PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 2 [HD]

Summary

Julia Markovits, an associate professor of philosophy at MIT, explains utilitarianism, which combines a theory of value (happiness and absence of suffering) with a theory of right action (maximizing value). She discusses the appeal of utilitarianism, its simplicity, and universal application, but also highlights criticisms. A notable example involves prioritizing widespread minor inconveniences over an individual's severe suffering. This raises questions about whether the greater good justifies certain actions, such as leaving someone in pain to avoid disrupting a televised event, illustrating the moral complexities and challenges within utilitarianism.

Takeaways

• 📚 Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering as the ultimate values.
• 🔍 The theory of value in utilitarianism posits that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only intrinsic goods.
• 🤔 A critique of utilitarianism questions whether happiness alone is sufficient for a valuable life, considering the possibility of delusion.
• 🛠️ Utilitarianism's theory of right action suggests that the morally correct action is the one that maximizes overall value or expected value.
• 🏆 Utilitarianism is praised for its simplicity, elegance, and universal application, as well as its egalitarian nature, where everyone's happiness is equally valued.
• 🤝 The theory has also been influential in moral insights, particularly during times when others overlooked them.
• 🚑 The example of Jones and the World Cup highlights a moral dilemma where utilitarianism might lead to counterintuitive conclusions about the right action.
• 🔄 The transitive nature of 'less valuable than' in utilitarian reasoning can lead to situations where minor harms to many could outweigh major harms to a few.
• 🤝 Utilitarianism often leads to trade-offs in real life, such as raising speed limits for convenience despite increased fatalities.
• 🛡️ Some people believe in rights that should not be sacrificed for the greater good, challenging the utilitarian approach to moral decisions.
• 🔮 The script raises the question of whether utilitarianism can accommodate the idea that certain actions are impermissible, even if they maximize overall value.

Q & A

What is utilitarianism according to Julia Markovits?

Utilitarianism is a theory that can be divided into two parts: a theory of what is valuable, which states that only happiness and the absence of suffering are intrinsically valuable, and a theory of right action, which posits that the right action is the one that maximizes the valuable outcome or, if uncertain, produces the most expected value.

What does the utilitarian theory of value suggest about the value of happiness?

The utilitarian theory of value suggests that happiness is the only thing that is valuable in its own right, and the absence of suffering is also valuable. It implies that the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering are the ultimate goals in life.

How does utilitarianism address the concept of equality?

Utilitarianism is egalitarian in nature because it holds that each person's happiness counts for as much as anyone else's in the utilitarian calculus. This means that the well-being of every individual is considered equally important.

What is the example provided by T. M. Scanlon to illustrate a problem with utilitarianism?

T. M. Scanlon's example involves a situation where Jones has suffered an accident in a television station's transmitter room. The dilemma is whether to rescue him immediately or wait until a World Cup match is over, which raises questions about the moral implications of utilitarian decision-making.

How does the Jones example challenge the utilitarian theory of right action?

The Jones example challenges the utilitarian theory of right action by presenting a scenario where the morally right action, according to utilitarianism, might be to leave Jones in pain for the sake of avoiding minor inconvenience to a large number of people watching the World Cup match.

What is the transitive nature of 'less valuable than' in the context of utilitarianism?

The transitive nature of 'less valuable than' in utilitarianism means that if preventing a vast number of minor harms (like headaches) produces more value than preventing a smaller number of more serious harms (like sprained ankles), then preventing headaches could be considered more valuable than saving a life, given a large enough number of people affected.

How does the script suggest that utilitarianism might lead to morally questionable outcomes?

The script suggests that utilitarianism might lead to morally questionable outcomes by illustrating scenarios where the maximization of overall value could justify actions that seem morally wrong, such as leaving an injured person in pain to avoid inconveniencing a large audience.

What are some real-world examples given in the script where utilitarian thinking leads to trade-offs?

The script mentions raising the speed limit for minor convenience despite knowing it leads to more highway deaths, funding research into athlete's foot treatments instead of rare but fatal diseases, and directing aid money to programs that benefit many people a little rather than preventing death for a smaller number of people.

What is the potential objection to utilitarianism based on the rights of individuals?

The potential objection to utilitarianism is that it may violate individual rights by allowing their interests to be sacrificed for the greater good. This is based on the belief that there are certain things that should not be done or allowed to happen to people, even if it maximizes overall value.

How does the script address the potential revision of the utilitarian theory of value?

The script suggests that the utilitarian theory of value could be revised to consider not just happiness, but well-being more broadly, which could address some of the concerns about what constitutes true value in life.

What is the role of the utilitarian theory of right action in determining moral obligations?

The role of the utilitarian theory of right action in determining moral obligations is to identify the action that maximizes value as the morally right action. This theory is central to utilitarianism and is used to evaluate the moral worth of actions based on their outcomes.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Utilitarianism

Julia Markovits, an associate professor of philosophy at MIT, introduces the concept of utilitarianism, dividing it into two components: a theory of value and a theory of right action. She explains that utilitarianism posits happiness and the absence of suffering as the only intrinsic values, and the right action is the one that maximizes these values or their expected value. Markovits highlights the simplicity, elegance, and universality of utilitarianism, as well as its egalitarian nature, where everyone's happiness is considered equally important. However, she also raises concerns about the theory's limitations, particularly in its definition of value and the potential for happiness to be based on false premises.

05:02

🤔 Ethical Dilemmas in Utilitarianism

The second paragraph delves into the ethical dilemmas posed by utilitarianism's theory of right action, which suggests that morally right actions are those that maximize overall value. Markovits uses the example of Jones, who is injured during a World Cup match, to illustrate the potential conflict between utilitarian principles and intuitive moral judgments. She points out that utilitarian reasoning could lead to the conclusion that it is more valuable to allow Jones to suffer for the sake of not inconveniencing a large audience. This raises questions about the trade-offs society makes and the rights of individuals not to have their interests sacrificed for the greater good. Markovits also mentions other real-world examples where utilitarianism might dictate morally questionable actions, such as using torture for life-saving intelligence, and acknowledges the discomfort many people feel with such utilitarian conclusions.

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 the central theme, with Julia Markovits explaining its two-part thesis: the theory of value and the theory of right action. The theory of value asserts that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only intrinsic goods, while the theory of right action suggests that morally right actions are those that produce the most happiness or expected value.

💡Value

In the context of the video, 'value' refers to what is considered intrinsically good or desirable according to the utilitarian theory. Markovits discusses the utilitarian view that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only things of value. The concept is integral to understanding utilitarianism's approach to ethics, as it dictates what should be maximized in any given situation.

💡Right Action

The term 'right action' in the video is used to describe the actions that are morally correct according to utilitarianism. It is defined as the action that maximizes happiness or expected value. The script uses the concept to explore the implications of utilitarianism, questioning whether maximizing overall value can sometimes lead to morally counterintuitive outcomes.

💡Happiness

Happiness, in the video, is presented as the primary intrinsic good according to utilitarianism. It is the state of well-being and contentment that utilitarians believe should be maximized. The script raises questions about whether happiness is the only thing of value, suggesting that well-being might be a broader and more accurate measure.

💡Absence of Suffering

The 'absence of suffering' is mentioned alongside happiness as a key component of what is valuable in utilitarianism. It implies that not only positive experiences are valuable but also the avoidance of negative ones. The video uses this concept to highlight the utilitarian focus on maximizing good and minimizing harm.

💡Egalitarian

Egalitarianism, as discussed in the video, is the belief in the equal consideration of each person's happiness in the utilitarian calculus. Markovits points out that utilitarianism is egalitarian because it counts everyone's happiness equally, without favoring any individual over others.

💡Moral Insights

The term 'moral insights' in the script refers to the profound understanding or realizations about ethics that utilitarianism can provide. Markovits mentions that embracing utilitarian principles led figures like Bentham to moral insights that were overlooked by others during their time.

💡Delusion

Delusion, as used in the video, questions the utilitarian theory of value by suggesting that one could be happy while being fundamentally mistaken about one's life circumstances. It challenges the idea that happiness alone is sufficient for a valuable life, implying that true well-being might require accurate beliefs.

💡Well-being

Well-being in the video is suggested as a broader concept of value that might be more appropriate than mere happiness. It implies a more comprehensive state of health and happiness that could include factors beyond immediate pleasure or pain.

💡Jones Case

The 'Jones case' is a hypothetical scenario presented in the video to illustrate potential problems with utilitarianism. It involves a moral dilemma where the utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness leads to a conclusion that might seem morally wrong, thus challenging the theory of right action.

💡Tradeoffs

Tradeoffs, as discussed in the video, refer to the decisions where one must choose between two or more alternatives, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Markovits uses the concept to highlight how utilitarian thinking can lead to morally complex decisions, such as choosing between immediate rescue and potential greater good.

💡Transitive

Transitive, in the context of the video, refers to the property of a relation where if A is less valuable than B, and B is less valuable than C, then A is less valuable than C. The script uses this concept to argue that utilitarian reasoning can lead to counterintuitive outcomes, such as minor inconveniences for many being valued over significant suffering for a few.

💡Greater Good

The 'greater good' is a concept in the video that refers to the idea of sacrificing individual interests for the benefit of the majority. It is central to the critique of utilitarianism presented by Markovits, who suggests that there may be moral limits to how far one should go in maximizing overall value.

Highlights

Introduction to utilitarianism by Julia Markovits, an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

Utilitarianism is divided into two parts: a theory of value and a theory of right action based on that value.

The theory of value posits that happiness and the absence of suffering are the only intrinsic values.

The theory of right action suggests that the morally right action is the one that maximizes value or expected value.

Utilitarianism is praised for its simplicity, theoretical elegance, and universal application.

The theory is built on the widely shared value of happiness, promoting an egalitarian perspective.

Utilitarianism's intuitive appeal lies in the idea that maximizing happiness is inherently good.

Critiques of utilitarianism question whether only happiness is valuable, considering the possibility of delusional happiness.

A potential revision to the theory of value could include well-being more broadly, beyond just happiness.

The theory of right action is scrutinized through the example of Jones, who suffers an accident in a television station transmitter room.

The dilemma of whether to rescue Jones immediately or wait to avoid disrupting a World Cup match raises ethical questions for utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism's transitive property suggests that preventing a large number of minor harms could be more valuable than saving a life.

The example illustrates a potential moral obligation under utilitarianism to leave Jones to suffer for the greater good.

The transcript discusses real-world trade-offs similar to the Jones example, such as raising speed limits for minor convenience.

Critics argue that utilitarianism may advise wrongly in certain cases, suggesting that some interests should not be sacrificed for the greater good.

The transcript concludes with the debate on whether utilitarianism can justify actions that infringe on individual rights for the sake of maximizing total value.

Transcripts

(intro music)

Hi, I'm Julia Markovits,

and I'm an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

Today, I'm going to talk about utilitarianism.

We can break the utilitarian thesis up into two parts:

a theory of what is valuable, and a theory

of right action given what's valuable.

First, the theory of what's valuable.

It says that the only thing that's valuable in its own right

is happiness and the absence of suffering.

Second, the theory of right action.

The right action is the one that maximizes,

produces the most of, what's valuable, or if that's uncertain,

that produces the most expected value.

If you put those two pieces, the theory of what's valuable

and the theory of right action given what's valuable,

together, you get utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism has a lot going for it.

It's a very simple, theoretically elegant theory

that has universal application.

It's built on a value, happiness,

that is at least extremely widely shared.

Almost everyone, in fact, values happiness.

In a way, it's completely egalitarian.

In the utilitarian calculus, each person's happiness

counts for as much as anyone else's.

There's something very intuitive about

the thought that happiness is valuable,

and the more we make of what's valuable, the better.

And as we've seen, embracing these thoughts

led Bentham, at least, to important moral insights

at a time when many around him were blind to those insights.

But both parts of the utilitarian thesis

also raised some worries.

One set of worries concerns the utilitarian theory of value.

A lot of people have disputed that only

happiness is valuable and only suffering disvaluable.

Couldn't we be happy even though

we're massively deluded about our lives?

Maybe the people we think are our friends

really despise us, and the work we think

is a success is really widely derided.

In that case, we might still be happy,

but surely our lives would be lacking much that is valuable.

These worries can be avoided to some extent

by revising the utilitarian theory of value.

Maybe it's not just happiness, but well-being

more broadly understood, that's valuable.

It's a tricky problem to figure out exactly what's valuable,

but I will set that problem aside here.

I want to focus instead on a problem facing

the second half of the utilitarian thesis,

the theory of right action.

This part of the thesis looks particularly hard to question.

Once we've agreed on what's valuable,

how could we deny that it's better morally

to secure more of what's valuable?

This looks very plausible, but it's proved

to be surprisingly problematic.

Consider this example, due to the philosopher T. M. Scanlon.

Suppose that Jones has suffered an accident

in the transmitter room of a television station.

Electrical equipment has fallen on his arm,

and we can't rescue him without turning off

the transmitter for fifteen minutes.

A World Cup match is in progress,

watched by many people, and it will not be over for an hour.

Jones's injury won't get any worse if we wait,

but his hand has been mashed,

and he's receiving extremely painful electrical shocks.

Should we rescue him now or wait until the match is over?

Does the right thing to do depend

on how many people are watching,

whether it's one million or five million or a hundred million?

To put a finer point on the problem, in fact,

over one billion people watched the last World Cup Final.

Must a utilitarian conclude that poor Jones

should be left to his fate?

Consider this.

>From a utilitarian perspective,

preventing one death is a very good thing,

but surely preventing very many severe mutilations

can relieve more suffering and so produce

more value than a single life.

And surely preventing a much larger still number

of somewhat less severe mutilations is more valuable

than preventing the comparatively smaller

number of severe mutilations, and so on.

Following this reasoning, we'll eventually arrive

at comparatively minor harm, a headache, say,

that if suffered by a vast enough number of people

will be worse than a comparatively much smaller,

but still vast, number of somewhat more serious harms,

maybe sprained ankles.

But notice that "less valuable than" is transitive.

If A is less valuable than B, and B is less valuable than C,

then A is less valuable than C.

So we seem to have arrived at the conclusion

that preventing a vast enough number of headaches

can produce more value than saving a life,

and to get back to poor Jones,

that avoiding fifteen minutes of frustration

for one billion soccer fans may be more valuable

than preventing an additional hour of pain for Jones.

If the second half of the utilitarian thesis,

the theory of right action, is correct,

and the morally right action is the one

that maximizes value, it seems we're morally obligated

to leave poor Jones to suffer.

Can that possibly be right?

It sounds wrong, but it's worth noting

that we in fact make tradeoffs like this all the time.

We raise the speed limit for the sake of

minor convenience for millions of people,

even though it means more deaths on the highway.

We fund research into athlete's foot treatments

when we could instead pay for research into

the cure of some very fatal but very rare disease.

We direct some aid money into programs

that target deworming, which benefits

a lot of people a little, rather than programs

that prevent death for a much smaller number of people.

But in spite of this, many people will feel that

utilitarianism has advised us wrongly in the Jones case.

There are some things, they will think,

which we may not do or allow to happen to people,

even for the sake of maximizing total value.

In other words, people have a right not to have

their interests sacrificed for the greater good

in some circumstances.

Such people might also object, for example,

to the use of torture to get

potentially life-saving intelligence.

Subtitles by the Amara.org community