I love philosophy and I have always performed excellently in my assignments. I find this video so helpful in gaining more knowledge about concepts such as utilitarianism
@Pdrum2 @wmiller24 Thanks for the replies. I know it is an ethical system but surely in some cases it applies to an argument. For instance, out of 100 people if 90 people vote for party x and 10 vote for party y, surely the utilitarian system would say it was the best thing to do. However it's also relative to the fallacy of the majority of people knowing what's best.
True utilitarians do what is best for society as a whole, or at least what is best for the people affected by their actions. However, some corporations and individuals use a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis to justify taking prudential (self-serving) actions. (e.g., when a company, in order to save money, does not install an important safety device on a product they manufacture). Such selfish behavior, carried out under the guise of utilitarianism, can give utilitarianism a bad reputation.
Normally I might not reply to this, but since you say it is a serious question, I will answer. Utilitarianism is not deontological, which means that there are no moral codes that apply, other than that of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Nevertheless, given the incredibly severe damage that rape causes to an individual and to society, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which gang rape would produce the greatest long-term benefits for society as a whole.
To expound on your reply: The gain of the 5 rapists is a short period of moderate pleasure (maybe less than an hour). The Loss of the 1 woman right away during that 1 hour is certainly 5 times greater or more than the moderate pleasure of any one of the racists. Now you need to also add up every day that the woman is haunted by the rape. From the perspective of the Utilitarian, it is clear that the rape is a strongly negative action.
cost of rehabilitation is not even the main thrust of the issue. If the possibility to be rehabilitated back into society is always there then what major inhibitions prevent the criminally minded from committing such acts like murder? The threat of death is still going to be the ultimate inhibiting factor to impede murders. Not guaranteed to inhibit all murders, it still stands as the strongest ultimate consequence, leaving NO hope for continued life after committing such acts.
How would the death penalty stunt the growth of a society's health compared to relying on dozens of people employed everyday to keep them from escaping or killing eachother in prison as well as all the tax dollars spent on such resources? If high risk killers were eliminated, there would be more resources allocated to things other than keeping the peace in prison & making sure they don't escape into the populace.
The best way I see of labeling the U.S. government and justice system would be pragmatic and deontological, it is a system based on adhering to rules made up by the elites to protect their interests, and not society as a whole, those who break the rules face vindicative harsh punishments that actually have a detrimental effect on society as a whole in the long run.
weakness? in the real world not everyone can get what they want, it's just not possible. To obtain anything, something things must be sacrificed, that is the rule in this society, that is the natural rule since the dawn of life. People always try to have the good outweigh the bad, but no matter there will always be some "bad" per say.
Isn't the definition of "good" or "benefit" in Utilitarianism completely arbitrary? One could define "good" as getting closer to a Christian God, one could define this as obtaining the maximum amount of pleasure, a hedonistic view. If this is true, Utilitarianism is basically useless, isn't it?
To do the greatest good to the greatest number of people on this planet we need a world government. Or else China which has the largest population for a single country is always justified in its actions from a utilitarian standpoint.
What would a utilitarian say if another moral code like virtue ethics would benefit society better in general than utilitarianism? would utilitarianism still be better?
There would be NO HANNIBAL LECTER movies if the death penalty was fully enforced. That is, accounting for the gargantuan world utility drawn from Lecter movies.
@kly45 I don't think so. An argument ad populum is simply an appeal to popularity, e.g., "my decision must be correct because most people support it." There may be occasions when that which is right and that which is popular are the same, but, popular opinion is often short-sighted and is most often determined by emotion rather than reason. Utilitarianism argues that the right decision is that one that produces the best result when both short term and long term effects have been considered.
You raise an important question. A major problem with any consequentialist theory is that there is no way to foresee all of the effects of any action. Kant was particularly critical of outcome-based theories for this very reason. Ultimately, like Mr. Spock, you just have to take your best guess. (Star Trek IV)
It seems like the best action, "that which produces the greatest net benefit," is prone to the whims and imperfections of human judgement. Determination of that which has the greatest net benefit seems subjective in itself... thus it seems like it would be very difficult to actually apply Utilitarianism in real life. It gets sticky when we talk about the intangibles, I guess.
With an ethical theory, couldn't one could construct more specific definitions of such terms, if only for the use of the theory itself? It seems as though "good" is a key term to define when it comes to Utilitarianism.
I love philosophy and I have always performed excellently in my assignments. I find this video so helpful in gaining more knowledge about concepts such as utilitarianism
Which Ethical stance do you consider yourself to be or favor strongest?
@Pdrum2 @wmiller24
Thanks for the replies.
I know it is an ethical system but surely in some cases it applies to an argument. For instance, out of 100 people if 90 people vote for party x and 10 vote for party y, surely the utilitarian system would say it was the best thing to do. However it's also relative to the fallacy of the majority of people knowing what's best.
True utilitarians do what is best for society as a whole, or at least what is best for the people affected by their actions. However, some corporations and individuals use a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis to justify taking prudential (self-serving) actions. (e.g., when a company, in order to save money, does not install an important safety device on a product they manufacture). Such selfish behavior, carried out under the guise of utilitarianism, can give utilitarianism a bad reputation.
Normally I might not reply to this, but since you say it is a serious question, I will answer. Utilitarianism is not deontological, which means that there are no moral codes that apply, other than that of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Nevertheless, given the incredibly severe damage that rape causes to an individual and to society, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which gang rape would produce the greatest long-term benefits for society as a whole.
To expound on your reply:
The gain of the 5 rapists is a short period of moderate pleasure (maybe less than an hour).
The Loss of the 1 woman right away during that 1 hour is certainly 5 times greater or more than the moderate pleasure of any one of the racists.
Now you need to also add up every day that the woman is haunted by the rape.
From the perspective of the Utilitarian, it is clear that the rape is a strongly negative action.
cost of rehabilitation is not even the main thrust of the issue. If the possibility to be rehabilitated back into society is always there then what major inhibitions prevent the criminally minded from committing such acts like murder? The threat of death is still going to be the ultimate inhibiting factor to impede murders. Not guaranteed to inhibit all murders, it still stands as the strongest ultimate consequence, leaving NO hope for continued life after committing such acts.
How would the death penalty stunt the growth of a society's health compared to relying on dozens of people employed everyday to keep them from escaping or killing eachother in prison as well as all the tax dollars spent on such resources? If high risk killers were eliminated, there would be more resources allocated to things other than keeping the peace in prison & making sure they don't escape into the populace.
The best way I see of labeling the U.S. government and justice system would be pragmatic and deontological, it is a system based on adhering to rules made up by the elites to protect their interests, and not society as a whole, those who break the rules face vindicative harsh punishments that actually have a detrimental effect on society as a whole in the long run.
weakness? in the real world not everyone can get what they want, it's just not possible. To obtain anything, something things must be sacrificed, that is the rule in this society, that is the natural rule since the dawn of life. People always try to have the good outweigh the bad, but no matter there will always be some "bad" per say.
Isn't the definition of "good" or "benefit" in Utilitarianism completely arbitrary? One could define "good" as getting closer to a Christian God, one could define this as obtaining the maximum amount of pleasure, a hedonistic view.
If this is true, Utilitarianism is basically useless, isn't it?
To do the greatest good to the greatest number of people on this planet we need a world government. Or else China which has the largest population for a single country is always justified in its actions from a utilitarian standpoint.
What would a utilitarian say if another moral code like virtue ethics would benefit society better in general than utilitarianism? would utilitarianism still be better?
There would be NO HANNIBAL LECTER movies if the death penalty was fully enforced.
That is, accounting for the gargantuan world utility drawn from Lecter movies.
In essence, Utilitarianism would be a STRONG Proponent of the Death Penalty for Convicted Murderers in Prison rather than having them serve life.
yes; unless you believe that the cost of rehabilitation would be less than the benefits of the member in society- previous liabilities
Could someone help me? Is it possible to argue that utilitarianism is similar to argumentum ad populum? Just a thought really.....
Why do philosophy commentators on youtube ALWAYS have thier bookshelf behind them?
Serious question...would gang rape be justified from a utilitarian standpoint?
@wmiller24 Benthams Utilitarianism could justify it, Mills couldnt.
@kly45 I don't think so. An argument ad populum is simply an appeal to popularity, e.g., "my decision must be correct because most people support it." There may be occasions when that which is right and that which is popular are the same, but, popular opinion is often short-sighted and is most often determined by emotion rather than reason. Utilitarianism argues that the right decision is that one that produces the best result when both short term and long term effects have been considered.
You raise an important question. A major problem with any consequentialist theory is that there is no way to foresee all of the effects of any action. Kant was particularly critical of outcome-based theories for this very reason. Ultimately, like Mr. Spock, you just have to take your best guess. (Star Trek IV)
@Skabeeri Yes, I teach philosophy and ethics and Widener University, in Chester, Pennsylvania (that's a few miles south of Philadelphia).
It seems like the best action, "that which produces the greatest net benefit," is prone to the whims and imperfections of human judgement. Determination of that which has the greatest net benefit seems subjective in itself... thus it seems like it would be very difficult to actually apply Utilitarianism in real life. It gets sticky when we talk about the intangibles, I guess.
With an ethical theory, couldn't one could construct more specific definitions of such terms, if only for the use of the theory itself? It seems as though "good" is a key term to define when it comes to Utilitarianism.
Because they would film the video in their office and philosophy people tend to do a lot of reading, hence the books in their offices
Maximize the happiness for the most number of persons it doesn't matter what sacrifices you need to do just do it!
this is just boting enough to help me with my test thanks!!!!!!
all definitions are arbitrary and subjective.
not all definitions are useful, consistent and coherent.
thanks sir for posting this, it has helped me alot, more than you could know!!! for some reason i could not understand a word of what i was reading!!
yeah you can, as long as you are clearly define what you mean by the term and are consistent.
The hedonic calculus makes everything so much easier.
Very helpful video, I like your presentations, felt like being in class. keep em coming!
how can you use it as a workplace example
@matvarn Are you ok man?
Very helpful video thank you
@wmiller24
Well said
Thank you professor! From Greece.
Cheers.
Thank you
@wmiller24 i love phlosiphy but i kinda suck at it plus it is undervalued in socity would you argree that it is undervalued