PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3 [HD]

Summary

This lecture delves into utilitarianism, a philosophy focused on maximizing overall happiness. It raises concerns about the theory's potential to justify unfair distributions of goods, using the 'utility monster' thought experiment to illustrate the issue. The concept of diminishing marginal utility of wealth is introduced as a counterargument, suggesting that resources have a greater impact on the less fortunate. The discussion also touches on the ethical implications of utilitarianism, questioning whether it might demand too much or allow morally questionable actions.

Takeaways

• 📚 Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that focuses on the total amount of good produced by actions, rather than the distribution of that good among individuals.
• 🤔 The theory raises questions about justice, as it could theoretically justify significant suffering for many if it results in a greater overall good.
• 👥 The concept of 'utility monster' by Robert Nozick challenges utilitarianism by proposing a being that gains disproportionate happiness from resources, suggesting utilitarianism could lead to unfair resource allocation.
• 💰 Utilitarians counter the 'utility monster' argument by pointing out the 'diminishing marginal utility of wealth,' meaning additional resources have less impact on happiness for those who already have more.
• 🧐 The script questions whether the 'diminishing marginal utility' holds true universally, suggesting some individuals might convert resources into well-being more effectively than others.
• 👶 It highlights the potential dilemma utilitarianism faces with allocating resources to those who need them most, such as the elderly, disabled, or those with costly health conditions.
• 🚫 The theory may permit morally questionable actions, like leaving someone to suffer or sacrificing individuals for the greater good, which contradicts our intuitive sense of morality.
• 🤝 Utilitarianism also faces criticism for potentially demanding too much from individuals, suggesting it may require personal sacrifices that are too extreme.
• 🌐 The discussion is part of a broader philosophical debate on the balance between individual rights and the collective good in moral decision-making.
• 🔍 The script invites further exploration into the practical implications of utilitarianism and its compatibility with our moral intuitions and societal values.
• 🔄 The video promises to continue the discussion in another part, focusing on the potential excessive demands of utilitarianism on individuals.

Q & A

What is utilitarianism and what does it focus on?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on the total amount of good that actions produce, rather than how that good is distributed among different people. It seeks the greatest overall happiness for the greatest number.

What is the Jones example mentioned in the script, and what does it illustrate about utilitarianism?

The Jones example illustrates that utilitarianism is concerned with the total amount of good produced, not its distribution. It suggests that the collective frustration of billions of soccer fans could outweigh the intense pain of one individual, highlighting the potential for utilitarianism to justify morally counterintuitive outcomes.

What is the concept of a 'utility monster' as introduced by Robert Nozick?

A 'utility monster' is a hypothetical creature that is exceptionally good at converting resources into happiness. It suggests that utilitarianism might lead to the sacrifice of ordinary people's well-being to maximize the happiness of the utility monster, as it could produce more happiness with the same resources.

How does the concept of diminishing marginal utility of wealth relate to utilitarianism?

The concept of diminishing marginal utility of wealth suggests that additional resources have less impact on the happiness of those who already have more. This challenges the utility monster scenario by implying that resources might be better distributed to maximize overall happiness, rather than concentrated on a few.

What is the potential issue with utilitarianism's approach to resource distribution among the elderly, disabled, or those with expensive diseases?

Utilitarianism might suggest not helping such individuals if the resources required to improve their well-being are high compared to the benefits gained. This could be seen as morally problematic, as it could lead to neglecting the needs of vulnerable groups.

How does utilitarianism handle the potential for some individuals to be 'utility monsters' relative to others?

Utilitarianism does not inherently account for the possibility of some individuals being more efficient at converting resources into well-being than others. It might require further ethical considerations to ensure fairness and avoid unjust distributions of resources.

What is the concern that utilitarianism might demand too much from individuals?

The concern is that utilitarianism could require individuals to sacrifice their own well-being to an extreme degree for the sake of maximizing overall happiness, which might be seen as excessively demanding or even morally questionable.

How does the script suggest utilitarianism might allow for morally wrong actions?

The script suggests that utilitarianism might justify actions such as leaving someone to suffer or sacrificing individuals to a utility monster, which might feel intuitively morally wrong, due to its focus on maximizing total happiness over individual rights or well-being.

What is the role of the Amara.org community in the script?

The Amara.org community is credited with providing the subtitles for the video script, making the content accessible to a wider audience, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

What is the next topic that the speaker plans to discuss in relation to utilitarianism?

The speaker plans to discuss the worry that utilitarianism demands too much of individuals in a subsequent video, further exploring the ethical implications of utilitarian principles.

How does the script address the potential for unjust distributions of goods under utilitarianism?

The script raises the issue by using the examples of the Jones scenario and the utility monster to illustrate how utilitarianism might result in unjust distributions of goods, prioritizing total happiness over fairness.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Utilitarianism and the Distribution of Good

This paragraph introduces utilitarianism, a philosophical theory focused on maximizing overall good, and its indifference to the distribution of that good among individuals. It uses the Jones example to illustrate how utilitarianism might prioritize the minor frustrations of many over the significant suffering of one. The concept of 'utility monster' is introduced by philosopher Robert Nozick to challenge utilitarianism's potential to justify the sacrifice of many for the happiness of a few who can convert resources into happiness more efficiently. The paragraph also touches on the real-world application of utilitarianism, suggesting that resources have a diminishing impact on happiness as one's wealth increases, a principle known as the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. In the video, it is the central theme, with the discussion focusing on its implications for the distribution of goods and the potential for unjust outcomes. The script uses the example of Jones to illustrate utilitarianism's focus on total good rather than distribution.

💡Total Amount of Good

This concept refers to the collective sum of happiness or well-being produced by actions, which utilitarianism seeks to maximize. The video explains that utilitarianism is concerned with this total, rather than how the good is distributed among individuals, using the frustration of soccer fans versus the pain of one person as an example.

💡Distribution of Value

Distribution of value pertains to how benefits or goods are shared among individuals. The video mentions that utilitarianism considers distribution important only insofar as it affects the total amount of value. This concept is challenged by thought experiments presented in the script.

💡Utility Monster

The 'utility monster' is a hypothetical creature introduced by philosopher Robert Nozick to challenge utilitarianism. It represents an individual who can convert resources into happiness more efficiently than others. The video uses this concept to explore the potential for utilitarianism to justify sacrificing many for the happiness of one.

💡Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth

This economic principle suggests that as a person accumulates more wealth, each additional unit of wealth contributes less to their satisfaction. The video script discusses this concept as a counterargument to the utility monster scenario, suggesting that resources might be better distributed to those with less.

💡Well-being

Well-being refers to the state of happiness or satisfaction in life. The video emphasizes that utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing well-being, but it raises questions about how this is measured and distributed, particularly in the context of the utility monster.

💡Sacrifice

Sacrifice, in the context of the video, refers to the utilitarian notion of giving up something of value for the greater good. The script discusses the potential moral dilemmas of sacrificing individuals for the utility monster, questioning the ethics of such actions under utilitarianism.

💡Moral Intuition

Moral intuition involves the instinctive sense of right and wrong. The video mentions that utilitarian outcomes, such as leaving Jones to suffer or sacrificing to the utility monster, may conflict with our moral intuition, suggesting that utilitarianism might sometimes demand actions we find morally objectionable.

💡Elderly

The elderly are mentioned in the script as a group that might require more resources to achieve a small increase in well-being. This is used to question whether utilitarianism would advise against helping such individuals if they are already comparatively worse off.

💡Disabled

The disabled are another group highlighted in the script that might need substantial resources for minimal well-being gains. The video uses this to further explore the potential shortcomings of utilitarianism in distributing resources equitably.

💡Expensive to Treat Diseases

The script refers to diseases that are costly to treat as an example of conditions that might not align with utilitarian principles. It raises the question of whether utilitarianism would deprioritize helping those with such diseases due to the high cost of improving their well-being.

Highlights

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that focuses on the total amount of good produced by actions, rather than the distribution of that good among individuals.

The concept of utilitarianism suggests that the frustration of billions of soccer fans could outweigh the pain of one person, emphasizing the total value over individual suffering.

Utilitarianism implies that the distribution of value is only significant insofar as it affects the overall production of value.

The potential for unjust distributions of goods is raised as a concern within utilitarianism, questioning the morality of outcomes.

Robert Nozick's 'utility monster' thought experiment challenges utilitarianism by proposing a being that gains happiness disproportionately from resources.

Utilitarianism seems to suggest sacrificing ordinary people for the 'utility monster' to maximize overall happiness.

Utilitarians counter that in reality, the happiness gained from resources diminishes as one already has more, a phenomenon known as the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

The impact of $100 on well-being can vary greatly between individuals, such as between a person and Bill Gates, illustrating the concept of diminishing marginal utility.

The possibility of some individuals being 'utility monsters' relative to others is considered, questioning if utilitarianism would neglect the well-being of the elderly, disabled, or those with expensive diseases.

Utilitarianism's potential to allow morally questionable actions, such as leaving someone to suffer or sacrificing individuals, is critiqued.

The lecture hints at a future discussion on utilitarianism's demands, suggesting it may require more from individuals than is morally acceptable.

The transcript explores the ethical dilemmas and implications of utilitarianism, providing a comprehensive overview of its principles and criticisms.

The 'utility monster' concept is used to explore the potential extremes and ethical challenges of utilitarian decision-making.

The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is presented as a counterargument to the 'utility monster' scenario, suggesting a more equitable distribution of resources.

The transcript raises the question of whether utilitarianism could justify not helping those who require more resources for a smaller increase in well-being.

The lecture concludes with an introduction to further exploration of utilitarianism's potential excessive demands on individuals in future content.

Transcripts

Hi, I'm and I'm an Associate Professor of philosophy at MIT.

Today, I'm going to talk about utilitarianism.

One feature of utilitarianism that the Jones example brings out is that

utilitarianism is interested only in the total amount of good our actions produce,

not in how that good is distributed across different people.

That's why the brief frustration of billions of soccer fans could

together add up to more disvalue than the intense pain of one person.

According to utilitarianism, the distribution of value across different people

matters only to the extent that it affects the total amount of value our actions produce.

But might that not result in some terribly unjust distributions of goods?

Here's another example to think about.

This one due to the philosopher Robert Nozick.

Nozick asked us to imagine a creature he called a

"utility monster," someone who is extremely good.

Much better than the rest of us,

at converting resources into happiness.

The more money and food and other stuff we give him,

the happier and happier he gets.

However happy some resources could make a normal person,

those same resources would make him the utility monster, much happier still.

Utilitarianism seems to imply that all the ordinary people should be sacrificed for

the sake of utility monster since

that is what would make for the most happiness on the whole.

Utilitarian sometimes respond to this.

That in the real world, this won't happen.

In the real world, in fact,

they say, the opposite is true.

The more resources we already have,

the less impact some additional resource will have on our happiness.

Think of how much bigger an impact

$100 might have on your well-being than on the well-being of Bill Gates,

and how much bigger an impact still a $100 might

have on the well-being of a child in a developing nation,

whose life it could save than it has on yours.

This pattern is called,

the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

But we might wonder whether this pattern always holds true.

Even if each of us exhibits diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

If in other words,

$100 would benefit me more when I'm poor than when I'm rich.

Might some of us be utility monsters with respect to others?

Some of us after all,

might be much better at converting resources into well-being than others,

even if we have more well-being to begin with.

For example, the elderly, the disabled,

or those suffering from expensive to treat diseases might

require a lot of resources to produce a small increase in their well-being,

even though they are already comparatively badly off,

would utilitarianism tell us not to help such people?

So I've been talking about ways in which utilitarianism seems to allow too much.

It may say it's okay to do things like leaving Jones to suffer,

or sacrificing people to the utility monster,

that we feel intuitively it's morally wrong to do.

But utilitarianism is also subject to the worry that it demands too much of us.

That will be the subject of another video.

Subtitles by the Amara.org community