T. David Marshall
Marshall Philosophy Lecture Series
November 2012
Topic: Utilitarianism and the
Greatest Good (Happiness) for the Greatest Number Principle
Introduction
The creed which accepts
as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle,
holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.[1]
What does it mean to say that someone has acted morally, in
any given situation?
Enter the following thought experiment:
Suppose a clerk at the local corner store sees a young child come
to the counter with a handful of candy. Suppose also that the child does not
know the price of the candy in his hand, and no one is with this child to
chaperone the clerk’s conduct towards him. The child puts his fistful of change
on the counter for the clerk to count.
If the clerk takes more change than is the price of the
candy, most will certainly agree he has not acted properly towards this unsuspecting
child. But what of the clerk’s motivations – do his motivations play any role
in our determining whether or not the clerk has acted morally towards the young
child if he, in all instances, in fact ends up taking the correct amount of
change?
a)
Suppose
the clerk thinks that this child might suspect something should he take too
much change and believes thereafter the child will go about town telling
potential customers of his having been cheated – would refraining from taking
too much change, in this situation, be viewed as an act that has moral worth?
Would we say that the clerk acted morally in this situation in having not taken
more change than he was due?
b)
Suppose
the clerk knows for a fact that this child will not suspect him, and so the
clerk might cheat the child with total impunity. Cheating the child would also
make the clerk very happy, and would not diminish the child’s happiness one
bit. Nonetheless, in this scenario, the clerk reasons that cheating is wrong
and so takes only the correct amount of change due. Would the clerk’s decision,
in this case, be an act which has moral worth? Would we say that the clerk
acted morally in this situation?
From a Utilitarian perspective, the answers to both “a” and
“b” might strike you as a bit odd: In “a” the Utilitarian is likely to say that
the action of the clerk is moral because it likely promotes the happiness of many
future customers, along with the happiness of the child. In “b”, however, it is
not entirely clear that a Utilitarian would say the clerk acted morally at all.
If the child would not be harmed by the cheating, but the clerk would have
enjoyed the cheating of this child greatly, it’s not entirely clear that a
Utilitarian would favour giving the correct change at all!
Let me
explain.
Utilitarianism
Think about
the following Hypothetical conversation you and I might have:
What motivates you to get up in the morning? You might say
simply, “my alarm clock” – but truly, why did you set your alarm, then? “An
exam”, you reply. But then, can I ask, why do you want to take this exam?
“Because I want to get good grades”, you retort. And why do good grades matter
to you? “Because, I want to get a good job” you say. And why is a good job
important to you? “Because I want to toil as little as necessary and for the
greatest return” you tell me. And why is that important to you? “Because I want
to be happy and avoid or lesson my pains and unpleasant efforts wherever I can”
you blurt. Ah and why, can I ask, do you want to be happy? “What a silly
question!” you say. “Because - that is
why”.
Enter Jeremy Bentham – an English philosopher, lawyer, writer
and social reformer who lived from 1748 to 1832. Bentham is recognized as the father
of the moral theory of Utilitarianism – the idea that actions are right insofar
as they promote happiness and lesson pain, and wrong insofar as they promote
the opposite.
Bentham believed that all human action is undertaken with
regard to two primary considerations: pleasure and pain. Bentham believed that
all actions (as illustrated, above) can be traced to the dictates of these two
inward “sovereign masters”; they “govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all
we think”.
If one chooses poorly – say by not setting the alarm for an early
morning exam – it is only, according to Bentham, because the individual has
failed to properly weigh the attendant pleasures and pains accompanying this
choice. For sure, one might enjoy a morning lay-in, but in exchange for this
momentary pleasure, this individual might give up even greater pleasures
(getting the degree or job, for example) or even suffer the pain of long-term failure,
defeat, or poverty.
To test what is the right thing to do (what is the right
action to be undertaken), in promoting happiness and lessoning pain, Bentham
therefore devised a 7-part test:
1.
Ask
how intense the pleasure to be had, or pain to be avoided, is
2.
Ask
what is the likely duration of the pleasure to be had, or pain to be avoided
3.
Ask
what is the certainty of the pleasure or pain that will result from the
intended action(s)
4.
Ask
what is the proximity of the pleasure or pain to the action to be undertaken
(i.e. will the pleasure be long-delayed, or the pain far-off?)
5.
Ask
how likely the pleasure or pain expected will lead to other pleasures or pains
(fecundity)
6.
Ask
how pure the pleasure or pains to result from the action will be (i.e. will the
pleasure or pain be of nearly equal parts, or intermixed?)
7.
Ask
of the number of persons to be affected by the action to be undertaken
What Makes Utilitarianism different from Pure Egoism?
In short, it is the 7th consideration outlined in
Bentham’s 7-part test which makes Utilitarianism unlike strict or pure Egoism.
Bentham believed that all persons can experience happiness or
pain in approximately the same proportions and thus all persons are
(approximately) equally entitled to seek pleasure or avoid pain. That is,
according to Jeremy Bentham, no particular person has a greater claim to
happiness than any other person, objectively speaking. Thus, favouring your own
happiness, over that of other’s, would be irrational; 1=1, always. If you value
your “1” more than others, it’s simply because you can’t do basic math.
Given then, that all humans are motivated by these two
“sovereigns” (pleasure and pain), Bentham believed that one could not
rationally rank any one person’s happiness above another’s – nor pass judgment
on what any particular person might find enjoyable, or painful. “Pushin” said
Bentham, “is as good as poetry”.[2]
In determining then, how to rightly engage with others (i.e. in determining what are morally
praiseworthy actions), Bentham states that one should act so as to promote
happiness – the chief end of all human action – or seek to lesson its
antithesis. Actions are right – are moral, insofar as they promote the ends of
all human action (that is, the attainment of pleasures and avoidance of pains),
and wrong insofar as they frustrate the achievement of these ends.
Lets try applying the principle of the Greatest Good for the
Greatest Number in the following fact-scenarios.
Hypothetical Fact-Scenarios
1. The year is
1884. You are a mate on a ship called the Mignonette. Your ship is
overtaken by massive waves and you and 2 other men, along with a cabin boy who
is about 17 years of age, seek refuge in a small, leaky life-boat. A month goes
by - there is no food in the life-boat left to eat, and the last time anyone
ate was 4 days ago. Against your advice, the young cabin boy, the night before,
began drinking sea water. He is now out of his mind, sick and likely dying at
the front of the boat. There are no ships on the horizon, and in the 1 month
you and your 3 mates have been lost at sea, you have not seen any sign of rescue.
There is little to no hope. Dudley, the oldest and strongest member on the
life-boat signals to you to aid him in killing the dying cabin boy. He says
that if you and he do so, everyone still alive will share the cabin boy's blood
and flesh, and thereby survive at least a fortnight more. You are asked to join
in the kill and will be rewarded for your efforts if you do.
What do you do?
Why?
2.
You are a doctor
in a hospital in Hamilton Ontario. A young healthy single homeless fellow has
come in for a routine, minor procedure that requires that he be put under
general anaesthetic for a few hours. You also deal regularly with a number of
patients at the hospital and know for a fact that there are 5 people in Ward
“C” (which stands for “Critical”) who are in desperate need of organs such as a
pancreas, kidneys, etc. The patients in Ward C are miserable in their current
state – they have families and just want to live and be happy once again. Your
single homeless patient is a former convict with no family and no home. His
life is an unhappy one, filled with inner anguish and continual self-doubt.
Your nurse, Ms. Ratchet, turns to you, just as the fellow is put under for the
routine procedure, and proposes that the two of you work to harvest this
homeless fellow’s organs for the benefit of your 5 Ward C patients. No one will
miss this fellow, and no one will find out about your good deed, should you
decide to do as Ms. Ratchet suggests. In the meantime, the blood work has come
back on the homeless fellow – he is a match to all 5 Ward C Patients!
What do you do? Why?
3.
You are a nurse
at the Toronto General Hospital. Your patient, Mr. Jones, is dying. Mr. Jones
is a kindly old man, who worked hard his entire life. He has amassed a great
deal of cash over the years – and because he trusts you, Mr. Jones has told
you, in strict confidence, where all his money is hidden – no other living soul
knows of this hidden cash. It amounts to nearly $2 million dollars! Mr. Jones
asks you to promise him that you will deliver the hidden cash to his equally
well-off younger brother, Indiana Jones. Indiana is a single, older fellow who
now lives in the woods and spends his remaining days fishing and trapping. He
has given up any remaining interest in re-entering society, has no need for
cars, planes and the like, and simply wants to enjoy his remaining days in
utter solitude. Indiana never settled down and so has no a children or wife. You look Mr. Jones in the eyes, hold his hand
and promise him that you will deliver the hidden cash, as instructed.
Three days later, Mr. Jones dies. That same
day, a young lady from the local orphanage approaches you and asks if you might
be able to help her out. The orphanage she is in charge of is in desperate need
of funds and many children’s lives will be greatly improved if only you could help
her make its funding goal of $2 million happen. So far, no one has contributed
to the fund, winter is coming, the furnace is broken and no funds are available
to fix it. The orphanage’s roof is leaking badly and they have been having toxic
mould issues which have resulted in many illnesses and the death of a young Mr.
Oliver Twist. “Please sir” says the lady, “2 million dollars would greatly
improve the happiness, and lesson the pain, of these poor, retched children.”
What do you do? Why?
Conclusion
Do you find Bentham’s account of morality
persuasive? If correct, Utilitarianism (a form of “consequentialism”) has far
reaching implications for normative ethics. What is right, in any situation, is
determined solely by reference to what good the intended action is likely to
produce, and by how many people that good will be enjoyed by. Many radical
results flow from this sort of calculation - not least of all because
Utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas often scrape up against our basic
intuition that some things are just plain wrong - no matter what the consequences.
Whatever the case, it is clear that Utilitarianism, as a system of moral and
ethical reasoning, has had far-reaching effects. It’s a simple, calculating,
and persuasive theory and its impact on questions as diverse as ‘how to deal
with terrorism’, or ‘how to effectively deliver healthcare in a
resource-limited, finite system’, is clearly visible. But, what do you think?
T. David Marshall
[1]
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism (1863)
at chapter 2, page 2
[2]
This is what Mill spends a fair amount of time disputing in his work,
Utilitarianism, Chapter 2 (your reading for this week).
