How do utilitarians decide ethical questions

Singer , Utilitarianism, especially act utilitarianism, seems to suggest that the life of the overweight stranger should be sacrificed regardless of any purported right to life he may have. A rule utilitarian, however, may respond that since in general killing innocent people to save others is not what typically leads to the best outcomes, we should be very wary of making a decision to do so in this case.

This is especially true in this scenario since everything rests on our calculation of what might possibly stop the trolley, while in fact there is really far too much uncertainty in the outcome to warrant such a serious decision. If nothing else, the emphasis placed on general principles by rule utilitarians can serve as a warning not to take too lightly the notion that the ends might justify the means.

Whether or not this response is adequate is something that has been extensively debated with reference to this famous example as well as countless variations. This brings us to our final question here about utilitarianism—whether it is ultimately a persuasive and reasonable approach to morality. First of all, let us start by asking about the principle of utility as the foundational principle of morality, that is, about the claim that what is morally right is just what leads to the better outcome.

Mill derives the principle of utility from this claim based on three considerations, namely desirability, exhaustiveness, and impartiality.

The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner…the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. Mill [] , Ch. In defending exhaustiveness, Mill does not argue that other things, apart from happiness, are not desired as such; but while other things appear to be desired , happiness is the only thing that is really desired since whatever else we may desire, we do so because attaining that thing would make us happy.

Finally, in defending impartiality, Mill argues that equal amounts of happiness are equally desirable, whether the happiness is felt by the same person or by different persons. We may wonder, however, whether this last argument is truly adequate. Utilitarianism claims that we should thus calculate, to the best of our ability, the expected utility that will result from our actions and how it will affect us and others, and use that as the basis for the moral evaluation of our decisions.

But then we may ask, how exactly do we quantify utility? Here there are two different but related problems: how can I come up with a way of comparing different types of pleasure and pain, benefit or harm that I myself might experience, and how can I compare my benefit and yours on some neutral scale of comparison? Suppose the following are the case:. Since, on all of these measures, drinking a pint of beer is more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , it follows according to Bentham that it is objectively better for you to drink the pint of beer and forget about reading Hamlet , and so you should.

Of course, it is up to each individual to make such a calculation based on the intensity, duration, certainty, etc. This brings us back to the problem we mentioned before that, realistically, we cannot be expected to always engage in very difficult calculations every single time we want to make a decision.

In an attempt to resolve this problem, utilitarians might claim that in the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions, the application of the principle of utility can be backward-looking based on hindsight or forward-looking based on foresight.

That is, we can use past experience of the results of our actions as a guide to estimating what the probable outcomes of our actions might be and save ourselves from the burden of having to make new estimates for each and every choice we may face. Mill, for example, would respond to our claim that drinking beer is objectively more pleasurable than reading Hamlet by saying that it overlooks an important distinction between qualitatively different kinds of pleasure.

Mill justifies this claim by saying that between two pleasures, although one pleasure requires a greater amount of difficulty to attain than the other pleasure, if those who are competently acquainted with both pleasures prefer or value one over the other, then the one is a higher pleasure while the other is a lower pleasure.

For Mill, although drinking a pint of beer may seem to be more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , if you are presented with these two options and you are to make a choice—each and every time or as a rule—you should still choose to read Hamlet and forego drinking the pint of beer.

Reading Hamlet generates a higher quality although perhaps a lower quantity of pleasure, while drinking a pint of beer generates lower quality although higher quantity of pleasure. In the end, these issues may be merely technical problems faced by utilitarianism—is there some neutral scale of comparison between pleasures? The more serious problem, however, remains, which is that utilitarianism seems willing in principle to sacrifice the interests and even perhaps lives of individuals for the sake of the benefit of a larger group.

And this seems to conflict with our basic moral intuition that people have a right not to be used in this way. While Mill argued that the notion of rights could be accounted for on purely utilitarian terms, Bentham simply dismissed it.

Let us conclude by revisiting the question we started with: can the ends justify the means? I stated that as far as utilitarianism is concerned the answer to this question is in the affirmative.

While the answer is plausible and right for utilitarians, it is implausible for many others, and notably wrong for deontologists. As we have seen in this chapter, on a close examination utilitarianism is less persuasive and less reasonable than it appears to be when it is far away.

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Anarchical Fallacies. In The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring. Vol 2. Edinburgh: William Tait. Driver, Julia. Although rule utilitarians try to avoid the weaknesses attributed to act utilitarianism, critics argue that they cannot avoid these weaknesses because they do not take seriously many of our central moral concepts.

As a result, they cannot support the right answers to crucial moral problems. Three prominent concepts in moral thought that critics cite are justice, rights, and desert. These moral ideas are often invoked in reasoning about morality, but critics claim that neither rule nor act utilitarianism acknowledge their importance. Instead, they focus only on the amounts of utility that actions or rules generate. In considering the case, for example, of punishing innocent people, the best that rule utilitarians can do is to say that a rule that permits this would lead to worse results overall than a rule that permitted it.

This prediction, however, is precarious. While it may be true, it may also be false, and if it is false, then utilitarians must acknowledge that intentionally punishing an innocent person could sometimes be morally justified. Against this, critics may appeal to common sense morality to support the view that there are no circumstances in which punishing the innocent can be justified because the innocent person is a being treated unjustly, b has a right not to be punished for something that he or she is not guilty of, and c does not deserve to be punished for a crime that he or she did not commit.

In responding, rule utilitarians may begin, first, with the view that they do not reject concepts like justice, rights, and desert. Instead, they accept and use these concepts but interpret them from the perspective of maximizing utility. To speak of justice, rights, and desert is to speak of rules of individual treatment that are very important, and what makes them important is their contribution to promoting overall well-being.

Critics object to utilitarianism by claiming that the theory justifies treating people unjustly, violating their rights, etc. This criticism only stands up if it is always wrong and thus never morally justified to treat people in these ways. Utilitarians argue that moral common sense is less absolutist than their critics acknowledge. In the case of punishment, for example, while we hope that our system of criminal justice gives people fair trials and conscientiously attempts to separate the innocent from the guilty, we know that the system is not perfect.

As a result, people who are innocent are sometimes prosecuted, convicted, and punished for crimes they did not do. This is the problem of wrongful convictions, which poses a difficult challenge to critics of utilitarianism. Either we can shut down the system and punish no one, or we can maintain the system even though we know that it will result in some innocent people being unjustly punished in ways that they do not deserve. Most people will support continuing to punish people in spite of the fact that it involves punishing some people unjustly.

According to rule utilitarians, this can only be justified if a rule that permits punishments after a fair trial, etc. In the end, utilitarians say, it is justice and rights that give way when rules that approve of violations in some cases yield the greatest amount of utility.

The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important issues about how we should make moral judgments. Act utilitarianism stresses the specific context and the many individual features of the situations that pose moral problems, and it presents a single method for dealing with these individual cases.

Rule utilitarianism stresses the recurrent features of human life and the ways in which similar needs and problems arise over and over again. From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types or classes of actions: killing, stealing, lying, cheating, taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for crimes, aiding people in need, etc.

Stephen Nathanson Email: s. Act and Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Whose Well-being? Utilitarianism: Overall View Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face.

What is Good? Individual Self-interest See egoism. Actual Consequences or Foreseeable Consequences? How Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Differ Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to create the best results possible, but they differ about how to do that. Act Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons Act utilitarianism is often seen as the most natural interpretation of the utilitarian ideal.

Arguments for Act Utilitarianism i. Why Act utilitarianism Maximizes Utility If every action that we carry out yields more utility than any other action available to us, then the total utility of all our actions will be the highest possible level of utility that we could bring about. Why Act Utilitarianism is Better than Traditional, Rule-based Moralities Traditional moral codes often consist of sets of rules regarding types of actions. Why Act Utilitarianism Makes Moral Judgments Objectively True One advantage of act utilitarianism is that it shows how moral questions can have objectively true answers.

Arguments against Act Utilitarianism i. The following cases are among the commonly cited examples: If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person of a crime and imposing a severe punishment on that person, act utilitarianism implies that the judge should convict and punish the innocent person.

See Rawls and also Punishment. If a person makes a promise but breaking the promise will allow that person to perform an action that creates just slightly more well-being than keeping the promise will, then act utilitarianism implies that the promise should be broken.

See Ross The general form of each of these arguments is the same. Possible Responses to Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism There are two ways in which act utilitarians can defend their view against these criticisms. Rule Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons Unlike act utilitarians, who try to maximize overall utility by applying the utilitarian principle to individual acts, rule utilitarians believe that we can maximize utility only by setting up a moral code that contains rules.

Arguments for Rule Utilitarianism i. Rule Utilitarianism Avoids the Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism As discussed earlier, critics of act utilitarianism raise three strong objections against it. Judges, Doctors, and Promise-makers Critics of act utilitarianism claim that it allows judges to sentence innocent people to severe punishments when doing so will maximize utility, allows doctors to kill healthy patients if by doing so, they can use the organs of one person to save more lives, and allows people to break promises if that will create slightly more benefits than keeping the promise.

Maintaining vs. Undermining Trust Rule utilitarians see the social impact of a rule-based morality as one of the key virtues of their theory. Impartiality and the Problem of Over-Demandingness Rule utilitarians believe that their view is also immune to the criticism that act utilitarianism is too demanding. Arguments against Rule Utilitarianism i. Wrong Answers and Crude Concepts Although rule utilitarians try to avoid the weaknesses attributed to act utilitarianism, critics argue that they cannot avoid these weaknesses because they do not take seriously many of our central moral concepts.

Conclusion The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important issues about how we should make moral judgments. References and Further Reading a. Classic Works Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , available in many editions, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism , available in many editions and online, See especially chapter II, in which Mill tries both to clarify and defend utilitarianism.

Passages at the end of chapter suggest that Mill was a rule utilitarian. In chapter V, Mill tries to show that utilitarianism is compatible with justice. Henry Sidgwick. The Methods of Ethics , Seventh Edition, available in many editions, Sidgwick is known for his careful, extended analysis of utilitarian moral theory and competing views. Principia Ethica, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Mostly focused on utilitarianism, this book contains a combination of act and rule utilitarian ideas.

More Recent Utilitarians J. Cambridge University Press, Richard Brandt. Ethical Theory. Prentice Hall, Chapter Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. Brandt developed and defended rule utilitarianism in many papers. This book contains several of them as well as works in which he applies rule utilitarian thinking to issues like rights and the ethics of war.

Moral Thinking. Oxford University Press, An interesting development of a form of rule utilitarianism by an influential moral theorist. John C. Reprinted in Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds. Harsanyi, a Nobel Prize economist, defends rule utilitarianism, connecting it to a preference theory of value and a theory of rational action.

John Rawls. Before becoming an influential critic of utilitarianism, Rawls wrote this defense of rule utilitarianism. Brad Hooker. In this 21 st century defense of rule utilitarianism, Hooker places it in the context of more recent developments in philosophy. Peter Singer. Writings on an Ethical Life.

HarperCollins, Singer, a prolific, widely read thinker, mostly applies a utilitarian perspective to controversial moral issues for example, euthanasia, the treatment of non-human animals, and global poverty rather than discussing utilitarian moral theory.

This volume contains selections from his books and articles. Reprinted in Peter Singer. Harper Collins, This widely reprinted article, though it does not focus on utilitarianism, uses utilitarian reasoning and has sparked decades of debate about moral demandingness and moral impartiality.

Robert Goodin. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. In a series of essays, Goodin argues that utilitarianism is the best philosophy for public decision-making even if it fails as an ethic for personal aspects of life. Derek Parfit. On What Matters. In a long, complex work, Parfit stresses the importance of Henry Sidgwick as a moral philosopher and argues that rule utilitarianism and Kantian deontology can be understood in a way that makes them compatible with one another.

Overviews Tim Mulgan. Understanding Utilitarianism. Acumen, This is a very clear description of utilitarianism, including explanations of arguments both for and against. Chapter 2 discusses Bentham, Mill, and Sidgwick while chapter 6 focuses on act and rule utilitarianism.

This article gives a good historical account of important figures in the development of utilitarianism. This very useful overview is relevant to utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism. William Shaw. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Blackwell, Shaw provides a clear, comprehensive discussion of utilitarianism and its critics as well as defending utilitarianism.

John Troyer. The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Hackett, Ben Eggleston and Dale Miller, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. This collection contains sixteen essays on utilitarianism, including essays on historical figures as well as discussion of 21 st century issues, including both act and rule utilitarianism. Mill and Utilitarian Moral Theory J. Roger Crisp. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Routledge, West, ed.

Henry R. A clear discussion of Mill; Chapter 4 argues that Mill is neither an act nor a rule utilitarian. Chapter 6 focuses on utilitarianism and justice. Dale Miller. Polity Press, Miller, in Chapter 6, argues that Mill was a rule utilitarian.

Stephen Nathanson. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge University Press, , — David Lyons. Oxford, Critics of Utilitarianism David Lyons. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for Values Values are individual For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver.

If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one. So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations. Amber is a resin material that is formed from fossilized conifer tree sap during years of constant pressure and heat.

This yellow to reddish-brown translucent material has been used in a number of ways, including to make jewelry, in Egyptian burials, and in the healing arts. Amber also plays an invaluable role in research. In some cases, amber contains inclusions, such as insects, whole or parts of animals, and plants that are trapped and preserved. The ability to hold a piece of history untouched by time has resulted in a number of scientific discoveries and advances such as feathers on a non-avian dinosaur dated 99 million years ago and the biosynthesis of gene clusters for novel antibiotics.

One of the oldest amber deposits in the world, dating back million years, is located in the Northern region of Myanmar. Myanmar amber is plentiful, high quality and contains inclusions within the resin.

The mining of these amber specimens in Myanmar is the center of many legitimate and blackmarket sales to university researchers and private collectors alike. Over the last ten years, more than one billion dollars in legal revenue has been generated from the mining and sale of amber. Myanmar is a small southeast Asian country that contains about diverse ethnic groups recognized by the government.

There is no official state religion but the Myanmar government favors the majority Theravada Buddhism population. This favoritism has created ethnic and religious conflicts resulting in government-enforced discrimination. For example, the government has made it difficult for Christian and Islamic groups to gain permission to repair or build new places of worship. For many years this mining area has been protected by the Kachin Independence Army.

However, in the Myanmar government dropped leaflets from helicopters informing the population in northern Kachin that civilians and Kachin militants who remain in the region will be considered hostile opposition to the government military forces. The government then forced more than inhabitants from their homes and villages, as well as from the amber mines. This hostile takeover of the profitable Kachin amber mines ensures that amber purchases from researchers and private collectors will help fund the government side of the Myanmar ethnic civil war.

While some researchers and universities feel as though they should refrain from making such amber purchases, their failure to participate enables many private collectors to remove collections from the public or to charge researchers an exorbitant fee for access.

Furthermore, many of the miners in the Kachin region, on both sides of the conflict, are not fully aware of the value of the amber that they are selling and are therefore being exploited by the wholesalers who purchase from them. Myanmar classifies amber as a gemstone, not a fossil, so it can be legally removed from the country, unlike fossils that have restrictions on removal.

If you were a university scientist, how would you decide whether it is ethical for you to buy amber from Myanmar? If you took a deontological approach, what would your reasoning look like?

What moral principles would you take into account? If you took a utilitarian approach to answering this question, what would your reasoning look like? What facts would you weigh in making the decision?