So thankful for the illustrations that visulize the lectures. Sometimes people like me who are just starting in college.. really benefit from this. Ethics is never easy and the moral dilemnas will never end, but at least understanding another's point of view adds insight.
But couldn't the suffering of Jones undermine the pleasure experienced by those billion people watching the World Cup match uninterrupted? The viewers may feel great at first, but if they later find out that the game was brought to them uninterrupted at the expense of someone else's intense suffering, might they experience significant guilt and, thereby, pain, a degree of pain that ultimately exceeds the pleasure from watching the game? If that's true, we can't just consider the suffering that results from interrupting the football match, but also the suffering that would result from finding out the cost of watching the game uninterrupted. While Mill claims that happiness, and thus morality, consists in maximizing pleasure and reducing pain for the greatest number of people, need that claim be exclusively understood as asserting that "the interests of the many are always privileged over the interests of the few?" Might not Mill be saying that the ill-treatment of even one person could undermine the pleasure experienced by many people, especially if the pleasure of the many depends upon the ill-treatment of the one?
Or you go even more broadly and say: would those who watched the worldcup be happy to live in a world where they know this stuff happens and could always happen to them? No probably not. I always find that those "objections" to utilitarianism to be just a failure to talk accurately about all the non-quantifiable trade-offs of an action.
I'm not an expert on the utilitarian school of thought, by any measure, but from what I understand, the application of utilitarianism in decision-making relies on the assessment of quantifiable/measurable values, i.e. _the number_ of people affected rather than the degree to which they are affected, that one would expect to see result by a given course of action, and then one would compare the projected outcomes of any alternative courses of action that might be available to form an ultimate decision. I'm open to correction on this in case someone finds that I'm way off here.
@@mydogbullwinkle As a utilitarian I would say that we believe in the quantity and degree. A simple mathematical formula would be: Minimise {pain_quantity*degree_of_pain}
@@michaelroditis1952 I appreciate you hitting me up on this. I like that you've put it in the form of a formula. In fact, I think it's incredibly helpful. Could you explain what do you mean by _degree of pain?_ Are you talking about incremental degrees of sensational pain (as when a doctor asks "on a scale of 1 to 10...")? Or, is it referring to something more like magnitudinal orders of pain relating to discernable physiological and psychological distress and damage (e.g. unharmed knee < scraped knee < broken knee < amputated leg < death)? Or, is it a bit of both? In this case I would ask if there's a system for ordinating the degrees of pain? If we were hypothetically in a situation where we had to choose between having 100 people suffer superficial knee scrapes or one person suffering a leg amputation, which would you choose and why? Let's say that the knee scrapes were really, really painful, and also that this decision took place today when the chance for infection and further injury would be minimal. Let's also say that the leg amputation would be conducted in a hospital setting, and that the person undergoing it would suffer comparatively little sensational pain, and that the person would be fitted for a modern prosthetic. Would this change your answer? Would your answer change if the knee scrapes would be incurred upon 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people? If so, why? I would choose to scrape knees, because while scraped knees can hurt a lot, they do heal. An amputation, even a completely painless one, will negatively affect a person's quality of life for the rest of their life. Prosthetic technology is great so far as is available today, but it requires maintenance and physical therapy, and it can't fully replace the functionality of the lost limb. We could hope that the amputee would enjoy the future advent of innovations which would restore their lost limb, but it's not a certainty whereas the scraped knees healing is a certainty. Sorry for the wall of text, but this stuff is interesting to me. In case it's not clear, I don't assert any points, I'm simply trying to gain a better understanding of utilitarianism.
Honestly that’s so incredibly unlikely that it’s not a very good example, but that being said I’m a Utilitarian and I would definitely just save the guy, because the minor inconvenience of not getting to watch a world cup match isn’t really a big deal. You can always watch it later ultimately that’s perceived suffering versus real suffering.
In the real world moral decision making is a hot (emotional) process. There is ample imaging evidence to support this (see Joshua Greene's moral cognition research). Humans know instantly the choice they prefer, then add all the rational stuff later.
@@jamescarter3738 there is also such a thing as emotional reasoning, and there are varying degrees of emotionality regarding different subjects, to claim all moral decisions are completely sealed seems idiotic. The fact that political opinions change over time on a national scale seems to indicate people's moral judgements do shift, albeit gradually. I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems scientifically silly to think that moral decisions just come from magic land and not from some sort of underlying logical processes or cost benefit analysis that happens in the mind which can be explained and influenced, although perhaps explained wrongly many times and only influenced gradually or with much effort. Ultimately every decision is a moral decision, since morality is what is right and what is wrong and every decision is a choice between right and wrong or better or worse. Some decisions are more abstract and some more emotional but emotions aren't just magical nonsense they have an underlying logic. Utilitarianism also isn't just about killing people. You can apply utilitarianism for every decision in life, even "should I make coffee or tea". It's not just something about emotionally charged subjects.
my main issue with both parts is that i thought the utilitarian value wasn’t the most happiness, but the most good. in my opinion the most good for a person would be to be aware of their life’s illusions, and then they would be happier. i like to think of “happiness” more as fulfillment and good than the simpler aspects of it.
The answer seems clear to me: Preventing the highest number of potentially life-threatening injuries takes priority over anything else. If, however, the non-life threatening injuries are disabling, then they count almost equally. Jones should be asked if he is willing to remain in pain for a large amount of money, since he does in fact have the right to be rescued. If he agrees, a contract is formed and the broadcast is saved. If not, the station's financial losses from rescuing Jones, and the disappointment of however many spectators there happen to be, are unavoidable consequences if morals are to be upheld. One man's avoidable agony is not a fair price any of the sports fans, if they are truly moral, ought to be willing to pay for an uninterrupted broadcast or even the most important game ever televised.
Utilitarianism is based on the assumption that happiness/suffering can be mathematically added up. Why do we assume that? I mean even we can add up the emotions of 10 people each feeling 10%sad and 90%happy to form a hypothetical giant with 10 times the emotional range of an ordinary human; it would still only be 10% sad and 90%happy (remember that as we are adding up the suffering so too are we adding up the happiness!). This leads me to believe that it is not the AMOUNT of happiness/suffering that should be taken into account but rather the PERCENTAGE of it. So I say it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a million or a billion people watching the football game. The percentage of suffering in Jones should only be compared to the HIGHEST percentage of suffering per person in that 1 billion people watching the game. If the WORST person affected will only feel irritated, then we are morally obligated to save Jones. If stopping the broadcast will cause a heart attack in even one person watching the game, then we are morally obligated to let the broadcast continue. Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Curious to know what you or anyone else may think of it.
Essentially what you are saying is that if we have 3 persons with loss in happiness of {-1,-4,-2}, and the loss of happiness of the other person is -10, we choose the min({-1,-4,-2}) = -4, and compare against -10, therefore concluding that -10 < -4 => we stop the antena. That is an excellent point. It is unclear that we humans add the combined happiness as the video assumes. That is part of the value theory though, since we are discussing how to assign happiness.
As a utilitarian, I think of it more as making the effort to reach that goal, than to expect that we will always know the optimal solution. We may not know the exact happiness or suffering our actions will bring, but we can strive to cause as much happiness and cause as little suffering as possible.
One thing I had hoped the video would touch on is an alternative interpretation for happiness's value that is brought up in "Brave New World". Consider a scenario in which a mother loses her child. There is a drug that she can take to forget all her sorrows and to be completely indifferent to her child's death. Is this truly the correct conclusion? Haven't we gained something by experiencing this suffering?
yourjanissary Great question. Have you checked out this video on the experience machine (ruclips.net/video/yJ1dsNauhGE/видео.html) and also the reverse one on experimental philosophy (ruclips.net/video/EVoZCOVzdaU/видео.html&lc=z12csl3pzwishnhaw04cfvwx0mruu3k4nss0k)? I wonder if they would kindle some thoughts.
just came here on your channel for my exam and this is the most worthy to see out of all I have searched here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge madam and kudos for the presentation.
@@bindipig1225 not sure how. Utilitarianism would dictate that equal rights for all would bring about the most happiness, since everyone would be treated equally. Could you give me a hypothetical example please? Thank you.
@UCLxWiJW0QhEmbbWX3p1X5FA oh ok. I get what you're saying now. But I have to point out that the world ISN'T currently Utilitarian and they already think that way. And when I said I agree with Utilitarianism, I meant in replacement of Religion.
I think Negative Utilitarianism resolves the Jones situation, even if you consider a loss of pleasure to be itself a form of suffering. While a billion people will lose happiness/experience lost-happiness related suffering, actual physical pain is lexically prior (to use some jargon)
I'm wondering why, when considering the potential trouble surrounding the concept of "happiness," Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures wasn't addressed. This seems to solve problems regarding being happy about the "wrong" things.
its definitely a common theme when talking about "the problems/debunking" utilitarianism that the issue is more with the "math of it" in extreme situations that people wouldnt do. Especially in the case shown, no one would stop themselves from helping jones in the transmitter because of people watching the soccer game
I wish there were a stronger argument for the shocked man, because all we're really mulling over (it seems to me) is how to justify our intuition of the situation, not what's morally optimal.
Bad luck, Jones. It takes a special kind of talent to come up with a plausible, theory-testing hypothetical scenario, and the Jones example is top notch. Golf clap for TM Scanlon.
The funny thing is any argument against utilitarianism utilizes the utilitarian principles. If the people watching that football match feel like it's not worth it to torture the guy getting electrocuted to watch, and to an extent where they agree to not watch for those 15 minutes, then that's them scaling the gains/losses and deciding that. Also, such things as proximity and passive/active play a big role aswell. If the electrocuted guy was in China somewhere there would be less inclination than if the guy was broadcast in the corner of the screen while the football match was going on. Same holds true for sweatshops and the pillaging of Africa, since the actual "taking advantage of" is so far away physically and in the chain of trade(you don't actually employ them yourself) and it's the current situation and you had no part in establishing it.
What about disclosing the truth? If ignorance is bliss and the truth makes people unhappy, does utilitarianism favor an ignorant populace? For example, acknowledging the existence of alien life would shatter the world view of many people. Is better to disclose or withhold the truth?
This is a great question and can, of course, be phrased in a variety of ways. To you Myna, I understand considering knowledge as valuable, but is that true in all situations? Especially when considered from the utilitarianist perspective? In Metz's example, it could certainly be argued that it would result in negative consequences for the many. Another example is one that is quite relevant these days. Let's assume for a moment that we discover incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist. Your mother is 85 years old and has less than five years left to live; she is a devout Christian and has justified her entire life based on God's existence. Do you share this new knowledge with her? I cannot see nearly any good coming from it, and only a great deal of suffering coming from the shattering of her worldview with such little time to reconcile herself with it. Thus, for a utilitarian, knowledge does not have intrinsic value. Its value is predicated on the amount of happiness it provides. Here we might find a number of people finding an issue with the doctrine...
I feel like this ignores all the points Mill made about Utilitarianism, and just focuses on Bentham, which is a problem I have with so many Intro to Ethics courses and agendas. Yes, for the purposes of giving a brief overview in the case of a survey class, it is appropriate to just use Bentham and then do a quick thought experiment to show pros and cons However, if we want a serious discussion about Utilitarianism as a serious normative theory, you MUST consider the definitions Mill sets forth, as the thoughts no longer have nearly the same weight as before
Most Football fans would argue that stopping the broadcast to save Jones would be the worst thing one could do. Plus you have to consider all the deaths that will happen from the riots :P
Basically utilitarianism is what businesses, militaries, and educator's call "game theory" the instructor broke this down well; she gave me a broad understanding in minutes. I ran across this word Niccolo machiavelli "art of war" I could not get an understanding of the word by the definition.
why is it that situations in this case are not taken case by case as opposed to coming up with ludicrous hard line responses for them that almost no one would ever agree to go thru with
agree with sam harris. jones case is that not saving him has some more consequences that affect a lot of people negatively in far reaching ways. for example, it makes everyone with large audience suffer from the terror that their well being is neglected in favor of the audience.
Britton DeJong l think you're so pessimistic.Most people do what makes them happier or richer if they can choose or make any decision for themselves.No one want to die or be disappointed.
Britton DeJong You are right, but no need to put it in such grim words. Your conclusion is right, but your argument is fallacious. Happiness is mostly unquantifiable and undefinable. Suffering on the other hand is far easier to break down and quantify. Life does not have to pain, but it kind of is. Let’s say mankind is living in a force labor camp. This is easy to imagine, because it would be not to hard to imagine a better world. (And for people reading this, a worst world). Making people in a working camp happier is obviously not a priority. We reduce suffering g first, we take down the working camp, and then we start thinking about happiness actually is.
Edgar A. 亚瑟 Arthur What about suffering in terms of neurobiological response? Or even happiness in a neurobiological response? Surely that's quantifiable and even empirical.
Melvin Arthur I am not sure that dopamine spikes is the right way of quantifying happiness. But as I said: priority 1 is to reduce misery, then figure out what happiness truly is.
15 mins without one football game won't traumatize the fans, another hour of pain will hurt Jones immensely, so Jones must be helped for a mere 15 mins. Utilitarianism thinks of pain on a longer scale, football fans wont have the pain of the missed out football game, Jones will have the pain of the shocks though. Utilitarianism is right.
***** You did the maths but you've also got think of the intensity, 28500 man years of mildly being annoyed and then moving on is far far less than an hour of horrendous pain that will effect Jones and his friends lives, he won't be the same man. If anyone person could get beyond frustrated levels on par to Jones' pain then they should have avoided that by going to the game. And I'm sure moments of a game that has little to no effect to most would mind being told that it had to be interrupted to save a mans life, or at least in Jones' case, ease his situation.
Yes, but how do you draw the line? How many mildly annoyed fans is Jones's pain worth? Suppose that humanity has colonized the galaxy, and 1 hundred billion billion fans are watching the game. Is one hour of frustration for Jones worth the frustration of a galaxy?
scotonettos What are the lasting effects of their frustration? Assuming they all know why they're missing out on their short 15 minutes of lost game time, avoiding excessive drawn out pain inflicted towards Jones, they should understand why they're missing out and act calmly, its just one game and not even an entire game. But if it was seconds before a winning goal for the team a majority of the fans support, and this creates a galaxy wide outrage, that can either be forgotten, be remembered as a little story to tell people or at worst, create bar fights within the respective galactic pubs, this would causes a mass hospitalization of many football fans. You must consider these things, which it is hard to know if it will happen. A mild pain of say a trillion people is nothing for most, but if since you have so many, you may get a few people that's days are effected in the smallest way that it causes a knock on effect of something worse. Utilitarianism works best with more certainties (not knowing the lasting effects of each action makes it harder) But would it really be worth it to spend your time helping people with mild issues? They become common place and so less of an issue if they're not taken seriously, we need to hold some things as most important like immense pain or even death, which Jones' is experiencing.
As Julia Markovits pointed out, in practice we do this sort of thing all the time so it's actually natural to us. We make decisions which have a minor affect on many when we could do something which has a significant affect on a few. The reason that particular example is hard to accept is because the number of people is actually beyond comprehension, we comprehend the number and how it relates to other numbers but we can't comprehend that number of PEOPLE and the combined frustration. Imagine a box, now put 10 people in that box, easy to imagine.... now put 1 billion people in it, you can't. It seems cruel I know... but even cruelty can be paid for in small parts... The other way to look at it is with 1 billion people there's a very real chance that some of those people are on the edge and this could be the final straw where some were going to recover after this. Perhaps you end up causing even worse suffering to individuals. So if helping him isn't necessarily going to save significant suffering then clearly it must be the wrong decision. The other thing to keep in mind is that our values on electrocution for 15 minutes and entertainment can just be different which is a reason I don't strongly agree with utilitarianism-different people, different values-
Ethan Woodhouse It's very hard to imagine a large number of people, but you can imagine ones suffering and imagine if a majority of people felt it. If I was into football and wanted to watch a final and missed it, it would just become "That one Soccer final I missed", just a story, nothing big, but Jones, Jones will not merely have a story but his entire life would be changed, any Soccer fan that would wish immense pain upon one person merely for everyone's short term comfort to avoid an almost meaningless effect (meaning one game in thousands) In the other example someone else said, what if we inhabited many planets so there were more fans to miss out, if their bar fights cause more pain (broken limbs, death, trauma, etc.) then it's actually good to let Jones feel 15 mins of pain as his pain avoids a much much worse case. I understand why some don't like Utilitarianism, you justify the pain and possible lose of rights, and life worth living of a few to create happiness for others, which may weigh up on a scale but the few still feel the pain of it. Some would say that's selfish, the greater good is the goal, and that's true but we should find the ways that cause the least pain, Jones may need to feel some pain, we don't know the long term effects of this pain on him, it might be nothing, in that case no bar fight, all is good, I doubt in the original case the fans would add up to anything damaging, mild inconvenience is nothing compared to pain but death is much worse. Why do you disagree with Utilitarianism?
I am no expert on this subject, though I feel the fallacy in the ideal is the fact that pleasure itself is the objective. If so the object were pure efficiency in survival, the given scenario could not exist.
All of these "problems" aren't actual problems if you actually believe in utilitarianism. Yes, many of the results of utilitarian analysis seem "weird", but that weirdness is not based in logical, rational thought. It is a result of a mixture of our natural instincts (which are suited to help us continue our genetic lineage, not to be perfectly moral) and family/societal norms, which historically have clearly not been consistent or based in logic. Would you immediately discredit Einstein's theory of relativity simply because many of the conclusions seem "weird"? Of course I'm not saying utilitarianism currently has the same logical support as the theory of relativity, but the idea of rejecting utilitarianism simply because it differs from what is normally thought of to be moral is no more logical than rejecting the theory of relativity over similar grounds. In fact, by judging theories of morality by how weird they feel, all you are doing is maintaining your own current theory of morality by deflecting anything that differs from it.
I understand what you mean; dismissing a moral theory just because it feels weird seems rather close-minded. But then how else are we to judge between competing theories? A Kantian could make the same argument as you; just because you find the conclusions of Kantian ethics "weird", doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because you find Kant's conclusion that it is never ok to lie (even to save someone's life from a murderer) weird, that's not grounds to immediately discredit Kantianism. Technically, all of these "problems" aren't actual problems if you actually believe in Kantianism. Similarily, any "problems" you point out with Virtue Theory aren't actual problems if you actually believe in Virtue Theory. If we can't appeal to the unintuitiveness/weirdness of competing theories' conclusions, then how are we supposed to adjudicate between different moral theories?
1. I don't understand how the two parts are separated. Once you define what is valuable, you state what is its maximum (implicitly or explicitly). Therefore what is valuable *defines* everything. The example you gave shows this exactly: it depends on how you assign value to happiness (you gave one, based on 1, 10, 100, 1000 that led you to conclude that you should not turn the antena off). There is nothing about the example you gave that shows that how to maximize it leads to a different outcome. 2. One thing I don't understand is why do you assume that you there *is* a unique value of happiness to a situation. For me, the whole problem here is that there is no such thing. Each person sets different values to happiness, and concludes different things. I am not sure there is even possible to set a value to a given action that is independent of the person who sets it. In any case, great video.
a value theory tells you what is valuable, and a theory of right action tells you how to bring that value about in a morally permissible way. the distinction is more evident when constrasting act and rule utilitarianism. both of them posit happiness as a value, but have different theories of right action. act utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that causes the most happiness and the least suffering: this is very situational, and requires one to ponder every decision and every outcome. rule utilitarianism, roughly, says that you should make rules that act as rules of thumb when making decisions, and these rules are to be chosen based on how much happiness they bring about. it's like making a set of moral guidelines that are usually better than any other possible rules. both of these variants of utilitarianism value happiness, but have different theories of how to bring them about. as for happiness as a value, it is quite difficult to measure or justify. there are different types of happiness, different interests for different people, and the same can be said of suffering, making things more complicated when choices necessarily involve measuring happiness against suffering. there's also the problem of the naturalistic fallacy: it seems invalid to conclude that happiness is a value just because we like it.
Why didn't you mention John Stuart Mills? He is the progenitor of the more widespread version of Utilitarianism, even if he is far less awesome than Jeremy Bentham was. Mills modified Utilitarianism to include Rights as a factor of happiness. Mills argued that without certain rights, people would constantly fear that they would be the next person forced to endure some wrong for the greater good, which would greatly affect any equation for happiness. You also never mentioned that Utilitarians also look nearly entirely at the future as a part of moral judgement. Or that we usually take much from other moral systems (like Kant's rules) as a way to help determine the morality of any action. Or that we almost unilaterally believe in the importance of self-determination in moral judgement.
The concept of maximized benefit extends past immediate effect to extended ripple effects. Don't know if utilitarianism takes into account anything past immediate effect, but I do agree extended ripple effects also matter when it comes to moral decisions.
Utilitarianism absolutely takes into account ripple effects. It's part of why many utilitarians use several ways of determining the morality of a course of action, and caveats for unknowable or extremely unlikely consequences. When I try to determine the morality of an action, I look at its immediate utility and its future utility, then usually look at it from multiple other morality systems' answers. I mostly subscribe to Utilitarianism, but I also tend to look at the judgements from systems like Kant's.
I'm confused by this cold calculus, as Mills himself differentiated between higher and baser pleasure. That means we cannot coldly sum up the net happiness. We must assign weight to the matter. This is even more complex, because the subjective nature of assigning this weight may seem arbitrary to some!
Was it wise to set aside what is to be deemed valuable? And, you say 'maybe' it's 'not just' happiness but well being more broadly understood that's valuable. Ins't it reasonable that well being, may not be in tandem with happiness. I know my welling is preserved if I exercise everyday, but that may not make me happy.
If the guy is in terrible pain as a result of getting hurt during the World Cup, a utilitarian would consider the suffering experienced by the individual as well as the potential impact on overall happiness and well-being. In this situation, a utilitarian would likely view the harm caused to the guy as a significant factor to consider.
Would it be simpler to just say the action that, in the long term, causes the least amount of suffering is the correct one? Seems that taking pleasure out of the equation solves a lot of the problems of act utilitarianism. I would just add that you don't get to punish an innocent person, that's the only rule to ensure fairness is achieved and that solves all the other problems.
16:21 Those examples don't have immediate implications. Therefor they are deemed allowable because we then have to rely on statistical chance. The Jones example has an immediate implication, the crushed hand. Therefore we are completed to act. In Utilitarianism, immediate implication, if it is presented, supersedes statistical chance . If an immediate implication is not presented then reliance upon statistics supersedes. Does this make sense?
Deciding in favor of the crowd is what essentially happened when Jesus was crucified. He discovered that negativity, pain and suffering were decided by an individual's actions, what they consumed, and that the individual could fix this and empower themselves. The power structure of the day felt threatened and put the spin on his message, thus condemning the masses to an overall system of mediocrity instead of realizing the potential. The spin was so successful that it continues to this day.
Just wanted to say that these are great. I use them in my lower-division courses and I think the format and presentation really help students. A great resource, especially during COVID.
It's not subjective. It's pure pleasure pain which all humans experience. The causes of pleasure and pain may be subjective but not the pleasure of pain itself.
@Midraar Ul Amaan Everyone is selfish in an Utilitarist philosophy,which is logic since none of us are perfectly selfless. Utilitarianism is a philosophy,not a rational doctrine. Rationally,you should be selfish.But this is a morality doctrine;as such you should ask yourself "If I had to try to convince everyone of a persuading moral rule,what should be this rule?" then Utilitarism would be the answer,since it has only one simple,intuitive rule which can convince peoples easily; it is also adapted to all situations and as such will maximise your happiness as a member of the group.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎓 *Theory of Value and Right Action in Utilitarianism* - Utilitarianism comprises two main aspects: theory of value and theory of right action. - Happiness and absence of suffering are deemed valuable, and right action maximizes this value. - Utilitarianism's simplicity and universality make it appealing, but it also raises concerns. 01:31 🤔 *Worries Regarding Utilitarian Theory of Value* - Debates arise concerning the exclusivity of happiness as the sole valuable entity. - Criticisms suggest broader considerations beyond happiness for assessing value. 02:30 💡 *Challenges to the Theory of Right Action* - The theory of right action faces scrutiny, particularly regarding moral decision-making in complex scenarios. - T. M. Scanlon's example highlights dilemmas where maximizing value conflicts with intuitive moral judgments. - Utilitarian calculations may lead to morally questionable conclusions, challenging the theory's applicability in certain situations. Made with HARPA AI
That critics seems unjustified and intuitive, with lack of logic and arguments. I think this theory is right, however, we must be carefull in what we believe as the options we have. For example, the right action it would be to give medicine to the guy while the sports are been shown, i think
an aspect she doesnt cover is the 'butterfly effect' if you will of 1B people watching the TV crap out out during the match. How many chances of bad things far worse than 15m of annoyance could be triggered by that? A negative or positive act is never limited to just that act. Proper (rule) utilitarianism like all real reasoning goes on ad infinitum. I think like another comment below noted, we must assume exponentiality. I suppose letting Jones suffer could have exponential consequences as well, but I'd bet the even small chances of 1b is more dangerous. PS- Im pretty sure letting Jones sit there until the match is over is what would happen naturally or instinctively.
There were 60 minutes of the game left so that means 40 minutes had been played that means that the man only had to wait 5 minutes till half time which conveniently lasts 15 minutes(same amount of time needed to rescue him).
If you think its more valueable to save john then its a thing. There is no deductive proof of quantifiying well-being, and perhaps existence of a certain level of well-being albeit not so positive. Maybe the pain was enriching like some said previously lol
A billion is such a grotesquely large number that it seems to take away from whatever argument you're making. Even if it was the left thumb of a billion people I still think the right choice from a utilitarian standpoint would be to take one life. Having a billion people without left thumbs has the potential to change the world, quite literally. Take one person out of a billion, let alone 6 billion and counting...not much changes.
I see a problem not with the philosophy, but with the fact that we live in societies with lopsided distributions of power. A fair solution may be quite obvious, however it may still not get carried out because a powerful minority values staying in power much more than honoring a concept of utilitarianism and they have the ability to block a utilitarian resolution.
(5:58) Is this not just another value judgement? I don't think rights is a special case here. Jones's right to not suffer in this scenario means the society value preventing his suffering more than the football game.
consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism. It's a school of thought that falls under the utilitarian worldview. Utilitarianism at its most basic says what matters most in ethical dilemmas is settling the issue to achieve the maximum amount of 'utility' possible. However you need value theory to have a basis for what 'utility' means; Bentham suggested happiness is the utility that matters most to humans. (But not in the sense of pleasure.)
If there was an ethnic group that does great suffering to themselves and others almost nonstop with little exceptions, even try to travel elsewhere to commit great suffering there and are in constant need of help, but any attempt to give them agricultural tools to help them in the long run is turned into weapons and IEDs... Is it morally acceptable to isolate them until they get wiser or kill each other?
Around the 5 min mark, she raises the problem with maximizing value, that preventing billions of migraines is more valuable than preventing one death. This is a very flimsy argument to me. What we are effectively doing is multiplying the value of a migraine by a billion and comparing it to the value of death. But that is exactly the problem. What is the value to death in proportion to the value of a migraine? If I said that preventing death is 10^50 times more valuable than preventing migraine, I would still end up saying that preventing the death of one person is more valuable than preventing migraine of a billion.
The "flawed" examples only seem flawed because we who judge them live in the real world. Principles and rights work better then pure utilitarianism because they let people feel assured which reduces anxiety. I feel comforted that my friends wouldn't let me suffer being electrocuted under a broadcast tower. This comfort has value. The other reason they seem flawed is that we cannot measure pain. Perhaps the torment of the electrocuted man, if made into a number, would vastly outweigh the joys of the soccer fans even if they were in the billions. But we have no method of extrapolating a meaningful number from pain.
Someone shouldn't be sacrificed for the greater good? That's just sympathy at its worst. The whole reason Jesus' story is so attractive is because he did just that. We let emotion muddle our rational understanding of morality. Utilitarianism shatters that barrier by removing sentiment from the equation and looking at matters as objectively as possible. This isn't a flaw with utilitarianism. It's an advantage.
I think the question is more where we draw the line for one person's suffering at the expense of others' happiness. I am a utilitarian, don't get me wrong, but it is something worth debating. I disagree with it being a problem, however, as I think its more of an issue simply with how we calculate suffering vs happiness. I would argue, for example, Jones' suffering outweighs the happiness it brings regardless of the number of people watching. Interrupting their game for a few minutes wouldn't outweigh Jones' suffering through electrical shocks for the duration of the game.
I think Jones' example brings up a great debate regarding individual rights versus the prosperity of the group. Another example: would it be ok if we took random people off the street for their organs? Theoretically, there could be 2 or more people in dire need of the organs from any one person, thus a life net gain in the utilitarian equation. But is that fair to the individual? He did nothing to deserve that and why is he not a benefactor of other people's organs rather than vice versa. It's not clean cut, that's for sure.
Yeah that's the thing. In the real world it makes no sense because everyone would feel so horrible if they knew someone was suffering for their stupid game. It would suck all the fun out of it.
+Inquisitor Adaar I know this is 6 months late, but whatever here ya go. In a situation like Poor Jones', the very best solution would be one where he gets his hand out AND they are able to keep the broadcast running, which could potentially be possible in the real world. However, assuming theoretically it is not possible, if enough people were watching such that their happiness from watching the broadcast was greater than Jones' suffering from having his hand crushed, they should keep it broadcasting. This answer feels incorrect, but that is because humans find it very difficult to empathise with large groups rather than individuals. You can clearly imagine the pain Jones is going through, you know what hurting your hand would feel like. You can also imagine what not being able to watch a sports match you wanted to see would feel like - slightly frustrating no doubt. You cannot so easily, on the other hand, imagine what not being able to watch a sports match you wanted to see would feel like for one billion people all at once - it is simply beyond human empathic capabilities. It is because of this you side with Jones, and not the billion others whose collective suffering would be extremely intense could you experience all of it at once.
Very good point, but you also have to consider not just the points that she made, because she didn't add every possible variable either. For instance, there have been instances where a football match just ending the 'wrong' way caused riots where people lost their lives, and is Jones's temporary suffering really worth the immense suffering caused by riots? Or what about other potential issues, there are always more variables than someone can mention in a video this short. Utilitarianism is a very difficult system to accurately portray in a total of 15-20 minutes.
Generally,the supposed paradox of Utilitarism can be solved by: 1-Recognizing that the paradox is far-fetched unlikely to ever happen ,and thus we are just led astray by our instinct 2-Recognizing that some variables are missing,such as the emotionnal backlash provoqued by the hurt of one person for the sake of entertainement. 3-Recognizing that the situation has too many hidden variables and that we lack information 4-Recognizing that a scenario can be unapealing and disgusting,but still morally right.
I think example is bad. In this case it's obviously better to help Johnes. People getting frustrsted because their hedonistic desire is not met don't matter at all
So it sounds like Utilitarianism supports the sacrifice of a savior for the greater good. Oh well, we all have to go sooner or later. Just let it be a peaceful sacrifice.
Jones was innocent in that example. The use of torture on a person withholding life saving information, to potentially save the many, is an entirely different thing, and is unfair to throw into the end of this presentation. People shouldn't allow their political believes to cloud these types of discussions. This is where we run into trouble.
+Jerry Mungo but isn't that the point of this philosophy? to ignore labels and associations like innocent and guilty, or nice guy or dick head? Do these things factor in to utilitarianism or is the desired outcome the only center of attention?
i mean if a death is 100000000000000000000 points, and a headache is 1 point. even with the entire world population with a headache, you would clearly save jones. this is making an assumption based on what we place value on. and in this sense, this vague form of utilitarianism is completely bias and 10 people might re-act to the same situations 10 different ways based on what they honestly believe to be the best value proposition.
The example I usually go to when utilitarianism comes up in conversation, is this: Image a city where there is a brutal serial killer on the loose. People are afraid to go outside, in fear of assault. The governent/police take a random person, that they know is innocent, and claim he is the serial killer. He is sent to jail, and the authorities tell the people that the killer is caught. The people are relieved and happy, and can now go back to their day to day lives. This way, millions of people are once again happy, but an innocent man is labeled a serial killer, and sent to jail for the rest of his life. By utalitarian philosophy, this could be justified as the right solution, but most of us will believe this is wrong.
How can the people say if this is moraly right or wrong when they are not aware of the lies of the government/police. The only people who know the truth are the authority and the innocent man.
I agree with utilitarianism as long as it doesn't compare apples to oranges. Like with your example of the dude dying and stuff. It's hard to compare if the over all pleasure of one life is equivalent to the short time pleasure of billions. It's extremely subjective and problematic. Though say with the trolley problem where you have no information about the people and the only logical conclusion is that they have equal value then it would be reasonable to exercise utilitarianism.
Silly examples:. If people ARE TOLD that they lost the feed in order to save a man's electrocution, then we are going to be fine with that. Just run that in the broadcast after you turn it off. What if you don't and they find out later? Then they will be pissed that the network let a guy be electrocuted in order to sell commercials. Utilitarianism only falls against absurd situations of this sort.
All wonderful arguments to circumvent the reliance for deciding what is right upon one's own conscience. Hence, it's more valuable to have a very expensive degree from an Ivy League College while millions of Americans are not adequately fed. Very simple philosophy indeed. Surely it is better to sacrifice the Palestinians so that Jews can have more land. After all, what happiness could there really be if there were actual behavioral parameters that human beings should follow instead of parameters that can always be rationalized away. Besides, do you have any notion just how much money is being made off the advertising during the game? And of course, pity that poor Jones doesn't have healthcare and that he can't afford to pay for the ambulance, but remember, all those doctors who graduated from Ivy League schools need to both pay off their college loans, if there parents didn't happen to have the cash on hand, and at the same time they have to pay for that second Mercedes and the new swimming pool. One has to keep all of this in the proper perspective.
I think you are misguiding people on the issue of Jones and the fans. The two groups are not facing the same situation like in the case of the six sick patients earlier considered. So your critique of utilitarianism is not right here. Bentham will still argue that helping the suffering person produces more happiness.
The problem is this is a ridiculous senerio it a very extreme example the senerio doesn't consider that if a billion people will be watch a soccer match there probably will be a backup for this types of senerios
The world cup example is fallacious because it equates mental pain ("I didn't get to watch the world cup!") with physical pain ("Ow! My foot!"). Those types of pain will never be equal; ask anyone. Will they rather experience what "Jones" experienced, or what the world cup viewers experienced?
Yea the values are off in my mind. Most people would rather a long term injury or disfigurement than die. Also electric torture as well as physical injury.. is much higher in value than frustration. I feel there shouldn't be any confusion over value of frustration vs physical/ extreme emotional suffering. Imagine that it went out on Twitter. That this guy was being tortured and sustaining extreme pain due to injury in a prolonged way because it would interrupt the game for Millions. What if it hit the news? That moral implication would be obvious and there would be very few ridiculous people who would choose someone laying there in pain over millions of missing a game. I am sure Millions would feel awful and guilty. Many would be very much against that choice.
Do utilitarians need a masochist or a psychopath to explain to them levels of suffering? I'm sure they wouldn't get off sitting a person in a chair and cutting out the game like the film Amelié. Lol
A lot of these problems could be solved with a world utilitarianism approach. We can say that one world is better than another, similar to how we say a country or culture is better than another. Nazi Germany was a worse country than contemporary Germany, and a culture of misogyny and bigotry is worse than a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Likewise, we can say a world where one person is made to suffer for the minor convenience of the money is a worse world than a world where 1 billion are given a 15 minute inconvenience to release the suffering of one person. The problem with this view is that we can disagree with what world is better, and the subjectivity of taste can make even hellish worlds for some perfect worlds for others.
utilitarianism is best idea and work more than socialism , Absolutely Utilitarianism not work on paper only in act but socialism opposite side of utilitarianism just on paper is work ....
I dont agree with the example that a death of one person is of less value to the dismay of billions of people watching the world cup. Theory of Right Action would not primarily depend on the number of people who would benefit from the action. If the benefits are EQUAL to what a single person over "the many" will get. Then, those larger number of people will get the benefits of the action instead of that single person. However, if the benefit of that one person is of higher value over those billions who will just be dismayed of not being able to watch the world cup. A TRUE UTILITARIAN will still SAVE that person from death because he has greater benefit of his action than the billions of people watching the world cup. The greatest good for the greatest number is still applicable because the GREATEST GOOD is to save somebody from death. and the greatest number in that scenario is ONE over billions. It's ethics not math. In this case, 1 is more than billions.
The Example of torture at the end is really misplaced example. Only in meaningless hypothetical questions does the, Torture 1 to save millions cliche have any use. *Torture actually has to work to make it a valid point.* A common misconception perpetuated simply by ignorance. Not all against torture hold that belief for simplistic moral reasons. If torture actually worked like Hollywood movies I would support it, but it doesn't so i don't. Regardless of moral arguments, torture provides erroneous unreliable information.
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3 [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MoCuVa9UeR4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3 [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1 [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uvmz5E75ZIA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Problem of Skepticism [HD]](/img/1.gif)
So thankful for the illustrations that visulize the lectures. Sometimes people like me who are just starting in college.. really benefit from this. Ethics is never easy and the moral dilemnas will never end, but at least understanding another's point of view adds insight.
But couldn't the suffering of Jones undermine the pleasure experienced by those billion people watching the World Cup match uninterrupted? The viewers may feel great at first, but if they later find out that the game was brought to them uninterrupted at the expense of someone else's intense suffering, might they experience significant guilt and, thereby, pain, a degree of pain that ultimately exceeds the pleasure from watching the game? If that's true, we can't just consider the suffering that results from interrupting the football match, but also the suffering that would result from finding out the cost of watching the game uninterrupted. While Mill claims that happiness, and thus morality, consists in maximizing pleasure and reducing pain for the greatest number of people, need that claim be exclusively understood as asserting that "the interests of the many are always privileged over the interests of the few?" Might not Mill be saying that the ill-treatment of even one person could undermine the pleasure experienced by many people, especially if the pleasure of the many depends upon the ill-treatment of the one?
Or you go even more broadly and say: would those who watched the worldcup be happy to live in a world where they know this stuff happens and could always happen to them? No probably not. I always find that those "objections" to utilitarianism to be just a failure to talk accurately about all the non-quantifiable trade-offs of an action.
I'm not an expert on the utilitarian school of thought, by any measure, but from what I understand, the application of utilitarianism in decision-making relies on the assessment of quantifiable/measurable values, i.e. _the number_ of people affected rather than the degree to which they are affected, that one would expect to see result by a given course of action, and then one would compare the projected outcomes of any alternative courses of action that might be available to form an ultimate decision.
I'm open to correction on this in case someone finds that I'm way off here.
@@timgeurts What you said isn't a counter argument for utilatariansm..
But a reason why the utilatarian best action is to save Jones.
@@mydogbullwinkle As a utilitarian I would say that we believe in the quantity and degree.
A simple mathematical formula would be:
Minimise {pain_quantity*degree_of_pain}
@@michaelroditis1952 I appreciate you hitting me up on this. I like that you've put it in the form of a formula. In fact, I think it's incredibly helpful.
Could you explain what do you mean by _degree of pain?_ Are you talking about incremental degrees of sensational pain (as when a doctor asks "on a scale of 1 to 10...")? Or, is it referring to something more like magnitudinal orders of pain relating to discernable physiological and psychological distress and damage (e.g. unharmed knee < scraped knee < broken knee < amputated leg < death)?
Or, is it a bit of both? In this case I would ask if there's a system for ordinating the degrees of pain?
If we were hypothetically in a situation where we had to choose between having 100 people suffer superficial knee scrapes or one person suffering a leg amputation, which would you choose and why?
Let's say that the knee scrapes were really, really painful, and also that this decision took place today when the chance for infection and further injury would be minimal. Let's also say that the leg amputation would be conducted in a hospital setting, and that the person undergoing it would suffer comparatively little sensational pain, and that the person would be fitted for a modern prosthetic. Would this change your answer? Would your answer change if the knee scrapes would be incurred upon 1,000 people? 1,000,000 people? If so, why?
I would choose to scrape knees, because while scraped knees can hurt a lot, they do heal. An amputation, even a completely painless one, will negatively affect a person's quality of life for the rest of their life. Prosthetic technology is great so far as is available today, but it requires maintenance and physical therapy, and it can't fully replace the functionality of the lost limb. We could hope that the amputee would enjoy the future advent of innovations which would restore their lost limb, but it's not a certainty whereas the scraped knees healing is a certainty.
Sorry for the wall of text, but this stuff is interesting to me. In case it's not clear, I don't assert any points, I'm simply trying to gain a better understanding of utilitarianism.
Moral of the story: If you get hurt during a world cup match, pray to god the only person within distance to help is not a utilitarianist.
well, a very impractical utilitarianist in that case
@@MrTrombonebandgeek exactly...
pray he is a deontologist then heheh.
Honestly that’s so incredibly unlikely that it’s not a very good example, but that being said I’m a Utilitarian and I would definitely just save the guy, because the minor inconvenience of not getting to watch a world cup match isn’t really a big deal. You can always watch it later ultimately that’s perceived suffering versus real suffering.
If you get hurt during a world cup match, pray to god the only person within distance to help is not a football fan.
In the real world moral decision making is a hot (emotional) process. There is ample imaging evidence to support this (see Joshua Greene's moral cognition research). Humans know instantly the choice they prefer, then add all the rational stuff later.
That may be the case for quick decisions but what of the long deliberations of committees and Court cases?
@@Gargantupimp I suppose even those long deliberations would merely be more drawn out process of competing post purchase rationalisations
@@jamescarter3738 there is also such a thing as emotional reasoning, and there are varying degrees of emotionality regarding different subjects, to claim all moral decisions are completely sealed seems idiotic. The fact that political opinions change over time on a national scale seems to indicate people's moral judgements do shift, albeit gradually.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems scientifically silly to think that moral decisions just come from magic land and not from some sort of underlying logical processes or cost benefit analysis that happens in the mind which can be explained and influenced, although perhaps explained wrongly many times and only influenced gradually or with much effort. Ultimately every decision is a moral decision, since morality is what is right and what is wrong and every decision is a choice between right and wrong or better or worse. Some decisions are more abstract and some more emotional but emotions aren't just magical nonsense they have an underlying logic. Utilitarianism also isn't just about killing people. You can apply utilitarianism for every decision in life, even "should I make coffee or tea". It's not just something about emotionally charged subjects.
my main issue with both parts is that i thought the utilitarian value wasn’t the most happiness, but the most good. in my opinion the most good for a person would be to be aware of their life’s illusions, and then they would be happier. i like to think of “happiness” more as fulfillment and good than the simpler aspects of it.
The answer seems clear to me:
Preventing the highest number of potentially life-threatening injuries takes priority over anything else. If, however, the non-life threatening injuries are disabling, then they count almost equally.
Jones should be asked if he is willing to remain in pain for a large amount of money, since he does in fact have the right to be rescued. If he agrees, a contract is formed and the broadcast is saved. If not, the station's financial losses from rescuing Jones, and the disappointment of however many spectators there happen to be, are unavoidable consequences if morals are to be upheld. One man's avoidable agony is not a fair price any of the sports fans, if they are truly moral, ought to be willing to pay for an uninterrupted broadcast or even the most important game ever televised.
Utilitarianism is based on the assumption that happiness/suffering can be mathematically added up. Why do we assume that?
I mean even we can add up the emotions of 10 people each feeling 10%sad and 90%happy to form a hypothetical giant with 10 times the emotional range of an ordinary human; it would still only be 10% sad and 90%happy (remember that as we are adding up the suffering so too are we adding up the happiness!).
This leads me to believe that it is not the AMOUNT of happiness/suffering that should be taken into account but rather the PERCENTAGE of it. So I say it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a million or a billion people watching the football game. The percentage of suffering in Jones should only be compared to the HIGHEST percentage of suffering per person in that 1 billion people watching the game. If the WORST person affected will only feel irritated, then we are morally obligated to save Jones. If stopping the broadcast will cause a heart attack in even one person watching the game, then we are morally obligated to let the broadcast continue.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Curious to know what you or anyone else may think of it.
Essentially what you are saying is that if we have 3 persons with loss in happiness of {-1,-4,-2}, and the loss of happiness of the other person is -10, we choose the min({-1,-4,-2}) = -4, and compare against -10, therefore concluding that -10 < -4 => we stop the antena.
That is an excellent point. It is unclear that we humans add the combined happiness as the video assumes.
That is part of the value theory though, since we are discussing how to assign happiness.
As a utilitarian, I think of it more as making the effort to reach that goal, than to expect that we will always know the optimal solution. We may not know the exact happiness or suffering our actions will bring, but we can strive to cause as much happiness and cause as little suffering as possible.
One thing I had hoped the video would touch on is an alternative interpretation for happiness's value that is brought up in "Brave New World". Consider a scenario in which a mother loses her child. There is a drug that she can take to forget all her sorrows and to be completely indifferent to her child's death. Is this truly the correct conclusion? Haven't we gained something by experiencing this suffering?
yourjanissary Great question. Have you checked out this video on the experience machine (ruclips.net/video/yJ1dsNauhGE/видео.html) and also the reverse one on experimental philosophy (ruclips.net/video/EVoZCOVzdaU/видео.html&lc=z12csl3pzwishnhaw04cfvwx0mruu3k4nss0k)? I wonder if they would kindle some thoughts.
just came here on your channel for my exam and this is the most worthy to see out of all I have searched here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge madam and kudos for the presentation.
I agree with Utilitarianism. I didn't have a problem with any of it's problems. Seems the most pragmatic to me.
pragmatic ≠ good
@@mayatrash ....to you.
@@bindipig1225 denying gay people the same rights afforded to all human beings is a religious thing, not a Utilitarian notion.
@@bindipig1225 not sure how. Utilitarianism would dictate that equal rights for all would bring about the most happiness, since everyone would be treated equally. Could you give me a hypothetical example please? Thank you.
@UCLxWiJW0QhEmbbWX3p1X5FA oh ok. I get what you're saying now. But I have to point out that the world ISN'T currently Utilitarian and they already think that way. And when I said I agree with Utilitarianism, I meant in replacement of Religion.
I think Negative Utilitarianism resolves the Jones situation, even if you consider a loss of pleasure to be itself a form of suffering. While a billion people will lose happiness/experience lost-happiness related suffering, actual physical pain is lexically prior (to use some jargon)
I'm wondering why, when considering the potential trouble surrounding the concept of "happiness," Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures wasn't addressed. This seems to solve problems regarding being happy about the "wrong" things.
its definitely a common theme when talking about "the problems/debunking" utilitarianism that the issue is more with the "math of it" in extreme situations that people wouldnt do. Especially in the case shown, no one would stop themselves from helping jones in the transmitter because of people watching the soccer game
The Right word would be 'enjoymenti-ism' rather than a vague term 'happiness'.
I wish there were a stronger argument for the shocked man, because all we're really mulling over (it seems to me) is how to justify our intuition of the situation, not what's morally optimal.
what is valuable? I'd say approaching the convertibility of being, goodness, truth, and beauty is a good place to start.
Good vs Bad
Correct vs Incorrect
Happiness vs Unhappiness
Good =/= Correct =/= Happiness
Bad luck, Jones. It takes a special kind of talent to come up with a plausible, theory-testing hypothetical scenario, and the Jones example is top notch. Golf clap for TM Scanlon.
The funny thing is any argument against utilitarianism utilizes the utilitarian principles. If the people watching that football match feel like it's not worth it to torture the guy getting electrocuted to watch, and to an extent where they agree to not watch for those 15 minutes, then that's them scaling the gains/losses and deciding that.
Also, such things as proximity and passive/active play a big role aswell. If the electrocuted guy was in China somewhere there would be less inclination than if the guy was broadcast in the corner of the screen while the football match was going on. Same holds true for sweatshops and the pillaging of Africa, since the actual "taking advantage of" is so far away physically and in the chain of trade(you don't actually employ them yourself) and it's the current situation and you had no part in establishing it.
What about disclosing the truth? If ignorance is bliss and the truth makes people unhappy, does utilitarianism favor an ignorant populace?
For example, acknowledging the existence of alien life would shatter the world view of many people. Is better to disclose or withhold the truth?
This is a great question and can, of course, be phrased in a variety of ways. To you Myna, I understand considering knowledge as valuable, but is that true in all situations? Especially when considered from the utilitarianist perspective? In Metz's example, it could certainly be argued that it would result in negative consequences for the many.
Another example is one that is quite relevant these days. Let's assume for a moment that we discover incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist. Your mother is 85 years old and has less than five years left to live; she is a devout Christian and has justified her entire life based on God's existence. Do you share this new knowledge with her? I cannot see nearly any good coming from it, and only a great deal of suffering coming from the shattering of her worldview with such little time to reconcile herself with it.
Thus, for a utilitarian, knowledge does not have intrinsic value. Its value is predicated on the amount of happiness it provides. Here we might find a number of people finding an issue with the doctrine...
Yes, that was the Penguin example.
I feel like this ignores all the points Mill made about Utilitarianism, and just focuses on Bentham, which is a problem I have with so many Intro to Ethics courses and agendas. Yes, for the purposes of giving a brief overview in the case of a survey class, it is appropriate to just use Bentham and then do a quick thought experiment to show pros and cons
However, if we want a serious discussion about Utilitarianism as a serious normative theory, you MUST consider the definitions Mill sets forth, as the thoughts no longer have nearly the same weight as before
Most Football fans would argue that stopping the broadcast to save Jones would be the worst thing one could do. Plus you have to consider all the deaths that will happen from the riots :P
Basically utilitarianism is what businesses, militaries, and educator's call "game theory" the instructor broke this down well; she gave me a broad understanding in minutes. I ran across this word Niccolo machiavelli "art of war" I could not get an understanding of the word by the definition.
Nope
why is it that situations in this case are not taken case by case as opposed to coming up with ludicrous hard line responses for them that almost no one would ever agree to go thru with
agree with sam harris. jones case is that not saving him has some more consequences that affect a lot of people negatively in far reaching ways. for example, it makes everyone with large audience suffer from the terror that their well being is neglected in favor of the audience.
to live is to suffer, happiness has no value because it only postpones our death, only the elimination of suffering is important
Britton DeJong l think you're so pessimistic.Most people do what makes them happier or richer if they can choose or make any decision for themselves.No one want to die or be disappointed.
@@georgethomas4889 you haven't suffered enough
Britton DeJong You are right, but no need to put it in such grim words. Your conclusion is right, but your argument is fallacious.
Happiness is mostly unquantifiable and undefinable. Suffering on the other hand is far easier to break down and quantify.
Life does not have to pain, but it kind of is. Let’s say mankind is living in a force labor camp. This is easy to imagine, because it would be not to hard to imagine a better world. (And for people reading this, a worst world). Making people in a working camp happier is obviously not a priority.
We reduce suffering g first, we take down the working camp, and then we start thinking about happiness actually is.
Edgar A. 亚瑟 Arthur What about suffering in terms of neurobiological response? Or even happiness in a neurobiological response? Surely that's quantifiable and even empirical.
Melvin Arthur I am not sure that dopamine spikes is the right way of quantifying happiness. But as I said: priority 1 is to reduce misery, then figure out what happiness truly is.
Notes From Underground and Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky are two antidotes to utilitarian ethics that I've found.
15 mins without one football game won't traumatize the fans, another hour of pain will hurt Jones immensely, so Jones must be helped for a mere 15 mins. Utilitarianism thinks of pain on a longer scale, football fans wont have the pain of the missed out football game, Jones will have the pain of the shocks though. Utilitarianism is right.
***** You did the maths but you've also got think of the intensity, 28500 man years of mildly being annoyed and then moving on is far far less than an hour of horrendous pain that will effect Jones and his friends lives, he won't be the same man.
If anyone person could get beyond frustrated levels on par to Jones' pain then they should have avoided that by going to the game. And I'm sure moments of a game that has little to no effect to most would mind being told that it had to be interrupted to save a mans life, or at least in Jones' case, ease his situation.
Yes, but how do you draw the line? How many mildly annoyed fans is Jones's pain worth? Suppose that humanity has colonized the galaxy, and 1 hundred billion billion fans are watching the game. Is one hour of frustration for Jones worth the frustration of a galaxy?
scotonettos What are the lasting effects of their frustration? Assuming they all know why they're missing out on their short 15 minutes of lost game time, avoiding excessive drawn out pain inflicted towards Jones, they should understand why they're missing out and act calmly, its just one game and not even an entire game. But if it was seconds before a winning goal for the team a majority of the fans support, and this creates a galaxy wide outrage, that can either be forgotten, be remembered as a little story to tell people or at worst, create bar fights within the respective galactic pubs, this would causes a mass hospitalization of many football fans. You must consider these things, which it is hard to know if it will happen.
A mild pain of say a trillion people is nothing for most, but if since you have so many, you may get a few people that's days are effected in the smallest way that it causes a knock on effect of something worse. Utilitarianism works best with more certainties (not knowing the lasting effects of each action makes it harder) But would it really be worth it to spend your time helping people with mild issues? They become common place and so less of an issue if they're not taken seriously, we need to hold some things as most important like immense pain or even death, which Jones' is experiencing.
As Julia Markovits pointed out, in practice we do this sort of thing all the time so it's actually natural to us. We make decisions which have a minor affect on many when we could do something which has a significant affect on a few. The reason that particular example is hard to accept is because the number of people is actually beyond comprehension, we comprehend the number and how it relates to other numbers but we can't comprehend that number of PEOPLE and the combined frustration. Imagine a box, now put 10 people in that box, easy to imagine.... now put 1 billion people in it, you can't. It seems cruel I know... but even cruelty can be paid for in small parts...
The other way to look at it is with 1 billion people there's a very real chance that some of those people are on the edge and this could be the final straw where some were going to recover after this. Perhaps you end up causing even worse suffering to individuals. So if helping him isn't necessarily going to save significant suffering then clearly it must be the wrong decision.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our values on electrocution for 15 minutes and entertainment can just be different which is a reason I don't strongly agree with utilitarianism-different people, different values-
Ethan Woodhouse It's very hard to imagine a large number of people, but you can imagine ones suffering and imagine if a majority of people felt it. If I was into football and wanted to watch a final and missed it, it would just become "That one Soccer final I missed", just a story, nothing big, but Jones, Jones will not merely have a story but his entire life would be changed, any Soccer fan that would wish immense pain upon one person merely for everyone's short term comfort to avoid an almost meaningless effect (meaning one game in thousands)
In the other example someone else said, what if we inhabited many planets so there were more fans to miss out, if their bar fights cause more pain (broken limbs, death, trauma, etc.) then it's actually good to let Jones feel 15 mins of pain as his pain avoids a much much worse case.
I understand why some don't like Utilitarianism, you justify the pain and possible lose of rights, and life worth living of a few to create happiness for others, which may weigh up on a scale but the few still feel the pain of it. Some would say that's selfish, the greater good is the goal, and that's true but we should find the ways that cause the least pain, Jones may need to feel some pain, we don't know the long term effects of this pain on him, it might be nothing, in that case no bar fight, all is good, I doubt in the original case the fans would add up to anything damaging, mild inconvenience is nothing compared to pain but death is much worse.
Why do you disagree with Utilitarianism?
I am no expert on this subject, though I feel the fallacy in the ideal is the fact that pleasure itself is the objective. If so the object were pure efficiency in survival, the given scenario could not exist.
This really helped my comprehension of the the topic! Thank you.
All of these "problems" aren't actual problems if you actually believe in utilitarianism. Yes, many of the results of utilitarian analysis seem "weird", but that weirdness is not based in logical, rational thought. It is a result of a mixture of our natural instincts (which are suited to help us continue our genetic lineage, not to be perfectly moral) and family/societal norms, which historically have clearly not been consistent or based in logic.
Would you immediately discredit Einstein's theory of relativity simply because many of the conclusions seem "weird"? Of course I'm not saying utilitarianism currently has the same logical support as the theory of relativity, but the idea of rejecting utilitarianism simply because it differs from what is normally thought of to be moral is no more logical than rejecting the theory of relativity over similar grounds.
In fact, by judging theories of morality by how weird they feel, all you are doing is maintaining your own current theory of morality by deflecting anything that differs from it.
I understand what you mean; dismissing a moral theory just because it feels weird seems rather close-minded.
But then how else are we to judge between competing theories? A Kantian could make the same argument as you; just because you find the conclusions of Kantian ethics "weird", doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because you find Kant's conclusion that it is never ok to lie (even to save someone's life from a murderer) weird, that's not grounds to immediately discredit Kantianism.
Technically, all of these "problems" aren't actual problems if you actually believe in Kantianism.
Similarily, any "problems" you point out with Virtue Theory aren't actual problems if you actually believe in Virtue Theory.
If we can't appeal to the unintuitiveness/weirdness of competing theories' conclusions, then how are we supposed to adjudicate between different moral theories?
1. I don't understand how the two parts are separated. Once you define what is valuable, you state what is its maximum (implicitly or explicitly). Therefore what is valuable *defines* everything. The example you gave shows this exactly: it depends on how you assign value to happiness (you gave one, based on 1, 10, 100, 1000 that led you to conclude that you should not turn the antena off). There is nothing about the example you gave that shows that how to maximize it leads to a different outcome.
2. One thing I don't understand is why do you assume that you there *is* a unique value of happiness to a situation. For me, the whole problem here is that there is no such thing. Each person sets different values to happiness, and concludes different things. I am not sure there is even possible to set a value to a given action that is independent of the person who sets it.
In any case, great video.
a value theory tells you what is valuable, and a theory of right action tells you how to bring that value about in a morally permissible way. the distinction is more evident when constrasting act and rule utilitarianism. both of them posit happiness as a value, but have different theories of right action. act utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that causes the most happiness and the least suffering: this is very situational, and requires one to ponder every decision and every outcome. rule utilitarianism, roughly, says that you should make rules that act as rules of thumb when making decisions, and these rules are to be chosen based on how much happiness they bring about. it's like making a set of moral guidelines that are usually better than any other possible rules. both of these variants of utilitarianism value happiness, but have different theories of how to bring them about.
as for happiness as a value, it is quite difficult to measure or justify. there are different types of happiness, different interests for different people, and the same can be said of suffering, making things more complicated when choices necessarily involve measuring happiness against suffering. there's also the problem of the naturalistic fallacy: it seems invalid to conclude that happiness is a value just because we like it.
Why didn't you mention John Stuart Mills? He is the progenitor of the more widespread version of Utilitarianism, even if he is far less awesome than Jeremy Bentham was. Mills modified Utilitarianism to include Rights as a factor of happiness. Mills argued that without certain rights, people would constantly fear that they would be the next person forced to endure some wrong for the greater good, which would greatly affect any equation for happiness.
You also never mentioned that Utilitarians also look nearly entirely at the future as a part of moral judgement. Or that we usually take much from other moral systems (like Kant's rules) as a way to help determine the morality of any action. Or that we almost unilaterally believe in the importance of self-determination in moral judgement.
Saving
The concept of maximized benefit extends past immediate effect to extended ripple effects. Don't know if utilitarianism takes into account anything past immediate effect, but I do agree extended ripple effects also matter when it comes to moral decisions.
Utilitarianism absolutely takes into account ripple effects. It's part of why many utilitarians use several ways of determining the morality of a course of action, and caveats for unknowable or extremely unlikely consequences. When I try to determine the morality of an action, I look at its immediate utility and its future utility, then usually look at it from multiple other morality systems' answers. I mostly subscribe to Utilitarianism, but I also tend to look at the judgements from systems like Kant's.
Why can't you buffoons get his name right? It's JOHN STUART MILL. M-I-L-L.
I'm confused by this cold calculus, as Mills himself differentiated between higher and baser pleasure. That means we cannot coldly sum up the net happiness. We must assign weight to the matter. This is even more complex, because the subjective nature of assigning this weight may seem arbitrary to some!
Was it wise to set aside what is to be deemed valuable? And, you say 'maybe' it's 'not just' happiness but well being more broadly understood that's valuable. Ins't it reasonable that well being, may not be in tandem with happiness. I know my welling is preserved if I exercise everyday, but that may not make me happy.
If the guy is in terrible pain as a result of getting hurt during the World Cup, a utilitarian would consider the suffering experienced by the individual as well as the potential impact on overall happiness and well-being. In this situation, a utilitarian would likely view the harm caused to the guy as a significant factor to consider.
Would it be simpler to just say the action that, in the long term, causes the least amount of suffering is the correct one? Seems that taking pleasure out of the equation solves a lot of the problems of act utilitarianism. I would just add that you don't get to punish an innocent person, that's the only rule to ensure fairness is achieved and that solves all the other problems.
16:21 Those examples don't have immediate implications. Therefor they are deemed allowable because we then have to rely on statistical chance. The Jones example has an immediate implication, the crushed hand. Therefore we are completed to act. In Utilitarianism, immediate implication, if it is presented, supersedes statistical chance . If an immediate implication is not presented then reliance upon statistics supersedes.
Does this make sense?
You didn't put a time stamp that exists in this video.
Deciding in favor of the crowd is what essentially happened when Jesus was crucified. He discovered that negativity, pain and suffering were decided by an individual's actions, what they consumed, and that the individual could fix this and empower themselves. The power structure of the day felt threatened and put the spin on his message, thus condemning the masses to an overall system of mediocrity instead of realizing the potential. The spin was so successful that it continues to this day.
Just wanted to say that these are great. I use them in my lower-division courses and I think the format and presentation really help students. A great resource, especially during COVID.
Extremely late to this but thank you for this series on utilitarianism!
How can utilitarianism be universal if depends on subjective tastes?
It's not subjective. It's pure pleasure pain which all humans experience. The causes of pleasure and pain may be subjective but not the pleasure of pain itself.
@Midraar Ul Amaan Everyone is selfish in an Utilitarist philosophy,which is logic since none of us are perfectly selfless. Utilitarianism is a philosophy,not a rational doctrine.
Rationally,you should be selfish.But this is a morality doctrine;as such you should ask yourself "If I had to try to convince everyone of a persuading moral rule,what should be this rule?" then Utilitarism would be the answer,since it has only one simple,intuitive rule which can convince peoples easily; it is also adapted to all situations and as such will maximise your happiness as a member of the group.
@Midraar Ul Amaan If by "it" you mean Utilitarism and by "other" you mean others morals principles,then yes.
@Midraar Ul Amaan Then I did not really understood your question.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎓 *Theory of Value and Right Action in Utilitarianism*
- Utilitarianism comprises two main aspects: theory of value and theory of right action.
- Happiness and absence of suffering are deemed valuable, and right action maximizes this value.
- Utilitarianism's simplicity and universality make it appealing, but it also raises concerns.
01:31 🤔 *Worries Regarding Utilitarian Theory of Value*
- Debates arise concerning the exclusivity of happiness as the sole valuable entity.
- Criticisms suggest broader considerations beyond happiness for assessing value.
02:30 💡 *Challenges to the Theory of Right Action*
- The theory of right action faces scrutiny, particularly regarding moral decision-making in complex scenarios.
- T. M. Scanlon's example highlights dilemmas where maximizing value conflicts with intuitive moral judgments.
- Utilitarian calculations may lead to morally questionable conclusions, challenging the theory's applicability in certain situations.
Made with HARPA AI
Considering the case of poor Jones, how about asking the billion soccer fans what to do? I have little doubt they would vote to save Jones.
thanks for this video. You made my discussion post for this week easy.
Good video. However, studies show no correlation that raising or lowering speed limits on road ways increases or decreases motor vehicle accidents.
That critics seems unjustified and intuitive, with lack of logic and arguments. I think this theory is right, however, we must be carefull in what we believe as the options we have. For example, the right action it would be to give medicine to the guy while the sports are been shown, i think
an aspect she doesnt cover is the 'butterfly effect' if you will of 1B people watching the TV crap out out during the match. How many chances of bad things far worse than 15m of annoyance could be triggered by that? A negative or positive act is never limited to just that act.
Proper (rule) utilitarianism like all real reasoning goes on ad infinitum. I think like another comment below noted, we must assume exponentiality. I suppose letting Jones suffer could have exponential consequences as well, but I'd bet the even small chances of 1b is more dangerous.
PS- Im pretty sure letting Jones sit there until the match is over is what would happen naturally or instinctively.
There were 60 minutes of the game left so that means 40 minutes had been played that means that the man only had to wait 5 minutes till half time which conveniently lasts 15 minutes(same amount of time needed to rescue him).
Everyone wins. Apart from that guys arm but only for 5 minutes:)
good for him, Jones is a team player
If you think its more valueable to save john then its a thing. There is no deductive proof of quantifiying well-being, and perhaps existence of a certain level of well-being albeit not so positive. Maybe the pain was enriching like some said previously lol
Would you be more comfortable if you were comparing permanents? Say 1B people will lose their left hand vs 1 person will lose their life?
A billion is such a grotesquely large number that it seems to take away from whatever argument you're making. Even if it was the left thumb of a billion people I still think the right choice from a utilitarian standpoint would be to take one life.
Having a billion people without left thumbs has the potential to change the world, quite literally. Take one person out of a billion, let alone 6 billion and counting...not much changes.
I see a problem not with the philosophy, but with the fact that we live in societies with lopsided distributions of power. A fair solution may be quite obvious, however it may still not get carried out because a powerful minority values staying in power much more than honoring a concept of utilitarianism and they have the ability to block a utilitarian resolution.
(5:58) Is this not just another value judgement? I don't think rights is a special case here. Jones's right to not suffer in this scenario means the society value preventing his suffering more than the football game.
What is the difference between Consequentialism and Utilitarianism? Is Utilitarianism Consequentialism plus value theory?
consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism. It's a school of thought that falls under the utilitarian worldview. Utilitarianism at its most basic says what matters most in ethical dilemmas is settling the issue to achieve the maximum amount of 'utility' possible. However you need value theory to have a basis for what 'utility' means; Bentham suggested happiness is the utility that matters most to humans. (But not in the sense of pleasure.)
If there was an ethnic group that does great suffering to themselves and others almost nonstop with little exceptions, even try to travel elsewhere to commit great suffering there and are in constant need of help, but any attempt to give them agricultural tools to help them in the long run is turned into weapons and IEDs...
Is it morally acceptable to isolate them until they get wiser or kill each other?
Around the 5 min mark, she raises the problem with maximizing value, that preventing billions of migraines is more valuable than preventing one death. This is a very flimsy argument to me. What we are effectively doing is multiplying the value of a migraine by a billion and comparing it to the value of death. But that is exactly the problem. What is the value to death in proportion to the value of a migraine? If I said that preventing death is 10^50 times more valuable than preventing migraine, I would still end up saying that preventing the death of one person is more valuable than preventing migraine of a billion.
If people lived forever, I would 100% agree with you.
My thought on this screw the game help Jones! He feels pain...
The "flawed" examples only seem flawed because we who judge them live in the real world.
Principles and rights work better then pure utilitarianism because they let people feel assured which reduces anxiety.
I feel comforted that my friends wouldn't let me suffer being electrocuted under a broadcast tower. This comfort has value.
The other reason they seem flawed is that we cannot measure pain. Perhaps the torment of the electrocuted man, if made into a number, would vastly outweigh the joys of the soccer fans even if they were in the billions. But we have no method of extrapolating a meaningful number from pain.
I feel that most on the individual level would be affected less than Jones so Jones can be saved as the others can stop some joy to help with pain
Someone shouldn't be sacrificed for the greater good? That's just sympathy at its worst. The whole reason Jesus' story is so attractive is because he did just that. We let emotion muddle our rational understanding of morality. Utilitarianism shatters that barrier by removing sentiment from the equation and looking at matters as objectively as possible. This isn't a flaw with utilitarianism. It's an advantage.
I think the question is more where we draw the line for one person's suffering at the expense of others' happiness.
I am a utilitarian, don't get me wrong, but it is something worth debating. I disagree with it being a problem, however, as I think its more of an issue simply with how we calculate suffering vs happiness.
I would argue, for example, Jones' suffering outweighs the happiness it brings regardless of the number of people watching. Interrupting their game for a few minutes wouldn't outweigh Jones' suffering through electrical shocks for the duration of the game.
I think Jones' example brings up a great debate regarding individual rights versus the prosperity of the group. Another example: would it be ok if we took random people off the street for their organs? Theoretically, there could be 2 or more people in dire need of the organs from any one person, thus a life net gain in the utilitarian equation. But is that fair to the individual? He did nothing to deserve that and why is he not a benefactor of other people's organs rather than vice versa. It's not clean cut, that's for sure.
How does broadcasting a soccer match make me happy instead of actually saving someone from literally dying!?!!
Yeah that's the thing. In the real world it makes no sense because everyone would feel so horrible if they knew someone was suffering for their stupid game. It would suck all the fun out of it.
raising speed limits doesnt increase accidents unless you raise it to 180 km/h
I'm curious. What sort of responses to the "Poor Jones Dilemma" have Utilitarians offered?
+Inquisitor Adaar I know this is 6 months late, but whatever here ya go. In a situation like Poor Jones', the very best solution would be one where he gets his hand out AND they are able to keep the broadcast running, which could potentially be possible in the real world. However, assuming theoretically it is not possible, if enough people were watching such that their happiness from watching the broadcast was greater than Jones' suffering from having his hand crushed, they should keep it broadcasting. This answer feels incorrect, but that is because humans find it very difficult to empathise with large groups rather than individuals. You can clearly imagine the pain Jones is going through, you know what hurting your hand would feel like. You can also imagine what not being able to watch a sports match you wanted to see would feel like - slightly frustrating no doubt. You cannot so easily, on the other hand, imagine what not being able to watch a sports match you wanted to see would feel like for one billion people all at once - it is simply beyond human empathic capabilities. It is because of this you side with Jones, and not the billion others whose collective suffering would be extremely intense could you experience all of it at once.
Very good point, but you also have to consider not just the points that she made, because she didn't add every possible variable either. For instance, there have been instances where a football match just ending the 'wrong' way caused riots where people lost their lives, and is Jones's temporary suffering really worth the immense suffering caused by riots? Or what about other potential issues, there are always more variables than someone can mention in a video this short. Utilitarianism is a very difficult system to accurately portray in a total of 15-20 minutes.
Generally,the supposed paradox of Utilitarism can be solved by:
1-Recognizing that the paradox is far-fetched unlikely to ever happen ,and thus we are just led astray by our instinct
2-Recognizing that some variables are missing,such as the emotionnal backlash provoqued by the hurt of one person for the sake of entertainement.
3-Recognizing that the situation has too many hidden variables and that we lack information
4-Recognizing that a scenario can be unapealing and disgusting,but still morally right.
This was informative, utilitarianism rocks over any other view.
I think example is bad. In this case it's obviously better to help Johnes. People getting frustrsted because their hedonistic desire is not met don't matter at all
So it sounds like Utilitarianism supports the sacrifice of a savior for the greater good. Oh well, we all have to go sooner or later. Just let it be a peaceful sacrifice.
Jones was innocent in that example. The use of torture on a person withholding life saving information, to potentially save the many, is an entirely different thing, and is unfair to throw into the end of this presentation. People shouldn't allow their political believes to cloud these types of discussions. This is where we run into trouble.
+Jerry Mungo but isn't that the point of this philosophy? to ignore labels and associations like innocent and guilty, or nice guy or dick head? Do these things factor in to utilitarianism or is the desired outcome the only center of attention?
i mean if a death is 100000000000000000000 points, and a headache is 1 point. even with the entire world population with a headache, you would clearly save jones. this is making an assumption based on what we place value on. and in this sense, this vague form of utilitarianism is completely bias and 10 people might re-act to the same situations 10 different ways based on what they honestly believe to be the best value proposition.
The example I usually go to when utilitarianism comes up in conversation, is this:
Image a city where there is a brutal serial killer on the loose. People are afraid to go outside, in fear of assault. The governent/police take a random person, that they know is innocent, and claim he is the serial killer. He is sent to jail, and the authorities tell the people that the killer is caught.
The people are relieved and happy, and can now go back to their day to day lives.
This way, millions of people are once again happy, but an innocent man is labeled a serial killer, and sent to jail for the rest of his life.
By utalitarian philosophy, this could be justified as the right solution, but most of us will believe this is wrong.
How can the people say if this is moraly right or wrong when they are not aware of the lies of the government/police. The only people who know the truth are the authority and the innocent man.
What I don't like about your analogy is that Jones wasn't given the choice.
I agree with utilitarianism as long as it doesn't compare apples to oranges. Like with your example of the dude dying and stuff. It's hard to compare if the over all pleasure of one life is equivalent to the short time pleasure of billions. It's extremely subjective and problematic. Though say with the trolley problem where you have no information about the people and the only logical conclusion is that they have equal value then it would be reasonable to exercise utilitarianism.
Yay! I learned something new today!
Silly examples:. If people ARE TOLD that they lost the feed in order to save a man's electrocution, then we are going to be fine with that. Just run that in the broadcast after you turn it off. What if you don't and they find out later? Then they will be pissed that the network let a guy be electrocuted in order to sell commercials. Utilitarianism only falls against absurd situations of this sort.
Super presentation!
just how bad is the shock?
actually, keeping the speed limit low is the thing causing more deaths and not the other way around. ruclips.net/video/wzVaa557I9k/видео.html
An issue I see... Not helping VS Actively harming
All wonderful arguments to circumvent the reliance for deciding what is right upon one's own conscience. Hence, it's more valuable to have a very expensive degree from an Ivy League College while millions of Americans are not adequately fed. Very simple philosophy indeed. Surely it is better to sacrifice the Palestinians so that Jews can have more land. After all, what happiness could there really be if there were actual behavioral parameters that human beings should follow instead of parameters that can always be rationalized away. Besides, do you have any notion just how much money is being made off the advertising during the game? And of course, pity that poor Jones doesn't have healthcare and that he can't afford to pay for the ambulance, but remember, all those doctors who graduated from Ivy League schools need to both pay off their college loans, if there parents didn't happen to have the cash on hand, and at the same time they have to pay for that second Mercedes and the new swimming pool. One has to keep all of this in the proper perspective.
Just a reminder: torture has been proven *not to work*
I think you are misguiding people on the issue of Jones and the fans. The two groups are not facing the same situation like in the case of the six sick patients earlier considered. So your critique of utilitarianism is not right here. Bentham will still argue that helping the suffering person produces more happiness.
Happiness is overrated, if people weren't so obsessed with being happy the world would be a happier place.
The problem is this is a ridiculous senerio it a very extreme example the senerio doesn't consider that if a billion people will be watch a soccer match there probably will be a backup for this types of senerios
Using football match that ends in a hour is a poor example. As it will be half time in 15mins so yes people can wait and lose 15mins to save 1
They can always watch the game on youtube. :P Life>Game
Not value. Pleasure and happiness. More widespread and equal.
The world cup example is fallacious because it equates mental pain ("I didn't get to watch the world cup!") with physical pain ("Ow! My foot!"). Those types of pain will never be equal; ask anyone. Will they rather experience what "Jones" experienced, or what the world cup viewers experienced?
Do you have serbian origin?
Thank you
Pros and Cons @ 1:00
Yea the values are off in my mind. Most people would rather a long term injury or disfigurement than die. Also electric torture as well as physical injury.. is much higher in value than frustration. I feel there shouldn't be any confusion over value of frustration vs physical/ extreme emotional suffering.
Imagine that it went out on Twitter. That this guy was being tortured and sustaining extreme pain due to injury in a prolonged way because it would interrupt the game for Millions. What if it hit the news? That moral implication would be obvious and there would be very few ridiculous people who would choose someone laying there in pain over millions of missing a game. I am sure Millions would feel awful and guilty. Many would be very much against that choice.
Do utilitarians need a masochist or a psychopath to explain to them levels of suffering? I'm sure they wouldn't get off sitting a person in a chair and cutting out the game like the film Amelié. Lol
antiquated egoists that don't sacrifice their happiness for the greater good
Give Jones a cup of tea and let's watch our football till it's over... hehehehe
pues no que el utilitarismo no aceptaba excusas?
A lot of these problems could be solved with a world utilitarianism approach. We can say that one world is better than another, similar to how we say a country or culture is better than another. Nazi Germany was a worse country than contemporary Germany, and a culture of misogyny and bigotry is worse than a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Likewise, we can say a world where one person is made to suffer for the minor convenience of the money is a worse world than a world where 1 billion are given a 15 minute inconvenience to release the suffering of one person.
The problem with this view is that we can disagree with what world is better, and the subjectivity of taste can make even hellish worlds for some perfect worlds for others.
Hedonism Trumps(pun intended) virtue, human-civil rights?🤔 Trolley dilemma? Push him on the tracks!🤔😁😊
"In certain(?) Circumstances 🤔😏😊
utilitarianism is best idea and work more than socialism , Absolutely Utilitarianism not work on paper only in act but socialism opposite side of utilitarianism just on paper is work ....
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I dont agree with the example that a death of one person is of less value to the dismay of billions of people watching the world cup. Theory of Right Action would not primarily depend on the number of people who would benefit from the action. If the benefits are EQUAL to what a single person over "the many" will get. Then, those larger number of people will get the benefits of the action instead of that single person. However, if the benefit of that one person is of higher value over those billions who will just be dismayed of not being able to watch the world cup. A TRUE UTILITARIAN will still SAVE that person from death because he has greater benefit of his action than the billions of people watching the world cup. The greatest good for the greatest number is still applicable because the GREATEST GOOD is to save somebody from death. and the greatest number in that scenario is ONE over billions. It's ethics not math. In this case, 1 is more than billions.
The Example of torture at the end is really misplaced example. Only in meaningless hypothetical questions does the, Torture 1 to save millions cliche have any use. *Torture actually has to work to make it a valid point.* A common misconception perpetuated simply by ignorance. Not all against torture hold that belief for simplistic moral reasons. If torture actually worked like Hollywood movies I would support it, but it doesn't so i don't. Regardless of moral arguments, torture provides erroneous unreliable information.
This is why I'm a negative utilitarian.
don't close the game + make fun of jones so u can get the most utilitiarinist shit.