived at the principle of maximizing utility by reasoning that since all humans are governed by pain and pleasure, any moral system must take account of them, and the best way to do so is by maximizing their balance.

What does the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' mean in the context of utilitarianism?

In the context of utilitarianism, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' means that actions are to be evaluated based on the extent to which they maximize overall happiness or utility for the largest possible group of people.

What is cost-benefit analysis and how is it related to utilitarianism?

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used by companies and governments to evaluate the value of outcomes associated with different decision options by assigning a monetary value to the costs and benefits. It is related to utilitarianism as it attempts to quantify the overall utility of a decision or policy.

What was the outcome of the Phillip Morris study on smoking in the Czech Republic?

The Phillip Morris study found a net public finance gain in the Czech Republic of $147 million, suggesting that the government gains from citizens smoking due to tax revenues and savings on health care, pensions, and housing costs for those who die prematurely from smoking.

What was the Ford Pinto case and how does it relate to cost-benefit analysis?

The Ford Pinto case was a legal case in the 1970s where Ford was accused of not installing a safety device in their vehicles due to a cost-benefit analysis that showed the costs of installing the device outweighed the benefits. It relates to cost-benefit analysis as it exemplifies a real-world application where a company used the method to make a decision that weighed the value of human life against monetary costs.

What was the reaction to Ford's cost-benefit analysis in the Pinto case?

The reaction to Ford's cost-benefit analysis was one of shock and outrage. The jurors were appalled by the company's calculation and awarded a large settlement to the victims, indicating a societal disapproval of placing a monetary value on human life in such contexts.

What is the main concern Anna raises about utilitarianism in the transcript?

Anna's main concern is that utilitarianism might not adequately respect individual rights or minority rights, as it could lead to the interests of the minority being overridden for the sake of the majority's greater good.

What was the psychologist's name who tried to prove that all values can be translated into a single measure?

The psychologist's name who tried to prove that all values can be translated into a single measure was Edward Thorndike.

What was the most expensive item on the list in Thorndike's study?

The most expensive item on the list in Thorndike's study was living the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas, with participants stating they would require a payment of three hundred thousand dollars.

What does the controversy surrounding cost-benefit analysis reveal about the challenges of applying utilitarian principles?

The controversy surrounding cost-benefit analysis reveals challenges in applying utilitarian principles, such as the difficulty of quantifying non-monetary values like human life and suffering, and the ethical concerns of assigning monetary values to such intangibles.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Utilitarianism

The script begins with a discussion of the famous legal case 'Queen versus Dudley and Stevens', also known as the lifeboat case, which involved cannibalism at sea. This case is used as a backdrop to introduce the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham, an English philosopher born in 1748, is known for his contributions to jurisprudence and moral philosophy. His utilitarianism is centered around the idea of maximizing overall happiness or utility, which he suggests should guide personal, political, and legislative decisions. Bentham's reasoning is that since humans are governed by pain and pleasure, a moral system must account for these factors, leading to the principle of maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.

05:01

💵 Cost-Benefit Analysis in Practice

The script then delves into the application of utilitarian logic through cost-benefit analysis, a method used by companies and governments to assign monetary values to the utility of various proposals. An example is provided with a proposal in the Czech Republic to increase the excise tax on smoking. A study commissioned by Philip Morris, a tobacco company, found that the government would actually gain financially from smoking-related deaths due to increased tax revenue and reduced healthcare and pension costs. This example is used to highlight the controversy and ethical concerns surrounding cost-benefit analysis, particularly when it involves assigning a monetary value to human life.

10:01

🚗 The Ford Pinto Case

The script discusses the Ford Pinto case from the 1970s, where the company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to install a safety device in their vehicles to prevent fuel tank explosions. The analysis concluded that it was not cost-effective to install the device, as the monetary value assigned to the deaths and injuries caused by the explosions was less than the cost of the safety upgrade. This case sparked outrage and is presented as a counter-example to utilitarian thinking, as it suggests that assigning a monetary value to human life is both inappropriate and insufficient to capture the true value of life.

15:04

📉 Debates on Cost-Benefit Analysis

The script presents a debate on the use of cost-benefit analysis, particularly in regards to its ability to assign monetary values to human life. Some participants argue that such analysis is necessary for making decisions, while others contend that it is inherently flawed and disrespectful to human life. The discussion touches on the need to consider not only the monetary value but also the emotional and psychological impacts on individuals and their families. The conversation also considers the broader implications for society and the potential for such analysis to lead to morally questionable decisions.

20:04

🤔 Objections to Utilitarianism

The final paragraph presented in the script addresses objections to utilitarianism as a whole. Critics argue that utilitarianism may not adequately respect individual or minority rights, as it focuses on maximizing overall utility for the majority. The script also raises the question of whether all values can be aggregated into a single measure, which is a fundamental assumption of utilitarianism. The discussion suggests that some values, such as human life, may not be easily quantified or compared, leading to concerns about the applicability and morality of utilitarian decision-making.

🔍 Measuring Values: Thorndike's Study

The script concludes with a discussion of a study conducted by psychologist Edward Thorndike in the 1930s, which attempted to measure various unpleasant experiences by asking how much money people would require to undergo them. The study is used to question whether all values, including those related to life and suffering, can be translated into a single uniform measure of value. The preposterous nature of the items on the list suggests that perhaps not all values can be captured in this way, which would have significant implications for the utilitarian theory of morality.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that posits the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. In the video, it is discussed through the lens of Jeremy Bentham's philosophy, emphasizing the principle of maximizing utility or the greatest good for the greatest number. The script uses examples like the lifeboat case and cost-benefit analysis to explore the implications of applying utilitarian logic to real-world scenarios.

💡Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher who is the founder of modern utilitarianism. The script highlights his background and how he arrived at the principle of maximizing utility. Bentham's ideas are central to the discussion on whether morality and law should be based on maximizing collective happiness.

💡Lifeboat Case

The lifeboat case, also known as the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens case, is a famous ethical dilemma discussed in the script. It involves a situation where individuals had to decide who should survive in a lifeboat with limited space, leading to cannibalism. This case is used to debate the morality of actions taken under utilitarian principles.

💡Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used by companies and governments to evaluate the value of a given policy or decision. The script discusses how this analysis can be applied to various scenarios, including the Ford Pinto case and smoking in the Czech Republic, to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs. It is criticized for potentially devaluing human life by assigning monetary values.

💡Ford Pinto Case

The Ford Pinto case mentioned in the script is an example of cost-benefit analysis gone wrong. Ford conducted an analysis to determine if it was worth installing a safety device in their vehicles to prevent explosions, but their approach was seen as morally reprehensible when it was revealed they had assigned a dollar value to human life.

💡Value of Life

The 'value of life' is a concept discussed in the context of cost-benefit analysis. The script explores the ethical dilemma of assigning a monetary value to human life, as seen in the Ford Pinto case and the debate over whether such a value can be accurately quantified.

💡Minority Rights

Minority rights refer to the protection of the interests of smaller groups within a larger society. The script raises concerns about whether utilitarianism can adequately respect minority rights, as the focus on the greatest good for the greatest number might overlook the needs and rights of smaller groups.

💡Aggregation of Values

Aggregation of values is the process of combining individual preferences or values into a collective measure. The script questions whether all values, especially those related to human life and suffering, can be accurately aggregated into a single measure, as assumed by utilitarianism.

💡Thorndike's Study

Thorndike's study, mentioned in the script, was an attempt to measure various human experiences and desires in monetary terms. The study is used to question whether all human values can be reduced to a single uniform measure, which is a fundamental assumption of utilitarianism.

💡Individual Rights

Individual rights are the rights that each person has, regardless of the collective. The script discusses concerns that utilitarianism might not adequately respect individual rights, as it focuses on maximizing overall happiness, which could come at the expense of individual liberties.

💡Ethical Dilemma

An ethical dilemma is a situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. The script uses examples like the lifeboat case and the Ford Pinto case to illustrate ethical dilemmas and to explore how utilitarian principles might be applied to resolve them.

Highlights

Discussion of the famous legal case 'Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens', also known as the lifeboat case, which involves cannibalism at sea.

Introduction to Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher who founded utilitarianism, and his background.

Bentham's utilitarian philosophy posits that the highest principle of morality is to maximize general welfare or collective happiness.

Bentham's reasoning that since humans are governed by pain and pleasure, a moral system must account for them by maximizing utility.

Explanation that maximizing utility is a principle for individuals, communities, and legislators.

Utilitarianism is often applied through cost-benefit analysis, which is used by companies and governments.

Example of a cost-benefit analysis conducted by Philip Morris in the Czech Republic regarding the excise tax on smoking.

Criticism of Philip Morris' cost-benefit analysis for its 'heartless calculation' and the public's reaction.

Discussion on whether cost-benefit analysis can incorporate the value of life and the value to the person and their families.

The Ford Pinto case, where a cost-benefit analysis was done to determine the value of safety improvements versus potential deaths.

Criticism of Ford's cost-benefit analysis and the public's reaction to the valuation of human life in monetary terms.

Debate on whether it's appropriate to put a monetary value on human life for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis.

Argument that cost-benefit analysis is necessary for making decisions and that it can be adjusted for inflation.

Discussion on the economic benefits of cell phone use while driving and the ethical implications of valuing convenience over human life.

Critique of utilitarianism for potentially not respecting minority rights and individual rights.

Debate on whether all values can be aggregated into a single measure, using the example of ancient Rome and the Coliseum.

Introduction of psychologist Edward Thorndike's study attempting to measure various life experiences in monetary terms.

Thorndike's conclusion that all wants and satisfactions are measurable, which supports Bentham's utilitarian idea.

Question raised about whether the preposterous nature of Thorndike's study items suggests that not all values can be captured by a single measure.

Transcripts

last time

we argued about the

case of the queen versus dudley and

stevens

the lifeboat case the case of

cannibalism at sea

and with the arguments about

the lifeboat in mind the arguments for

and against what dudley and stevens did

in mind

let's turn back to the philosophy

the utilitarian philosophy of jeremy

bentham

bentham was born in england in 1748 at

the age of 12

he went to oxford at 15 he went to law

school

he was admitted to the bar at age 19 but

he never practiced

law instead he devoted his life

to jurisprudence and moral philosophy

last time we began to consider bentham's

version of utilitarianism

the main idea is simply stated and it's

this

the highest principle of morality

whether personal or political morality

is to maximize

the general welfare or the collective

happiness

or the overall balance of pleasure over

pain

in a phrase maximize utility

bentham arrives at this principle by the

following line of reasoning

we're all governed by pain and pleasure

they are our sovereign masters

and so any moral system has to take

account of them

how best to take account by maximizing

and this leads to the principle of the

greatest good for the greatest number

what exactly should we maximize

bentham tells us happiness or more

precisely

utility maximizing utility is a

principle not only for individuals but

also for communities and for legislators

what after all is a community bentham

asks

it's the sum of the individuals who

comprise it

and that's why in deciding the best

policy in deciding what the law should

be

in deciding what's just

citizens and legislators should ask

themselves the question

if we add up all of the benefits of this

policy

and subtract all of the costs

the right thing to do is the one that

maximizes

the balance of happiness over suffering

that's what it means to maximize utility

now

today i want to see

whether you agree or disagree with it

and it often goes

this utilitarian logic under the name of

cost-benefit analysis

which is used by companies

and by governments all the time

and what it involves is placing a value

usually a dollar value to stand for

utility

on the costs and the benefits of various

proposals

recently in the czech republic there was

a proposal to

increase the excise tax on smoking

philip morris

the tobacco company

does huge business in the czech republic

they commissioned

a study a cost-benefit analysis

of smoking in the czech republic

and what their cost-benefit analysis

found

was the government gains

by having czech citizens

smoke now how do they gain

it's true that there are negative

effects

to the public finance of the czech

government

because there are increased health care

costs for people who develop smoking

related

diseases on the other hand there were

positive effects

and those were added up on the other

side of the ledger

the positive effects included for the

most part various

tax revenues that the government

derives from the sale of cigarette

products but it also included

health care savings to the government

when people die early

pension savings you don't have to pay

pensions for as long

and also savings in housing costs for

the elderly

and when all of the costs and benefits

were added up

the philip morris study

found that there is a net public finance

gain in the czech republic of 147

million dollars and given the savings

in housing and health care and pension

costs

the government enjoys the saving of

savings of over twelve hundred dollars

for each person who dies prematurely due

to smoking

cost benefit analysis now

those among you who are defenders of

utilitarianism may think that this is an

unfair test phillip morris was

pilloried in the press and they issued

an apology for this heartless

calculation you may say

that what's missing here is something

that the utilitarian can

easily incorporate namely

the value to the person and to the

families of those who die

from lung cancer what about the value of

life

some cost-benefit analyses incorporate

a measure for the value of life

one of the most famous of these involved

the ford pinto case

did any of you read about that this was

back in the 1970s do you remember what

the ford pinto was a kind of car

anybody

it was a small car a sub compact car

very popular but it had one

problem which is the fuel tank was at

the back of the car

and in rear collisions the fuel tank

exploded

and some people were killed and some

severely injured

victims of these injuries took forward

to court to sue

and in the court case it turned out that

ford had long since known

about the vulnerable fuel tank and had

done a cost-benefit analysis to

determine whether it would be worth it

to put in a special shield that would

protect the fuel tank and prevent it

from exploding

they did a cost-benefit analysis the

cost per

part to increase the safety

of the pinto they calculated at 11

per part

and here's this was the cost-benefit

analysis that emerged

in the trial eleven dollars per part

at 12.5 million cars and trucks came to

a total cost

of 137 million dollars to improve the

safety

but then they calculated the benefits of

spending all this money on a safer car

and they counted 180 deaths

and they assigned a dollar value 200 000

per death 180 injuries

67 000 and then the cost

to repair the replacement cost for two

thousand vehicles that would be

destroyed

without the safety device seventy seven

hundred dollars per vehicle

so the benefits turned out to be

only 49.5 million and so they

didn't install the device needless to

say

when this memo of the ford

motor company's cost-benefit analysis

came out in the trial

it appalled the jurors who awarded

a huge settlement

is this a counter-example to the

utilitarian idea of calculating

because ford included a measure of the

value of life

now who here wants to defend

cost-benefit analysis from

apparent counter-example who has a

defense

or do you think this completely destroys

the whole utilitarian calculus

yes okay well i think that

once again they've made the same mistake

the previous case did that they assigned

a dollar value

to human life and once again they failed

to take account things like

suffering and emotional losses by the

families i mean families lost earnings

but they also lost a loved one and that

uh

is more valued than 200 thousand dollars

right and wait wait wait

that's good what's your name uh julia

roto so if 200

000 julie is too too low a figure

because it doesn't include the loss of a

loved one

and the loss of those years of life

what would be what do you think would be

a more accurate number

i don't believe i could give a number i

think that this sort of analysis

shouldn't be applied to issues of human

life i think can't be used monetarily

so they didn't just put too low a number

julie says they were wrong to try to put

any number at all

all right let's hear someone who

you have to adjust for inflation

[Laughter]

all right fair enough so what would the

number be now

this was 30 this was 35 years ago

2 million dollars you would put 2

million and what's your name

voytec says we have to allow for

inflation

we should be more generous then would

you be satisfied that this is the right

way of thinking about the question

i guess unfortunately it is for

there needs to be a number put somewhere

like

i'm not sure what that number would be

but i do agree that there could possibly

be a number put on human life

all right so voitec says

and here he disagrees with truly truly

says we can't put a number on human life

for the purpose of a cost-benefit

analysis vortex says we have to

because we have to make decisions

somehow

what do other people think about this is

there anyone prepared to defend

cost-benefit analysis here

as accurate as desirable yes

go ahead i think that if ford and other

car companies didn't use cost benefit

analysis

they'd eventually go out of business

because they wouldn't be able to be

profitable

and millions of people wouldn't be able

to use their cars to get to jobs to put

food on table

to feed their children so i think that

if cost benefit analysis isn't employed

the greater good is sacrificed

in this case all right let me what's

your name raul

raul there was recently a study done

about cell phone use by a driver

when people are driving a car and

there's a debate whether that should be

banned

and the figure was that some

2 000 people die

as a result of accidents each year

using cell phones and yet

the cost benefit analysis which was done

by the center for risk analysis at

harvard

found that if you look at the benefits

of the cell phone use

and you put some value on the live it

comes out about the same

because of the enormous economic benefit

of enabling people to take advantage of

their time not waste time be able to

make deals and talk to friends and so on

while they're driving doesn't that

suggest

that it's a mistake to try to put

monetary figures on questions

of human life well i think that if

the great majority of people try to

derive maximum utility

out of a service like using cell phones

and the convenience that cell phones

provide

that sacrifice is necessary for

satisfaction to occur you're an outright

utilitarian

in yes okay

all right then one last question raul

okay

um and i put this to vojtech what what

dollar figure

should be put on human life to decide

whether to ban the use of cell phones

well i i don't want to arbitrarily

calculate a figure i mean right now i

think that

you want to take it under advisement

yeah

but what roughly speaking would it be

you've got 2 300 deaths

you've got to assign a dollar value to

know whether you want to prevent those

deaths by banning the use of cell phones

in cars

okay so what would your hunch be

how much a million 2 million

two million was void tax figure yeah is

that about right

maybe a million a million yeah

you know the uh that's good thank you

okay

so these are some of the controversies

that arise these days from cost-benefit

analysis especially those that involve

placing a dollar value on everything to

be added up

well now i want to turn to your

objections to your objections

not necessarily to cost benefit analysis

specifically

because that's just one version of the

utilitarian logic in practice

today but to the

theory as a whole to the idea

that the right thing to do

the just basis for policy and law

is to maximize utility

how many disagree with the utilitarian

approach to law

and to the common good how many agree

with it

so more agree than disagree so let's

hear from the critics

yes my main issue with it is that i feel

like

you can't say that just because

someone's in the minority

what they want and need is less valuable

than someone who's in the majority so i

guess i have an issue with the idea that

the greatest good for the greatest

number is okay because

there's still what about people who are

in the lesser number like it's not fair

to them they didn't have any say in

in where they wanted to be all right

that's an interesting objection

you're worried about the effect on the

minority

yes what's your name by the way anna

uh who has an answer to anna's worry

about

the effect on the minority what do you

say to anna um

she said that the minorities value less

i don't think that's the case because

individually the minority's value is

just the same as

the individual of the majority it's just

that the numbers

outweigh the um minority

and i mean at a certain point you have

to make a decision and

i'm sorry for the minority but sometimes

it's for the general for the greater

good for the greater good anna what do

you say

what's your name yanda what do you say

to yanda

yongda says you just have to add up

people's preferences and those in the

minority do have their preferences

weighed

can you give an example of the kind of

thing you're worried about when you

say you're worried about utilitarianism

violating

the concern or respect to the minority

can you give an example so well with any

of the cases that we've talked about

like for the shipwreck one

um i think the boy who was eaten

still had as much of a right to live as

the other people

and um just because he

was the minority in that case the one

who

maybe had less of a chance to keep

living that doesn't mean

that the others automatically have a

right to eat him

just because it would give a greater

amount of people

a chance to live so there may be certain

rights

that the minority members have that the

individual has

that shouldn't be traded off for the

sake of

utility yes anna

yonda this would be a test free for you

back in ancient rome they

threw christians to the lions in the

coliseum for sport

if you ran think how the utilitarian

calculus would go

yes the christian throne to the lion

suffers

enormous excruciating pain but look at

the collective

ecstasy of the romans

yonder

well um in that time

i don't if um i in modern day of time

to value the um to give a number to the

happiness given to the people watching

i don't think any like

policy maker will say the pain

of one person of the suffering of one

person is much much

in comparison to the happiness gained

it's no but you have to admit that if

there were enough romans delirious

enough with happiness

it would outweigh even the most

excruciating pain of a handful of

christians thrown to the lion

so we really have here two different

objections to utilitarianism

one has to do with whether

utilitarianism

adequately respects individual rights

or minority rights and the other has to

do

with the whole idea of aggregating

or preferences or values

is it possible to aggregate all values

to translate them into dollar terms

there was in the eight in the 1930s

an and psychologist who tried

to address this second question he tried

to prove

what utilitarianism assumes that it is

possible

to translate all goods all values all

human concerns

into a single uniform measure and he did

this

by conducting a survey of young

recipients of relief this was in the

1930s

and he asked them he gave them a list of

unpleasant experiences

and he asked them how much would you

have to be paid to undergo

the following experiences and he kept

track

for example how much would you have to

be paid to have one

upper front tooth pulled out

or how much would you have to be paid to

have one little

one little toe cut off

or to eat a live earthworm six six

inches long

or to live the rest of your life on a

farm in kansas

or to choke a stray cat to death with

your bare hands

now what do you suppose what do you

suppose was the most expensive item on

that list

kansas

you you're right it was kansas

for for kansas people said they'd have

to pay them

they'd have to be paid three hundred

thousand dollars

what do you think what do you think was

the next most expensive

not the cat not the tooth

not the toe

the worm

people said you'd have to pay them a

hundred thousand dollars

to eat the worm what do you think

was the least expensive item

not the cat the tooth

during the depression people were

willing to have their tooth pulled

for only forty five hundred dollars

now here's what thought here's what

thorndike

concluded from his study

any want or satisfaction which exists

exists in

some amount and is therefore measurable

the life of a dog or a cat or a chicken

consists of appetites cravings

desires and their gratifications so does

the life

of human beings though the appetites and

desires

are more complicated but

what about thorndike's study

does it support bentham's idea

that all goods all values can be

captured according to a single uniform

measure of value

or does the preposterous character of

those different items on the list

suggests the opposite conclusion

that maybe whether we're talking about

life

or kansas or the worm

maybe the things we value

and cherish can't be captured

according to a single uniform measure of

value

and if they can't what are the

consequences

for the utilitarian theory of morality

that's a question we'll continue with

next time