2 Outline of Lecture Lecture #5: 1. a. Fundamental Principles b. The Doctrine of Swine Objection c. Quantitative & Qualitative Hedonism d. Bentham s Challenge: A Defense of the Utility Principle e. Applying the Utility Principle 3 (Classical) 4 The Fundamental Principles of Its Central Ideas Hedonism (a theory of value, or perhaps of life) Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends. all desirable things are desirable either» for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or» as means of promoting pleasure or preventing pain. (a theory of duty) The Greatest Happiness Principle Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness Pleasure, and the absence of pain. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) 5 The popular use of the term has made it mean sensual self-indulgence Philosophical Hedonism Philosophical Hedonism asserts that pleasure is the greatest good (or the only thing good in itself) but the doctrine is very different from sensual self-indulgence, as Epicurus insists in his Letter to Menoeceus ( On How to Live a Happy Life ): Although pleasure is the greatest good, not every pleasure is worth choosing. We may instead avoid certain pleasures when, by doing so, we avoid greater pains. We may also choose to accept pain if, by doing so, it results in greater pleasure. So while every pleasure is naturally good, not every pleasure should be chosen. When we say that pleasure is the goal, we do not mean the pleasure of debauchery or sensuality. Despite whatever may be said by those who misunderstand, disagree with, or deliberately slander our teachings, the goal we do seek is this: freedom from pain in the body and freedom from turmoil in the soul. For it is not continuous drinking and revelry, the sexual enjoyment of women and boys, or feasting upon fish and fancy cuisine which result in a happy life. Sober reasoning is what is needed, which decides every choice and avoidance and liberates us from the false beliefs which are the greatest source of anxiety. Epicurus (341-270 BC) Theories of Goodness & Rightness in Human Actions: A Taxonomy Consequentialism: Alone Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Basis for Evaluating Human Actions makes the act prima facie right or wrong Presumptivism Intrinsicalism: The Intrinsic Nature of the Action (badness) makes the act always wrong Absolutism W. D. Ross St. Thomas Aquinas
Consequentialism The question: What makes right acts right? Any moral theory proposing a criterion for the evaluation of human actions must add a middle term to the following syllogistic schema: Any act which is good [or the right thing to do]. X [some particular action] is. So, X [some particular action] is good [or the right thing to do]. Consequentialist theories propose a middle term referring exclusively to consequences The consequences are the results or effects of an action Colloquial use ( face the consequences ) or misuse (as a euphemism for punishment by teachers too dishonest to admit what they do to students who misbehave) gives the word a negative connotation that is not part of the definition That leaves two questions Which consequences? for whom? 7 1. for whom? Egoism (good for oneself) 2. Which consequences? Quantitative Hedonism (Bentham) Hedonistic (pleasure) (but good for whom?) Particularism (good for some, but not necessarily for all) (but which?) Qualitative Hedonism (Mill) Ideal (pleasure, friendship, aesthetic experiences) (Moore) Two Questions Universalism (good for all affected) Any act which has good consequences for is good [or the right thing to do]. X has good consequences for. So, X is good [or the right thing to do]. Any act which produces for is good [or the right thing to do]. X produces for. So, X is good [or the right thing to do]. 8 9 10 The Objection The structure of the objection is [M] Any [M] is a doctrine fit only for swine The argument for that claim Proof (as always) is a search for the middle term The Doctrine of Swine Objection What is the middle term? M = a doctrine that says actions are right to the extent that they promote pleasure 11 12 The objection Clarification of the Middle Term Major Premise: Any doctrine that says actions are right to the extent that they promote pleasure is a doctrine fit only for swine. Minor Premise: is a doctrine that says actions are right to the extent that they promote pleasure. What would the middle term have to mean to make the major premise true? a doctrine fit only for swine would be one that focused on bodily pleasures for the agent What would the middle term have to mean to make the the minor premise true? is a doctrine that focuses on Problem all pleasures (mental as well as bodily) pleasures for everyone affected by the action (not just for the agent) The clarifications push the middle term in opposite directions First Part of the Reply to the Objection: The Distinction among Kinds of Pleasures Mill s first response to the doctrine of swine objection is that it neglects the distinction between two kinds of pleasures bodily pleasures, which are available to animal & man mental pleasures, which are unique to man pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments He goes on to distinguish these as higher & lower pleasures On what basis can he claim that mental pleasures are higher than bodily pleasures? Bentham offers one answer (a Quantitative Hedonism) Mill proposes a second (a Qualitative Hedonism) There is no way to clarify it in a way that makes both premises true Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle Term
Bentham on Bodily & Mental Pleasures: Quantitative Hedonism Pleasure is simply a matter of quantity; the more, the better 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 furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either. But some pleasures have many circumstantial advantages over others pleasures. E.g., mental pleasures do over bodily pleasures The Felicific Calculus helps us recognize these 13 The Factors Identified by Bentham s Felicific Calculus Intrinsic Features of the Pleasure or Pain Productive Features Extensive Features How intense are the pleasures (or pains)? How long will they last? How certain is it that the action will produce them? How quickly will it produce them? To what extent will the pleasures lead to further pleasures? To what extent will these pleasures include an element of pain? How many people will experience the pleasures (or pains) produced? 14 Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure. Such pleasures seek if private be thy end: If it be public, wide let them extend. Evaluating the Felicific Calculus 15 Testing the Felicific Calculus Push-pin & Poetry 16 Evaluating Bentham s Felicific Calculus Does the Felicific Calculus seem to generate the right answers? Does it seem to give the right reasons for why these answers are right? Does it seem to leave anything out of consideration? Push-pin A children s game in which each player pushes or propels a pin with the object of crossing that of another player OED Shoot, if you must, this old gray head, But spare your country s flag, she said. A shade of sadness, a blush of shame, Over the face of the leader came; The nobler nature within him stirred To life at that woman s deed and word; Who touches a hair of yon gray head Dies like a dog! March on! he said... From John Greeleaf Whittier s Barbara Fritchie More Cases to Test the Calculus 17 Mill on Bodily & Mental Pleasures: Qualitative Hedonism 18 How would Bentham use the Felicific Calculus to evaluate the following cases? a. Choosing among competing pleasures For a high school student with some athletic talent, going out for football or spending weekday afternoons at the malt shop. b. Choosing risky behavior to achieve some good Speeding in order to arrive at class on time Speeding to get someone to the hospital c. Imposing harms on some in order to achieve a good for others Raising taxes to provide rent subsidies for the poor Using waterboarding on captured al-qaeda operatives to get information about future attacks Mental pleasures are higher than bodily pleasures because of their intrinsic nature a qualitative difference. In estimating all things, quality is considered as well as quantity, The evidence that mental pleasures are higher (more valuable) is the verdict of Competent Judges people who have experienced, & are capable of enjoying, both say that they are This is an empirical matter Mill asks: How would one decide quantitative differences? which of two bodily pleasures was more pleasant? which pains are more painful?
19 20 What is incommensurability? The Problem Commensurability a concept from mathematics Two lines are commensurable if they can both be measured by the same measure (cf. Euclid, Elements, Bk. X, Defn. 1) e.g., if there is some shorter line such the the measure of each is an exact multiple of the length of that shorter line Some lines are incommensurable The Pythagoreans found one example the side of a square and its diagonal side = 1; diagonal = 1.414, or diagonal = 1; side = 0.707 no measure will make both lengths images Since one can still add lengths (the circumference of the triangle is less than that of the square), better might be the incommensurability of length & weight. Which is more? 6 inches & 8 ounces? or 8 inches & six ounces? Inches & ounces can t be added. presupposes that all goods (and harms) are commensurable But the various goods (and harms) are not commensurable Perhaps not even all pleasures are The pleasure of drinking Guiness is not the pleasure of swimming at Crane s beach, and the swimming and the drinking are not two different means for providing the same end-state. Alasdair MacIntyre Surely many experiences, choices, & effects are not Thorndike prices suggest this revulsion at some cost-benefit analyses suggest this 21 Edward Thorndike s Price List (adjusted for inflation) An Important Distinction: Happiness & Contentment The problem: Won t cultivating desires for mental pleasures lead to our having desires that can t be satisfied & thus to our unhappiness? Mill s answer: No! A crucial distinction Contentment is the complete satisfaction of all one s desires. Happiness requires some cultivation and satisfaction of desires connected to higher faculties. Cultivating desires that cannot be fully satisfied diminishes our contentment it does not diminish our happiness. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. What s the difference between Socrates and the fool? The fool desires only lower pleasures; Socrates desires also higher pleasures. The fool may have all his desires satisfied; Socrates will not. The fool may be more content; he is not more happy. How much money would it take to get you to? To kill a kitten $170,000 To eat a worm $1,700,000 To move to a Kansas farm $5,100,000 Can these actions even be put on a scale like that? 23 24 Second Part of the Reply to the Objection: Individual & Universal Happiness The Utility Principle adds: Mill says that the higher pleasures do provide more pleasure to the person who has them than do lower pleasures. But his case for the greater value of mental pleasures does not depend on the claim that the higher pleasures provide more pleasure for the person who is has them. They might outweigh lower pleasures because of the happiness they create for others. His example: nobility of character 22 Does Nobility of Character Make a Person Happier? I of the greatest number. Cases of nobility of character: Captain Chris Carter (3-7th, 3rd Infantry Division) On 31 March 2003, he and two other soldiers risked their lives to rescue a woman caught on a bridge in the middle of a firefight in Hindiya, Iraq. St. Teresa of Calcutta Mill claims that nobility of character provides a kind of pleasure higher than the bodily pleasures. i.e., Capt. Carter, or St. Teresa, presumably got more pleasure out of being the kind of person who rescued those in danger or need than they could have by eating their favorite foods.
& Nobility of Character: A Second Consideration 25 Individual & Universal Happiness 26 PFC Ross McGinnis (1-26th, 1st Infantry Division) On 4 Dec 2006, while he was fighting in NE Baghdad, a grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner s hatch into the vehicle in which he was riding. Rather than leaping from the gunner s hatch to safety, he covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. He saved the four members of his crew, but was himself killed. On 2 June 2008, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Aitzaz Hasan (Ibrahimzai, NW Pakistan) In January 2014, Aitzaz Hasan and his friends were standing outside their school building when they saw a man wearing a suicide vest approaching the building. Hasan told his friends, I m going to stop him. He is going to school to kill my friends. Hasan succeeded, but at the cost of his own life. My son made his mother cry, his father said, but saved hundreds of mothers from crying for their children. He was awarded the Sitara-e-Shujaat (Star of Bravery), Pakistan s highest civilian recognition. Question Did they experience higher pleasure from their nobility of character? Does this matter (according to Mill)? Mill s theory might require one to do certain things that could have little to do with one s own personal pleasure: Anyone who has an obligation to pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number has an obligation to cultivate nobleness of character (because of its benefit for everyone else). Everyone has an obligation to pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number. So, everyone has the obligation is to cultivate nobleness of character. 27 28 1c. Bentham s Challenge: An Argument for : The Challenge to non-utilitarians: If actions are not to be evaluated on the basis of their productivity of pleasure then on what basis are they be evaluated? Why is that more important than pleasure? Some Replies from anti-utilitarians Justice & rights 1d. Applying the Utility Principle addressed by Mill in chapter 5 of (next lecture) A variety of factors (including rights) see W. D. Ross (upcoming lecture) 29 30 General Note on Applying the Principle of Utility So, again Why was it wrong to save the dog first? Moral deliberation is determination of the consequences of an action (or practice). In any situation of choice, the agent must ask: What are the alternatives? How much pleasure & pain does each alternative bring to those affected by it? to all those affected in the long run as well as immediately to the agent himself in the long run by shaping his character (in a way that makes him more likely to promote the general happiness in the future) as side effects, not just as intended effects as the effects of practices (or of the act as example) as well as of the act itself Moral discourse is the demonstration of those consequences. Dennis Prager says: There is only one way [to justify the priority of fellow man over animal]. We need to teach as we did throughout American history until the 1960s that human beings are created in God s image and animals are not. That is the only compelling reason to save a human being you don t love before the dog you do love. How would Mill reply?