Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36

Summary

The script explores the moral dilemma of whether Batman should kill the Joker through the lens of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. It contrasts Batman's strict no-killing rule, influenced by Kantianism, with the utilitarian focus on consequences, suggesting that Batman's refusal to kill could indirectly cause more harm. The video delves into the principles of utilitarianism, its criticisms, and the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism, using thought experiments to illustrate the complexities of moral decision-making.

Takeaways

• 🦇 Batman's no-killing rule is central to his moral code, reflecting Kantian ethics which prioritize absolute moral rules over consequences.
• 🤔 The script raises a moral dilemma: whether Batman's refusal to kill the Joker, despite his repeated crimes, is morally pure or complicit in future harm.
• 📚 Kantianism, as introduced by Immanuel Kant, is a moral philosophy that emphasizes adherence to moral rules without exception, regardless of the outcome.
• 🔄 Utilitarianism, in contrast, focuses on the consequences of actions, advocating that the most ethical choice is the one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people.
• 💡 Utilitarianism's founders, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, along with its philosophical roots in Epicurean thought, argue that actions should be judged by the pleasure or happiness they produce.
• 🌐 The principle of utility in utilitarianism suggests that actions should be chosen based on their ability to create the greatest good for the most people, often described as 'hedonistic'.
• 👥 Utilitarianism is other-regarding, meaning it considers the pleasure and happiness of all sentient beings, not just the individual performing the action.
• 🍽️ The script uses the example of choosing a restaurant to illustrate utilitarian decision-making, where personal preference is sacrificed for the greater good of the group.
• 🤝 Utilitarians propose making moral decisions from an impartial perspective, akin to advising a group of strangers, to ensure fairness and lack of bias.
• 🔍 Bernard Williams' thought experiment challenges utilitarianism by presenting a scenario where taking an innocent life is the utilitarian choice, yet morally repugnant.
• 🔄 The script discusses two forms of utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism, which focuses on individual actions, and Rule Utilitarianism, which emphasizes following rules that generally lead to the greatest good.

Q & A

Why does Batman refuse to kill the Joker, according to his moral standpoint?

Batman adheres to a strict no-killing rule, which is reflective of Kantian ethics. He believes that there are certain moral lines that should not be crossed, regardless of the circumstances.

What is the core principle of Kantian ethics as described in the script?

Kantian ethics is about adhering to moral rules without exception. It emphasizes that good people should not cross certain moral boundaries, no matter what the situation.

How does the script suggest that Batman's refusal to kill the Joker might indirectly contribute to future harm?

The script implies that by not killing the Joker, Batman allows him to escape and continue his cycle of violence, which could be seen as a form of moral failing from a utilitarian perspective.

What is utilitarianism and how does it differ from Kantian ethics?

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. It differs from Kantian ethics in that it does not adhere to absolute moral rules but instead evaluates actions based on their outcomes.

Who are the founders of modern utilitarianism mentioned in the script?

The founders of modern utilitarianism are British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

What does the principle of utility entail in utilitarianism?

The principle of utility in utilitarianism states that actions should be evaluated based on whether they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

How does utilitarianism view the concept of sacrificing personal pleasure for the greater good?

Utilitarianism suggests that personal pleasure may sometimes need to be sacrificed in order to produce more overall good for the group, emphasizing the importance of considering the happiness of all involved.

What is the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism focuses on choosing the action that produces the greatest good in each specific situation, while rule utilitarianism advocates for following rules that generally lead to the greatest good for the greatest number over time.

What is the thought experiment presented by Bernard Williams to critique utilitarianism?

The thought experiment involves a character named Jim who is offered the choice to kill one person to save nineteen others from execution. Williams uses this scenario to argue against the utilitarian demand to take an innocent life, even for a greater good.

How does the script relate the concept of utilitarianism to Batman's dilemma with the Joker?

The script suggests that if Batman were to adopt a utilitarian perspective, he might be morally justified in killing the Joker to prevent future harm and save more lives.

What is the role of a 'benevolent, disinterested spectator' in making moral decisions according to utilitarianism?

The 'benevolent, disinterested spectator' represents an unbiased position from which to make moral decisions. It encourages individuals to consider what would be best for the group as a whole, rather than being influenced by personal emotions or interests.

Outlines

00:00

🦇 The Ethics of Batman's No-Killing Rule

This paragraph delves into the moral dilemma surrounding Batman's refusal to kill the Joker, despite the villain's relentless cycle of crime and chaos. It contrasts Batman's Kantian ethics, which emphasize strict adherence to moral rules without exceptions, with the utilitarian perspective that focuses on the consequences of actions for the greatest good. The Kantian approach is typified by Batman's unwavering commitment to his no-killing code, even when it means the Joker will inevitably harm more people. Utilitarianism, with its roots in the philosophies of Bentham and Mill, posits that actions should be judged by their outcomes, suggesting that Batman might be morally culpable for not preventing future Joker-related atrocities. The paragraph also introduces the concept of utilitarianism, explaining its hedonistic nature and the principle of utility, which advocates maximizing happiness for the greatest number.

05:06

🤔 Utilitarianism and Moral Decision-Making

The second paragraph explores the application and critique of utilitarianism through thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios. It begins by discussing the impartiality of moral judgment, suggesting that decisions are best made from the perspective of a disinterested spectator. The paragraph presents Bernard Williams' critique of utilitarianism through a scenario where a character named Jim must decide whether to kill one person to save nineteen others, highlighting the moral conflict between act utilitarianism's demand for the greatest good and the individual's reluctance to commit an immoral act. The paragraph further explains the difference between act utilitarianism, which focuses on individual actions maximizing utility, and rule utilitarianism, which emphasizes adhering to rules that generally promote the greatest good. The discussion concludes with a reflection on Batman's moral stance, positing that if he were to adopt utilitarianism, it would likely lead to a very different outcome for the Joker.

Keywords

💡Batman

Batman is a fictional superhero appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics. The character is known for his strict moral code against killing, which is central to the video's theme of moral philosophy. In the script, Batman's refusal to kill the Joker, despite the latter's ongoing crimes, is used to explore ethical theories like Kantianism and utilitarianism.

💡Kantian

Kantian ethics refers to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, which emphasizes the importance of duty and moral rules that should be followed unconditionally. In the video, Batman's actions are described as Kantian because he adheres to his no-killing rule regardless of the Joker's actions, illustrating the concept of moral absolutism.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering by weighing the consequences of actions. The video discusses this theory in the context of Batman's dilemma with the Joker, questioning whether Batman's adherence to his no-killing rule leads to a greater good or if it results in more harm by allowing the Joker to continue his crimes.

💡Consequences

In the context of the video, consequences refer to the outcomes or results of actions, which utilitarianism considers as the primary determinant of morality. The script uses the concept to contrast with the intent-focused Kantian ethics, suggesting that Batman's decision not to kill the Joker might have negative consequences for society.

💡Moral Dilemma

A moral dilemma is a situation where an individual has to make a decision between two or more ethically conflicting options. The video presents Batman's choice regarding the Joker as a moral dilemma, where the traditional Kantian approach conflicts with the utilitarian focus on the greatest good for the greatest number.

💡Happiness

Happiness, in the video, is discussed as the ultimate goal according to utilitarianism, where actions are judged by the degree to which they promote happiness or pleasure. The script contrasts this with the Kantian approach, which is less concerned with outcomes and more with adherence to moral rules.

💡Epicurus

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher known for his teachings on the pursuit of happiness and pleasure as the highest form of well-being. The video mentions Epicurus as a philosophical ancestor of utilitarianism, emphasizing the idea that actions should be measured by the happiness they produce.

💡Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and a founder of modern utilitarianism. The script refers to Bentham as one of the originators of the theory that actions should be evaluated based on their ability to produce pleasure or happiness, highlighting his influence on the ethical theory discussed.

💡John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher who contributed to the development of utilitarianism. In the video, Mill is mentioned alongside Bentham as a key figure in the establishment of utilitarian ethics, which focuses on consequences and the maximization of happiness.

💡Principle of Utility

The principle of utility is the central tenet of utilitarianism, which states that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. The video uses this principle to examine Batman's moral decisions and the potential conflict between individual moral rules and the greater good.

💡Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism, a form of utilitarianism, suggests that each individual action should be evaluated based on its consequences to determine the moral worth. The video presents a hypothetical scenario involving a surgeon to illustrate the sometimes controversial implications of act utilitarianism, where the greater good might require morally challenging actions.

💡Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is an alternative form of utilitarianism that emphasizes following general rules that tend to maximize overall happiness, rather than evaluating each action individually. The script contrasts this with act utilitarianism, suggesting that rule utilitarianism might offer a more practical and less morally demanding approach to ethical decision-making.

Highlights

The ethical dilemma of whether Batman should kill the Joker is explored through the lens of Batman's no-killing rule.

Batman's moral stance is described as Kantian, emphasizing the importance of adhering to moral rules without exceptions.

The Joker's inevitable return to crime after escaping Arkham Asylum raises questions about Batman's moral responsibility for future victims.

Utilitarianism is introduced as an alternative ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of actions rather than the intentions behind them.

Utilitarianism's historical roots in the works of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Epicurus are discussed.

The principle of utility is explained as the core of utilitarianism, advocating for actions that maximize happiness for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism is contrasted with egoism, highlighting its focus on the greater good rather than individual pleasure.

The concept of a benevolent, disinterested spectator is introduced as a method for unbiased moral decision-making.

Bernard Williams' thought experiment involving Jim and the indigenous people critiques the demands of utilitarianism in moral dilemmas.

The distinction between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism is clarified, with examples illustrating their applications.

Act Utilitarianism's potential to justify morally questionable actions for the greater good is examined through a hypothetical organ transplant scenario.

Rule Utilitarianism is presented as a more socially sustainable approach, advocating for rules that generally promote the greatest good.

The practical implications of utilitarianism for Batman's decision-making are considered, suggesting a utilitarian Batman might take more drastic measures against the Joker.

The episode concludes with a preview of the next moral theory to be discussed, contractarianism, in future Crash Course Philosophy episodes.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios, offering a variety of educational content.

The episode was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio, acknowledging the production team and graphics team at Thought Cafe.

Transcripts

Should Batman kill the Joker?

If you were to ask the Dark Knight himself, with his hard-and-fast no-killing rule, he’d say absolutely not.

Actually, in fact, he would say: [Batman voice] “Absolutely not.”

When you think about it, dude is pretty Kantian in his ethics.

Regardless of what Joker does, there are some lines that good people do not cross, and for Batman, killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line.

But, let’s be real here: Joker is never gonna stop killing.

Sure, Batman will have him thrown back in Arkham, but we all know that he’s gonna get out – he always gets out – and once he’s free, he will kill again.

And maim and terrorize.

And when he does won’t a little bit of that be Batman’s fault?

Batman has been in a position to kill Joker hundreds of times.

He has had the power to save anyone from ever being a victim of the Joker again.

If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill?

Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?

[Theme Music]

So, why do I describe Batman as Kantian?

Well, the school of thought laid out by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant – now known as Kantianism – is pretty straightforward.

More precisely: It’s absolute.

Kantianism is all about sticking to the moral rulebook.

There are never any exceptions, or any excuses, for violating moral rules.

And our man Batman tries his hardest to stick to his code, no matter what.

But there are other ways of looking at ethics.

Like, instead of focusing on the intent behind our behavior, what if we paid more attention to the consequences?

One moral theory that does this is utilitarianism.

It focuses on the results, or consequences, of our actions, and treats intentions as irrelevant.

Good consequences equal good actions, in this view.

So, what’s a good consequence?

Modern utilitarianism was founded in the 18th century by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

But the theory has philosophical ancestors in ancient Greek thinkers such as Epicurus.

All of these guys agreed that actions should be measured in terms of the happiness, or pleasure, that they produce.

After all, they argued, happiness is our final end – it’s what we do everything else for.

Think about it like this: many things that you do, you do for the sake of something else.

You study to get a good grade.

You work to get money.

But why do you want good grades, or money?

There are different answers we could give – like maybe we’re seeking affirmation for our intelligence, or the approval of our parents, or a degree that will give us a career we want.

But why do we want that particular career?

Why do we want approval?

We can keep asking questions, but ultimately our answer will bottom out in,

“I want what I want because I think it will make me happy.”

That’s what we all want – it’s one of the few things everyone has in common.

And utilitarians believe that’s what should drive our morality.

Like Kant, utilitarians agree that a moral theory should apply equally to everyone.

But they thought the way to do that was to ground it in something that’s really intuitive.

And there’s really nothing more basic than the primal desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

So, it’s often said that utilitarianism is a hedonistic moral theory – this means the good is equal to the pleasant, and we ought, morally, to pursue pleasure and happiness, and work to avoid pain.

But, utilitarianism is not what you’d call an egoistic theory.

Egoism says that everyone ought, morally, to pursue their own good.

In contrast to that, utilitarianism is other-regarding.

It says we should pursue pleasure or happiness – not just for ourselves, but for as many sentient beings as possible.

To put it formally: “we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.”

This is known as the principle of utility.

OK, no one’s gonna argue with a philosophy that tells them to seek pleasure.

But, sometimes doing what provides the most pleasure to the most people can mean that you have to take one for the team.

It can mean sacrificing your pleasure, in order to produce more good overall.

Like when it’s your birthday and your family says you can choose any restaurant you want.

The thing that would make you happiest is Thai food, but you know that that would make the rest of your family miserable.

So when you choose Chinese – which is nobody’s favorite, but everybody can make do – then you’ve thought like a utilitarian.

You’ve chosen the action that would produce the most overall happiness for the group, even though it produced less happiness for you than other alternatives would have.

The problem is, for the most part, we’re all our own biggest fans.

We each come pre-loaded with a bias in favor of our own interests.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – caring about yourself is a good way to promote survival.

But where morality is concerned, utilitarians argue, as special as you are, you’re no more special than anybody else.

So your interests count, but no more than anyone else’s.

Now, you might say that you agree with that.

I mean, we all like to think of ourselves as being generous and selfless.

But, even though I’m sure you are a totally nice person – you have to admit that things seem way more important – weightier, higher-stakes – when they apply to you, rather than to some stranger.

So, utilitarians suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator.

Rather than thinking about what I should do, they suggest that I consider what I would think if I were advising a group of strangers about what they should do.

That way, I have a disposition of good will, but I’m not emotionally invested.

And I’m a spectator, rather than a participant.

This approach is far more likely to yield a fair and unbiased judgment about what’s really best for the group.

Now, to see utilitarianism put to the test, let’s pop over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

20th century British philosopher Bernard Williams offered this thought experiment.

Jim is on a botanical expedition in South America when he happens upon a group of 20 indigenous people, and a group of soldiers.

The whole group of indigenous people is about to be executed for protesting their oppressive regime.

For some reason, the leader of the soldiers offers Jim the chance to shoot one of the prisoners, since he’s a guest in their land.

He says that if Jim shoots one of the prisoners, he’ll let the other 19 go.

But if Jim refuses, then the soldiers will shoot all 20 protesters.

What should Jim do?

More importantly, what would you do?

Williams actually presents this case as a critique of utilitarianism.

The theory clearly demands that Jim shoot one man so that 19 will be saved.

But, Williams argues, no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life.

Thinking like a Kantian, Williams argues that it’s not Jim’s fault that the head soldier is a total dirt bag, and Jim shouldn’t have to get literal blood on his hands to try and rectify the situation.

So, although it sounds pretty simple, utilitarianism is a really demanding moral theory.

It says, we live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things.

And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we must.

Even if that means getting our hands dirty.

And if I sit by and watch something bad happen when I could have prevented it, my hands are dirty anyway.

So, Jim shouldn’t think about it as killing one man.

That man was dead already, because they were all about to be killed.

Instead, Jim should think of his decision as doing what it takes to save 19.

And Batman needs to kill the Joker already.

Thanks, Thought Bubble!

Now, if you decide you want to follow utilitarian moral theory, you have options.

Specifically, two of them.

When Bentham and Mill first posed their moral theory, it was in a form now known as Act Utilitarianism, sometimes called classical utilitarianism.

And it says that, in any given situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Period.

But sometimes, the act that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number can seem just wrong.

For instance, suppose a surgeon has five patients, all waiting for transplants.

One needs a heart, another a lung. Two are waiting for kidneys and the last needs a liver.

The doctor is pretty sure that these patients will all die before their names come up on the transplant list.

And he just so happens to have a neighbor who has no family.

Total recluse. Not even a very nice guy.

The doctor knows that no one would miss this guy if he were to disappear.

And by some miracle, the neighbor is a match for all five of the transplant patients.

So, it seems like, even though this would be a bad day for the neighbor, an act-utilitarian should kill the neighbor and give his organs to the five patients.

It’s the greatest good for the greatest number.

Yes, one innocent person dies, but five innocent people are saved.

This might seem harsh, but remember that pain is pain, regardless of who’s experiencing it.

So the death of the neighbor would be no worse than the death of any of those patients dying on the transplant list.

In fact, it’s five times less bad than all five of their deaths.

So thought experiments like this led some utilitarians to come up with another framework for their theory.

This one is called Rule Utilitarianism.

This version of the theory says that we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.

So, yes, there are going to be situations where killing an innocent person will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.

But, rule utilitarians want us to think long-term, and on a larger scale.

And overall, a whole society where innocent people are taken off the streets to be harvested for their organs is gonna have a lot less utility than one where you don’t have to live in constant fear of that happening to you.

So, rule utilitarianism allows us to refrain from acts that might maximize utility in the short run, and instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time.

As an owner of human organs, this approach might make sense to you.

But I still gotta say: If Batman were a utilitarian of either kind, it wouldn’t look very good for the Joker.

Today we learned about utilitarianism.

We studied the principle of utility, and learned about the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.

Next time, we’ll take a look at another moral theory – contractarianism.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like

The Good Stuff, Gross Science, and PBS Idea Channel.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.