Thursday 2/28

Utilitarianism Case Analysis

Readings

Texts

• J.S. Mill, "Utilitarianism", chapter 1 (from last time)
• J.S. Mill, "Utilitarianism", chapter 2 (from last time)

Notes

• Classical Utilitarianism (from last time)
• Is Happiness All that Matters? (from last time)
• Two Principles of Moral Theology (from last time)
• Are Consequences All that Matter? (from last time)
• A (Partial) Map of UET (from last time)
• Utilitarianism (from last time)

Cases

• Smokin Ride
• Real Life Avatar
• Save the Rave
• Obesity as Child-Abuse

Synopsis

Today we paused our exploration to consider the application of utilitarian theories to concrete moral dilemmas. We first took up Obesity as Child-Abuse, considering the case of the state's intervention on behalf of an obese child from the standpoint of Act-Utilitarian theories. During our conversation we discovered that it is crucial to carefully specify as many plausible alternatives as one can and that how we measure utility is crucial. In this case, we find that measuring utility by best interests (that is, by applying Ideal Act Utilitarianism) we have a much stronger case for at least some intervention on the part of the state than if we were to measure utility by happiness (Eudaimonic Act Utilitarianism) or pleasure (Hedonic Act Utilitarianism.

It bears emphasis that pleasure and happiness are very different measures of utility, since many writing on Examination II's essay confused happiness for pleasure and lost points as a result--or so Briana reports. To see how pleasure and happiness can come apart, consider the winner of a marathon. Presumably the winner is very happy to have won the marathon, but she may be in a great deal of pain from her efforts nevertheless.

That said, the discussion was quite good, with at least one group noting the crucial challenge in this case of balancing the child's physical well-being against his psychological well-being. It is precisely these kinds of subtle distinctions utilitarian theoretical frameworks invite us to consider in our moral deliberations. Nuance, in short, matters.

Next we took up a strikingly analogous moral dilemma, Smokin Ride. This case, however, invited Rule-Utiltiarian analysis inasmuch as legislation against smoking in cars with minors was in question, which as we saw demands a very different approach by evaluating not the consequences of specific actions but the consequences of rules (laws). Would, in this case, enforcing a law which levies fines for smoking in a car with minors present maximize utility? Here we want to flesh out the rule as much as possible so we know what it requires and how it shall be enforced, and we contrast a world with the rule against a world without the rule. We then ask which world has greater total utility. This is challenging, to be sure, and much likewise hinges on how we measure utility: Pleasure (Hedonic Rule Utilitarianism), Happiness (Eudaimonic Rule Utilitarianism), Best Interests (Ideal Rule Utilitarianism), or Preferences (Preferential Rule Utilitarianism). The case indicated that 81% favor such laws, so presumably PRU would have been a relatively simple argument to make. The rest are more subtle and involved.

We will continue seeing how utilitarianism, understood as a cluster of closely related but nevertheless distinct theories, helps to illuminate and resolve moral dilemmas as we move forward. Our next effort will be to understand a challenging yet extremely important alternative to utilitarianism which takes as its starting point an especially penetrating criticism of utilitarian theories.