Consequentialism and Utilitarianism: A Debate on Ethics and Happiness, Exams of Organization and Business Administration

Download Consequentialism and Utilitarianism: A Debate on Ethics and Happiness and more Exams Organization and Business Administration in PDF only on Docsity!

do the ends justify the means?

conseqentialism

the experiencehedonism & machine distribution of goodsthe obligations to the poor

problem^ trolleythe

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & distribution of goods^ machinethe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe

difference between them? What makes some actions right, and othersSuppose that some actions are right, and some are wrong. What’s the wrong? Here is one very simple, but also very plausible, answer to this question: An action is right if, of all available^ Consequentialism options, it would lead to the best outcome, and wrong otherwise.

consequences. Whatever will lead to the best overall outcome is what one ought^ Consequentialism says, simply, that we should judge actions by their to do. A slightly different way to get the general idea is this: if I am deciding between doing action A and action B, I should try to figure out what the world would be like if I did A, and what the world would be like if I did B; and I should do whichever action would lead to the better world.

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & distribution of goods^ machinethe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe gives the following statement of his theoryIn the reading for today, John Stuart Mill of value — his view of which things are goods and bads.

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals ... the Greatest Happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is^ happiness, wrong as they tend to produce intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & distribution of goods^ machinethe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe

This view is sometimes called hedonism:

Suppose that this is true. Then how do we tell whether one outcome is better than another? Here is a very natural answer. We ‘add up’ the pleasure, and ‘subtract out’ the pain. Whatever situation has the highest ‘net pleasure’ is the best. In general, one might think, it is fairly straightforward to compare two different situations. One adds up the goods, subtracts out the bads, and determine the net good. On this view, one should always aim to maximize the net good.

Pleasure is the only good^ Hedonism and pain is the only bad.

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & distribution of goods^ machinethe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe

An action is the right thing to doUtilitarianism in certain circumstances if, of all the actions available in those circumstances, it would produce the highest net pleasure. Maximizing Consequentialism An action is right if, of all available options, it would lead to the highest net good, and wrong otherwise.

Pleasure is the only good^ Hedonism and pain is the only bad.

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & distribution of goods^ machinethe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe in certain circumstances if, of all^ An action is the right thing to do the actions available in thoseUtilitarianism circumstances, it would produce the highest net pleasure. Utilitarianism is a very clear and plausible-sounding view about ethics. This is the view which is often summed up with the slogan that one ought always to act to cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is a paradigmatically unselfish theory: no one’s pleasures and pains are more important than anyone else’s.

hedonism &conseqentialism the experience machine distributionthe obligations^ of goods to the poor problem^ trolleythe

A more serious challenge to utilitarianism can be brought out by Robert Nozick’s example of the experience machine.

experience machine that would“Suppose there were an give you any experience you desired. Superduper stimulate your brain so that you^ neuropsychologists could writing a great novel, or making^ would think and feel you were interesting book. All the time^ a friend, or reading an you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. ... Would you plug in? What else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside? ”

hedonism &conseqentialism the experience machine distributionthe obligations^ of goods to the poor problem^ trolleythe

Is Nozick right that these consequences of utilitarianism are incorrect?

What must the utilitarian say about the relative goodness of the state of affairs in which everyone (or almost everyone) plugs in and the state of affairs in which no one does? Suppose you face the decision whether to get into the experience machine. What would a utilitarian say about what you ought to do? the experience machine. (The machines are maintained by extremely reliable robots.)^ Suppose now that you face the decision of whether you should put^ everyone^ into What would a utilitarian say about what you ought to do? Does it matter if people ask you (or beg you) not to plug them in?

hedonism &conseqentialism the experience machine distributionthe obligations^ of goods to the poor problem^ trolleythe Recall that we presented Utilitarianism as the combination of two claims.

You might think that the examples we have discussed — the experience machine and the utility monster — are problems for hedonism, but not for Maximizing Consequentialism. Couldn’t the Maximizing Consequentialist just say that there are goods besides pleasure, and bads besides pain?

Maximizing Consequentialism An action is right if, of all available options, it would lead to the highest net good, and wrong otherwise.

Pleasure is the only good^ Hedonism and pain is the only bad.

hedonism &conseqentialism the experience machine distributionthe obligations^ of goods to the poor problem^ trolleythe The extent to which the states of affairs contain beauty, or love, or friendship, or something else taken to be of objective value. Maximizing Consequentialism. For example, the first would yield the result that one^ Corresponding to each of these views about the good is a different version of should always act in such a way that maximizes the number of desires of people which are satisfied.

The extent to which the desires of agents are satisfied. The extent to which the states of affairs maximize the well- being, or welfare, of agents.

Here are some other candidates for goods:

Maximizing Consequentialism An action is right if, of all available options, it would lead to the highest net good, and wrong otherwise.

What would that view say about the experience machine?

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & machine distribution of goodsthe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe

To see what Rawls has in mind here, let’s think about an example.

‘goodness of life’ — however we characterize goodness —^ Suppose that we have a group of five people, whose is indicated by the numbers beside them.

Now imagine that I have the chance to bring about one of two states of affairs.

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & machine distribution of goodsthe obligations problem to the trolley poorthe

Situation A

Situation B

Which one, according to the Maximizing Consequentialist, should I bring about?

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & machine

obligations^ distribution^ of goodsthe to the poor trolleythe problem

An action is right if, of all availableConsequentialism options, it would lead to the best outcome, and wrong otherwise. Summing up: utilitarianism is the combination of hedonism and maximizing consequentialism. We’ve seen that utilitarianism faces serious challenges. But those challenges don’t seem to show that consequentialism in general (as opposed to specific versions of consequentialism) is false. Let’s now ask a question: if consequentialism is true, does that alone have any interesting consequences for what kinds of actions we ought to perform? The answer appears to be ‘yes.’ To show why, let’s focus on the question of what our obligations are to the very poor.

conseqentialism the experiencehedonism & machine

obligations^ distribution^ of goodsthe to the poor trolleythe problem

Let’s now ask a question: if consequentialism is true, does that alone have any interesting consequences for what kinds of actions we ought to perform? The answer appears to be ‘yes.’ To show why, let’s focus on the question of what our obligations are to the very poor. About 25,000 people per day die of hunger, many of whom are children. That is about one person every 3.5 seconds. However, there is enough food on earth to feed everyone. It costs roughly $1 to feed one of these people for one day. So let’s focus on this fact: feed one child in Africa^ It costs roughly $1 to for one day