Ethics

1. Ethics, part 1
Unit 4

2. What is ethics?
• Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, seeks to
address questions of morality: right vs. wrong,
good vs. bad, etc.
• Seeks to answer questions such as:
• What is the Good?
• What ought we to do?
• Are there absolute moral values, or are said moral values
relative?
• We will be looking at several different
philosophical approaches to answering these
questions: egoism, hedonism, utilitarianism, and
Kant’s deontic ethic

3. Consequentialism vs. Non-Consequentialism
• Two types of ethics: consequentialist and non-
consequentialist
• Consequentialism says that no act is good or bad in and of
itself, rather it is good or bad only in terms of its
consequences
• A non-consequentialist theory asserts that the empirical
consequences of any given act have nothing to do with the
moral worth of the act
» In other words, actions are right or wrong in and of
themselves, not because of any consequences that may
result from it
• Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, while
Kant’s ethic is non-consequentialist

4. Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism is a theory of moral philosophy that
is based on the principle that an action is morally
right if it produces a greater quantity of good or
happiness than any other possible action
• It requires us to look at the consequences to determine the
morality of an action and claim that the morality of the
action depends on the amount of “goodness” that the action
produces. In the case of both Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill, good = pleasure
• All utilitarianism involves a moral calculus as
follows:
(Amount of Good Produced) – (Amount of Evil Produced) = “Utility” of the Act

5. Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism
• Father of Utilitarianism
• Later criticized by his
wayward disciple, John
Stuart Mill
• Similar to Hedonism, as
both center on pleasure
as the good
• However, Greek
Hedonism is essentially
egoist in nature; while
Utilitarianism is social in
nature

6. Bentham’s Calculus of Felicity
• Like Hobbes, Bentham assumes that we humans are
all governed by the desire for pleasure and the
aversion to pain. He seeks to give advice on how one
should pursue the goal of pleasure.
• However unlike Hobbes, he did not rule out the possibility of
altruism
• His advice on pursuing pleasure is called the Calculus
of Felicity, made up of seven categories intended to
provide a rational analysis of pleasure. Whenever one
considers performing any action one can analyze its
value in terms of the Calculus of Felicity and contrast it
with alternatives

7. Bentham’s Calculus of Felicity
• Bentham claims that there are seven categories
to examine when utilizing the Calculus of Felicity:
• Intensity: How intense is the pleasure?
• Duration: How long does it last?
• Certainty: How sure is the pleasure?
• Propinquity: How soon will it occur?
• Fecundity: How many more?
• Purity: How free from pain is the pleasure?
• Extent: How many people are affected?
» Note: It is this category that makes utilitarianism a form of
social hedonism. One must consider the pleasures and
pains of other people. This is what allows for the
possibility of altruism in utilitarianism.

8. Bentham’s Calculus of Felicity
• Bentham believed that his Calculus of Felicity was actually
the schematization of something we do semiconsciously
anyway
• The 7th
category allows for altruism: if an act will bring a
great amount of happiness to a great number of people,
then I should perform it, regardless of whether or not it
brings misery to me.
• In fact, there is even a democratic bias built into it. When it comes to
evaluating acts, Bentham subscribes to the “one person, one vote”
principle
• To quote Bentham, “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin
is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and
poetry. If the game of push-pin furnishes more pleasure, it
is more valuable than either.”

9. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
• Wayward disciple of
Bentham
• Concerned that a
utilitarian might actually
conclude that a game of
push-pin really was better
than poetry
• He sought to rewrite
utilitarianism in such a
way that he would be
able to demonstrate that
Shakespeare outranked
push-pin

10. J. S. Mill’s Utilitarianism
• Part of the problem, according to Mill, is the Calculus
generates a purely quantitative analysis, and pays no
attention to the “quality” of the pleasure
• Mill feared that over time, the Calculus of Felicity would gradually
erode culture, leaving behind a society of belching, beer-swilling
Nascar enthusiasts
• In order to combat this “lowering” of culture, Mill
differentiated between “lower desires” and “higher
desires”
• Lower desires (food, sleep, etc.) may be dealt with using the
Calculus
• Higher desires, on the other hand, may only be discussed in terms
of quality – which Mill claimed no calculus could evaluate

11. Is Mill’s Utilitarianism Elitist?
• Unlike Bentham’s utilitarianism, which was democratic
in nature, Mill’s version is quite oligarchical (elitist;
ruled by the few)
• Mill has famously stated, “The uncultivated cannot be competent
judges of the cultivated.”
• If one must demonstrate “competence” before one is granted a
vote, many issues would only allow a small minority the right to
voice an opinion
• Another problem? How does one define “quality?”
Can we even come to a universally-agreed upon
schema to determine what ranks as a “lower desire”
and what is considered a “higher desire?”

12. Criticism of Utilitarianism –
The Case of Sam
“Sam, a basically normal, rather nondescript but ‘nice’ human
being, goes to the hospital to visit his only living relative, his senile,
sick aunt. His visit coincides with five medical emergencies at the
hospital. One person needs a liver transplant, another a spleen
transplant, another a lung transplant, another a new heart, and a
fifth a new pineal gland. Each of the five patients is a tremendously
important, much-loved person whose death would bring a great
deal of grief and actual physical discomfort to a great number of
people. Sam’s death, on the other hand, would be mourned by no
one (except possibly his aunt in her lucid moments). The top
members of the hospital administration, all strict utilitarians, lure
Sam into an operating room, remove all his vital organs, and
distribute them to the other needy patients, thereby operating
(literally) in accordance with the principle of utility: the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.” Donald
Palmer, Does the Center Hold, pg. 270-71

13. Criticism, cont’d…
• Utilitarianism doesn’t seem so appealing now,
does it?
• The reason this example is so disquieting is
that it appears to go against our intuitive
sense of justice
• However, since this example is clearly compatible with
utilitarianism, either something is wrong with our
intuitive sense of justice or something is wrong with
utilitarianism.
• Which do you think it is?

14. Criticism, cont’d…
• Many contemporary utilitarians recognize this
problem, and have created a distinction
between “act utilitarianism” and “rule
utilitarianism”
• Act utilitarianism is the traditional form. It
necessitates that one perform the specific act that will
produce the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest number of people. In other words, the
Calculus of Felicity is utilized to discover what specific
acts should be done

15. Criticism, cont’d…
• Rule utilitarianism argues that the Calculus of
Felicity should be utilized to determine the
rules that, if followed would produce the
greatest good for the greatest number
• Even if a particular self-serving lie may go undetected
(and therefore causes no one unhappiness), it is
nevertheless not appropriate because lying and
deceiving in general cause more unhappiness than
happiness
• Utilitarians believe that this distinction answers the
Case of Sam