Slide 1

Utilitarianism - Part 1
HY0001 Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Authors:
Andres Luco | Preston Greene | Grace Boey |
Christina Chuang | Shen-yi Liao

Notes: NA
Slide 2

Trade-offs and Self-Driving Cars

• Should we make trade-offs among

different people’s well-being?
• This question is raised by the technology
of self-driving cars.
• Take the “Moral Machine” test:
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/.
• According to the moral theory known as
utilitarianism, trading off different
people’s well-being can be morally right,
as long as the benefits for one group
exceed the costs (harms) for the other
group.
2

Notes: In the previous lesson, we considered the question, whether it’s ever morally right
to harm some people, so that others can benefit. In other words, should we make tradeoffs
among different people’s well-being? This question is raised by the technology of self-
driving cars. Engineers will have to figure out, how a self-driving car should be programmed
to make tradeoffs among the lives/well-being of different people involved in a car crash.

Take the ‘Moral Machine’ test to see how you (and others) would make
such tradeoffs: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

This online test resulted in a study, published in the journal Nature, which
discovered some interesting—and perhaps disturbing—patterns in who
test-takers decided to spare from being killed by a self-driving car. You can
read about the study here:
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-study-on-driverless-car-
ethics-offers-a-troubling-look-into-our-values

According to the moral theory known as utilitarianism, trading off different people’s well-
being can be morally right, as long as the benefits for one group exceed the costs (harms)
for the other group.

In this lesson and the next, we will study utilitarianism.

Slide 3

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be

able to:

• Explain the core features of utilitarianism.

• Evaluate the attractions that make utilitarianism
plausible as an ethical theory.

Notes: NA
Slide 4

Consequentialism

• According to consequentialism, the moral

status of an action, policy, motive, or rule
depends only on whether it produces the
best consequences.

• Slogan:
Morality depends on the costs and
benefits to all.

Notes:

The “moral status” of something is its status of having some moral feature—e.g., the status
of being morally right, morally wrong, morally good, morally bad, etc.
Slide 5

Consequentialists

Mozi Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill

(c. 400s – 300s BCE) (1748 – 1832) (1806 – 1873)

Mozi, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill . Retrieved October 19, 2016 from
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mozi_drawing.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill_detail.jpg
5
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Stuart_Mill_G_F_Watts.jpg

Notes:

The classical proponents of utilitarianism were the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill. Although utilitarianism originated in 18th century England, thinkers
from different traditions who lived much earlier espoused ideas similar to utilitarianism.
These thinkers include the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE) and the
ancient Chinese philosopher Mozi.
Slide 6

Utilitarianism

“What is Utilitarianism”?
• Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.

According to utilitarianism, the right action

is determined solely by its consequences
which lead to an overall well-being.

According to utilitarianism, an action is:

• morally right if it maximises overall well-being.
• morally wrong if it does not maximise overall
well-being.

Notes: NA
Slide 7

Whose Well-being Matters?

“An action is right if it maximises overall

well-being.”

What is meant by overall?

• Not: just oneself
• Not: just your family, your friends, etc.
• Not: just people in your country/society
• Not: just humans who exist now
• Not: just humans

Utilitarianism is impartial.
7

Notes:

The “overall” clause is to be taken very seriously. One core ideal of utilitarianism is
impartiality.

Most obviously, utilitarianism is to be contrasted from egoism, which says; what is right is,
what maximises one’s own well-being.

However, utilitarians also say that you cannot limit the scope of your concern to the well-
being of your family, your friends, or the people in your society. Indeed, utilitarians also say
that you have to balance the well-being of those who exist right now, against the well-being
of those who will come into existence in the future.

Most utilitarians also believe that we must consider the well-being of creatures who are
not human.
Slide 8

What is Well-being?

“An action is right if it maximises overall

well-being.” Well-being is not just a matter
of having money.

• Classical utilitarianism: Pleasure vs. pain

• Mill: Some pleasures are better than others
• Another possible answer: Satisfaction of desires

Notes:

Different utilitarians disagree about how well-being should be measured.

• Even so, some answers are still more plausible than others. For example, well-being should
not be confused with monetary wealth.
• Classical utilitarianism says that well-being is to be measured in terms of pain and pleasure.
According to this classical view, one is better off to the extent that one experiences more
pleasure than pain, and one is worse off to the extent that one
experiences more pain than pleasure. However, Mill believed that some pleasures might be better
than others. For example, the pleasure one gets from a great achievement may be better than the
pleasure one gets from eating candy (even if the total amount of pleasure in each instance is the
same). Mill argued that the only way to judge which of two equally pleasurable experiences is better
would be to experience both of them.
• Another possible answer is that well-being consists in having one’s desires satisfied. This is the view of
the contemporary utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. One advantage of this view is that it may
better explain why a painless death can be bad for someone. Even if one’s death does not cause any
pain, it eliminates the possibility that one’s future desires will be satisfied, and so according to
Singer’s view a painless death can still be bad.
• Perhaps now you can see why a person`s monetary wealth does not by itself determine his or her
well-being. It is true that wealth can be used to increase one’s pleasure and decrease one’s pain. It
can also be used to increase the degree to which one’s desires are satisfied. However, in each
instance, what matters is the increase in pleasure or desire satisfaction, and not the money itself.
Therefore, it is possible for a poor person to have more well-being than a rich person.
Slide 9

What Else Matters?

• Under utilitarianism, if an action has the effect of

maximising well-being, then it is morally right. For
an action to maximise well-being, it needs to
produce more well-being through the action than
through any other action one could take instead.
No other factors make an action morally right.
• Likewise, under utilitarianism, if an action does
not maximise overall well-being, then it is morally
wrong. No other factors make an action morally
wrong.
• These claims will be worth keeping in mind when
we explore non-consequentialist theories of
morality, such as deontology.

Notes: NA
Slide 10

Attraction of Utilitarianism: Impartiality

• One core tenet of utilitarianism is impartiality. In

utilitarianism, impartiality is the idea that equal
amounts of well-being are equally important
wherever, and in whomever, they occur.

• The classical utilitarians were early advocates for

women’s rights, the abolition of slavery, and
better treatment of animals. This is due partly to
the fact that classical utilitarians regarded equal
amounts of well-being (specifically, pleasure)
experienced by different individuals to be
equally important.

10

Notes: One core tenet of utilitarianism is impartiality. In utilitarianism, impartiality is the idea that
equal amounts of well-being are equally important wherever, and in whomever, they occur.

Impartiality is an attraction of utilitarianism, because it seems that a commitment to impartiality is built

into how we think about morality. There are many things that we think of as morally right that are not
necessarily good for oneself. In fact, we tend to praise those who do good things for others at a cost to
themselves. The notion of impartiality is also evident in the recommendations that we get from our
parents and teachers, such as “think of others”, or “everyone is equal”.

Because of their commitment to impartiality, the “classical utilitarians” Bentham and Mill advocated
the abolition of slavery and equal rights for women, long before these views became popular.

Utilitarianism offers a plausible explanation of why slavery is wrong, and women should have equal
rights. Utilitarians explain that equal amounts of well-being are equally important in whomever they
occur. So, the well-being of some should not be privileged over equal amounts of well-being in others.
(However, a greater amount of well-being in one individual may be more valuable than a lesser amount
in another.)

In addition, this commitment to impartiality has made some utilitarians sympathetic to the idea that we
must consider the well-being of animals. The reason is that some animals, just like humans, are capable
experiencing pleasure and pain. Therefore, a given amount of pain experienced by an animal is no less
important than the same amount of pain experienced by a human being. These utilitarians believe that
the treatment of animals is worth considering to the degree that they can experience pleasure and pain.
Slide 11

Attraction: Context Sensitivity

Why is it morally right to help an old lady

cross the street but morally wrong to help
a classmate cheat on an exam?
• Easy answer: Context!

Consequentialist’s explanation:
• The consequences of the same type of action
can differ in different contexts. And the
consequences of an action determine whether it
is right or wrong.

11

Notes:

Another attraction of utilitarianism is that it is sensitive to the context of a situation.

Here’s a silly question. Why is the same type of action sometimes morally right and
sometimes morally wrong? For example, consider the action of helping someone: why is
it morally right to help an old lady cross the street, but morally wrong to help a classmate
cheat on an exam?

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. As such, it says that the right action is

determined solely by its consequences. And the consequences of helping can vary,
depending on the context of the situation.

Utilitarians endorse broad and general moral principles like “help others” and “don’t lie,”
but only as rules of thumb. They think people usually ought to follow such rules, but only
because following them will usually lead people to maximise overall well-being. However, in
unusual cases, maximising overall well-being may require violating a rule of thumb.
Slide 12

Attraction: Dilemma Resolution

• Moral dilemmas are situations that

involve a conflict in moral considerations.

• Example: conflicting promises

• Utilitarianism offers a definitive

resolution; do what maximises overall
well-being.

12

Notes:

The final attraction of utilitarianism is that it allows for the resolution of moral
dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are situations that involve a conflict in moral considerations,
which can make it difficult to figure out what should be done.

For example, assume that, by accident, you have promised one friend that you will have
dinner with them on Saturday night, and you have promised another friend that you will
help them with a project on Saturday night. It seems that you must break your promise to at
least one friend. What should you do?

Utilitarianism offers a definitive resolution: do what maximises overall well-being. So, if

keeping one of your promises would maximise overall well-being, as compared to keeping
the other promise, then you should do that.

Theories of morality are supposed to tell us what ought to be done. So having a definitive
answer is helpful. It also ensures that there will be at least one action that we can take that
is morally right.
Slide 13

Summary

Here are the key takeaways from this

lesson:

• According to utilitarianism, the right action is

determined solely by its consequences in
maximising overall well-being.
• Attractions:
• Impartiality
• Context Sensitivity
• Dilemma Resolution

13

Notes:

According to utilitarianism, the right action is determined solely by its consequences in

maximising overall well-being. In this lecture, we have explored what this idea entails, and
we have seen three attractions of utilitarianism: its impartiality, context sensitivity, and
ability to resolve dilemmas.
Slide 14

Pettit, Philip (1991). “Consequentialism”, in Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to

Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.

Rachels, James and Stuart Rachels (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th
edition. McGraw-Hill.

Shafer-Landau, Russ (2015). The Fundamentals of Ethics, 3rd edition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Vaughn, Lewis (2010). “Chapter 4: The Power of Moral Theories,” in Doing Ethics:
Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, 2nd edition, Lewis Vaughn (ed.). New
York: W.W. Norton & Co..

14

Notes: NA
Slide 15

Thank You
Andres Luco
+65 65927827
acluco@ntu.edu.sg
HSS 03 88 (PHILO)

Notes: NA