The major problem with utilitarianism is that happiness is way too subjective and can be manipulated to justify immoral actions. You say that the jews unhappiness outweighed hitlers but you forget that the people who voted for hitler wanted his happiness as well, the german people knew what they were getting into, Hitler didnt exactly campaign as a sane man. Utilitarianism can never work, even as a democratic system.
thank you so much for this!! it's 2am and i have a business ethics paper due later today and your explanation literally saved my paper - i finally understand utilitarianism! again thank you so so much!
what if the majority of people wanted to rape and pillage, should the minority be punished by this being aloud to happen just because it satisfies the majority. you can't please everyone and a group that votes for there happiness may only get the majority because there was to many small minorities. The minorities can add up to be more than a majority, then you've got some trouble. Utilitarianism can't work on a large scale, perhaps on a small scale as a backup when the current system fails
There are a lot of theoretical problems with Utalitarianism (especially in it's classical form) and it is difficult to justify on the basis of motivational hedonism (because psychological hedonism is a failed theory, and doesn't describe altruism, and because an analytical method needs to be used to proove a universal theory and this is only based on expierience, the is/ought gap still exists). Definitly my favourite theory. You should read some of the criticisms and try and refute them :p
Very good. Though I don't think that we always aim for happiness itself, but, due to the habitual association of ends with the happiness they bring, we seek ends in themselves as parts of happiness. If I aim to win the noble peace prize, I'm aiming for the noble peace prize itself, as an end for itself, but as a part of happiness.
To quote Mill's 'Utilitarianism': "To desire anything other than as a part of happiness is a physical and metaphysical impossibility"
Zetan, I heard a very unusual pronunciation of the word "gauged" (also spelled "gaged") at 8:20 — most likely it is still only part of a reading vocabulary.
It is standardly pronounced as rhyming with "paged".
i have a question. Suppoe that each person is capable of 20 units of happiness- that is, if a person has 20 units of hapinessthey are perfectly happy. NOw consider two populations. One contains 4 people all with 20units of happiness (4 perfectly happy people). Another population contains 100 people all with 1 unit of happiness ( their live are barely worth living). According to untilitarian, which popualtion is perferable better. and why?
The part about lying. If you could kill say 5000 people, and guaranty a cure for aids in the process would that be evil. If no one finds out how the cure was found, more people are happy than unhappy.
"The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us." -- John Henry Newman
But what are means if not a long series of ends? Utilitarianism, as I understand it, considers levels of happiness during an action, not just after it.
Unless the spirit does not exist, in which case happiness is the end, and belief in said spirit is merely what some choose as the means to this end. I do not pretend to know for sure whether the soul exists or not, but since it cannot be proven either way, I choose to look at the world, for the most part, running under the assumption that it does not.
I am a Lucretian materialist and a Platonist in morals. The spirit exists for me as an excrescence of physical existence. I look askance on empiricism's claim that facts can be immediately known.
Utilitarianism is self contradictory. What you referred to here in the video (at least the first half) was Act utilitarianism, So I'll attempt to disprove that.
The contention is: "Any action can be described as good or evil based on the ammount of happiness it brings"
Now, in order to deem the amount of good or evil something brings, you must commit to an act of comparison; in other words, deliberate on what the good to bad ratio is, you must make a cost benefit analysis of what the greatest happiness is. But wait, that is an action. So before we can make the analysis, an analysis must be made using the ethical ramifications of utilitarianism on whether the analysis is preferable.
Well, the same is true for that action, and the action that must inevitably follow that. This goes on to infinity. It is a paradox.
How must the (act) Utilitarian avoid this? Well, they must assume the action is moral. However, this is in ethical violation of the Utilitarian principle. And thus, Utilitarianism defeats itself.
you are saying it in a rule utilitarianism view..developed by John Stuart Mills...its better than act utilitarianism (jeremy bentham) cos it doesnt allow an individuals pain to be ignored if it caused greater happiness to the higher number. im doing it was my R.S A level resivion right now lol so im usng youtube cos im scumy like that:)
extremely happy individuals. But this appears (at least to most people) to be an immoral conclusion.
Sorry for taking up so much comment space, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it. Other objections to utilitarianism are things like the Repugnant Conclusion and the Sadistic Conclusion (which you can also read about at wikipedia of stanford encyclopedia of philosophy online.)
This, perhaps, isn't too extreme of an admission for the utilitarian, but then one can continue to postulate larger and larger populations of individuals, each with a smaller individual level of happiness, but a slightly larger total level of happiness than group A. So eventually you end up with a massive group of people, each with only a tiny, miniscule amount of happiness. A utilitarian, it seems, must accept that this huge population is preferable to the small population of
In population B there is a larger number of people who are extremely happy as well, but not individually as happy as each individual in population A. However, the total amount of happiness, added up, of the people in population B is equal to more than that of population A, therefore, a utilitarian must say that the world is in a better state of affairs with population B around rather than population A."
Also, in terms of flaws within utilitarianism, there are many which seem to grate up against our common sense of morality, and this is largely why it has fallen out of vogue in contemporary philosophy.
First would be what's called the Mere Addition Paradox, which is a thought experiment that goes along the lines of;
"There is two populations of individuals, in population A there is a very small number of people who are extremely happy.
Also, even though something descriptively is the case (namely, even if it were true that people DO always work toward their own or the greatest happiness), it doesn't imply that one OUGHT to do so.
This also works in the reverse. Even though I think motivational hedonism (that people always act toward their own happiness) is false, I still think one ought to act toward producing the most happiness and alleviating the most suffering.
At 2:08 you make a descriptive claim toward psychological hedonism. I don't think that's true, (try the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy with the keyword Hedonism for an investigation into Motivational Hedonism).
Can you send me those thoughts too (copy and paste it if that's the most convenient)? I'm very interested in hearing other opinions on this topic. Thanks.
As you even said, utilitarianism, at least in the action form is ends based. Your looking to the ends not the means by which your getting there. utilitarianism compels us to do some pretty nasty things to get the end that we want.
I havn't found any good examples where utilitarianism fails as a moral guide. HOWEVER, I find it almost impossible to think that my happiness is equal in importance to everyone else's. Objectively I can agree that all human hapiness should be equal. But I just can't ever value the happiness of others above my own.
That would put you at least a bit on the selfish side. It is a difficult balance to find. Sometimes I actually go the other way, being too selfless and needing to remind myself of the value of my own happiness.
utilitarianism though is mostly about doing what consequences in happiness to the general welfare or community. It's not always about individual happiness.
I fail to see the difference. The general welfare or community consists of many individuals. If it's better for everyone, it's better for lots of someones.
Untrue. Utilitarianism views all possible choices. Part of the nature of it is trying to find a better choice. If there was a way to avoid killing both the 300,000 -and- the 1.5 million, that would obviously be the best choice. The things you suggested, if they had worked, would have clearly been supported by utilitarian thinking.
In this case, I would actually argue that the amount of terror and pain you recieve being ripped apart like that cannot compare to the pleasure of watching it, even multiplied by thousands, or possibly millions. It would be a truely horrific experience that would be nearly impossible to balance out.
In addition, I think a good guideline for determining what is at least a "gray area" situation is if it causes any unhappiness at all, and there is an alternative that doesn't, there's a good chance that it's still wrong.
In this case, there are two possibilities. Gladiator arena exists, causes some happiness to a lot of people, but extreme unhappiness to at least one. Gladiator arena doesn't exist, causes no happiness and no unhappiness. Since there is this alternative with no unhappiness, it is probably the "more right" of the two options.
In that case, it's sheer numbers. Yes, I would sacrifice over 300,000 Japanese to save more than 1.5 million US troops. I would also sacrifice over 300,000 Americans to save more than 1.5 million Japanese troops. It's quite simple; all people are equal.
It is called hedonism when applied only to yourself. And I wouldn't call them opposites... the opposite would involve trying to take actions that caused the least happiness, including to yourself. Don't know if there's a word for that or not; it's probably not terribly common. =P
you know the movie "gladiator". How would utilitarianism account for something like that? The Romans gain a huge amount of pleasure by watching the gladiator getting teared apart by the lions. Does that make it right to watch someone getting killed even if it promotes the greatest good out of the greatest amount of people?
The major problem with utilitarianism is that happiness is way too subjective and can be manipulated to justify immoral actions. You say that the jews unhappiness outweighed hitlers but you forget that the people who voted for hitler wanted his happiness as well, the german people knew what they were getting into, Hitler didnt exactly campaign as a sane man. Utilitarianism can never work, even as a democratic system.
ProDCloud 10 months ago
u r hot!
keanhugo 1 year ago
good video thanks for putting it up it really helped me understand utilitarianism. now im off to philosophy class!
hannahgalloway 2 years ago
thank you so much for this!! it's 2am and i have a business ethics paper due later today and your explanation literally saved my paper - i finally understand utilitarianism! again thank you so so much!
blueyes9987 2 years ago
what if the majority of people wanted to rape and pillage, should the minority be punished by this being aloud to happen just because it satisfies the majority. you can't please everyone and a group that votes for there happiness may only get the majority because there was to many small minorities. The minorities can add up to be more than a majority, then you've got some trouble. Utilitarianism can't work on a large scale, perhaps on a small scale as a backup when the current system fails
dsimpsonan 2 years ago
thanks for posting this!, it really helped me to understand it.
mandarina89 2 years ago
There are a lot of theoretical problems with Utalitarianism (especially in it's classical form) and it is difficult to justify on the basis of motivational hedonism (because psychological hedonism is a failed theory, and doesn't describe altruism, and because an analytical method needs to be used to proove a universal theory and this is only based on expierience, the is/ought gap still exists). Definitly my favourite theory. You should read some of the criticisms and try and refute them :p
unassumption 3 years ago
Very good. Though I don't think that we always aim for happiness itself, but, due to the habitual association of ends with the happiness they bring, we seek ends in themselves as parts of happiness. If I aim to win the noble peace prize, I'm aiming for the noble peace prize itself, as an end for itself, but as a part of happiness.
To quote Mill's 'Utilitarianism': "To desire anything other than as a part of happiness is a physical and metaphysical impossibility"
ORAKAR 3 years ago
Utilitarianism= the happiness theory.
Also, dogs are not intelligent creatures. Human beings uniquely possess the faculty of the intellect.
generalzeedot 3 years ago
Zetan, I heard a very unusual pronunciation of the word "gauged" (also spelled "gaged") at 8:20 — most likely it is still only part of a reading vocabulary.
It is standardly pronounced as rhyming with "paged".
MishaVargas 3 years ago
i have a question. Suppoe that each person is capable of 20 units of happiness- that is, if a person has 20 units of hapinessthey are perfectly happy. NOw consider two populations. One contains 4 people all with 20units of happiness (4 perfectly happy people). Another population contains 100 people all with 1 unit of happiness ( their live are barely worth living). According to untilitarian, which popualtion is perferable better. and why?
Daywalker11226 3 years ago
if you want a more definite term - psychological egoism and hedonistic consequentialism
sherlockfury 3 years ago
Well put my friend, you ramble on a bit in parts where I'm sure it could be summed up more easily, but fair play to you.
RefinedJBaby 3 years ago
The part about lying. If you could kill say 5000 people, and guaranty a cure for aids in the process would that be evil. If no one finds out how the cure was found, more people are happy than unhappy.
enyawix 3 years ago
"The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us." -- John Henry Newman
neothomist1275 3 years ago
That's great. Have any thoughts on the subject that are your own?
Zetan4 3 years ago
"Have any thoughts on the subject that are your own?"
Yes, when means are confused with ends all is lost.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
But what are means if not a long series of ends? Utilitarianism, as I understand it, considers levels of happiness during an action, not just after it.
Zetan4 3 years ago
What is happiness? The spirit -- that which demands meaning in us -- is the ends of man.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Unless the spirit does not exist, in which case happiness is the end, and belief in said spirit is merely what some choose as the means to this end. I do not pretend to know for sure whether the soul exists or not, but since it cannot be proven either way, I choose to look at the world, for the most part, running under the assumption that it does not.
Zetan4 3 years ago
Posted five minutes ago...talk of timeliness!
I am a Lucretian materialist and a Platonist in morals. The spirit exists for me as an excrescence of physical existence. I look askance on empiricism's claim that facts can be immediately known.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
Utilitarianism is self contradictory. What you referred to here in the video (at least the first half) was Act utilitarianism, So I'll attempt to disprove that.
The contention is: "Any action can be described as good or evil based on the ammount of happiness it brings"
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Now, in order to deem the amount of good or evil something brings, you must commit to an act of comparison; in other words, deliberate on what the good to bad ratio is, you must make a cost benefit analysis of what the greatest happiness is. But wait, that is an action. So before we can make the analysis, an analysis must be made using the ethical ramifications of utilitarianism on whether the analysis is preferable.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Well, the same is true for that action, and the action that must inevitably follow that. This goes on to infinity. It is a paradox.
How must the (act) Utilitarian avoid this? Well, they must assume the action is moral. However, this is in ethical violation of the Utilitarian principle. And thus, Utilitarianism defeats itself.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
hey, just wanted to say, great video. I have my a levels in two days, and this is a great way to learn....revise i meant, lol.
thefinalsalute 3 years ago
you are saying it in a rule utilitarianism view..developed by John Stuart Mills...its better than act utilitarianism (jeremy bentham) cos it doesnt allow an individuals pain to be ignored if it caused greater happiness to the higher number. im doing it was my R.S A level resivion right now lol so im usng youtube cos im scumy like that:)
ollybreh 3 years ago
(continued)
extremely happy individuals. But this appears (at least to most people) to be an immoral conclusion.
Sorry for taking up so much comment space, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it. Other objections to utilitarianism are things like the Repugnant Conclusion and the Sadistic Conclusion (which you can also read about at wikipedia of stanford encyclopedia of philosophy online.)
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
(continued)
This, perhaps, isn't too extreme of an admission for the utilitarian, but then one can continue to postulate larger and larger populations of individuals, each with a smaller individual level of happiness, but a slightly larger total level of happiness than group A. So eventually you end up with a massive group of people, each with only a tiny, miniscule amount of happiness. A utilitarian, it seems, must accept that this huge population is preferable to the small population of
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
(continued)
In population B there is a larger number of people who are extremely happy as well, but not individually as happy as each individual in population A. However, the total amount of happiness, added up, of the people in population B is equal to more than that of population A, therefore, a utilitarian must say that the world is in a better state of affairs with population B around rather than population A."
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
Also, in terms of flaws within utilitarianism, there are many which seem to grate up against our common sense of morality, and this is largely why it has fallen out of vogue in contemporary philosophy.
First would be what's called the Mere Addition Paradox, which is a thought experiment that goes along the lines of;
"There is two populations of individuals, in population A there is a very small number of people who are extremely happy.
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
Also, even though something descriptively is the case (namely, even if it were true that people DO always work toward their own or the greatest happiness), it doesn't imply that one OUGHT to do so.
This also works in the reverse. Even though I think motivational hedonism (that people always act toward their own happiness) is false, I still think one ought to act toward producing the most happiness and alleviating the most suffering.
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
At 2:08 you make a descriptive claim toward psychological hedonism. I don't think that's true, (try the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy with the keyword Hedonism for an investigation into Motivational Hedonism).
OverusedChewToy 4 years ago
Thanks for this, I'm doing an essay on this for ethics, and this made me consider a few more things.
Uxoriouswidow 4 years ago
Haha, you're quite welcome. Glad I could help out.
Zetan4 4 years ago
okay i cant get everything i want in a stupid comment soo sorry I'll be sending you my thoughts in a message ^_^
ftloi452 4 years ago
Can you send me those thoughts too (copy and paste it if that's the most convenient)? I'm very interested in hearing other opinions on this topic. Thanks.
Uxoriouswidow 4 years ago
As you even said, utilitarianism, at least in the action form is ends based. Your looking to the ends not the means by which your getting there. utilitarianism compels us to do some pretty nasty things to get the end that we want.
((next..))
ftloi452 4 years ago
I don't completly agree with everything you say. Let me rebut this, but when I do, I do it with all respect to you.
((being continued in another post, sorry, just have alot to say..))
ftloi452 4 years ago
I havn't found any good examples where utilitarianism fails as a moral guide. HOWEVER, I find it almost impossible to think that my happiness is equal in importance to everyone else's. Objectively I can agree that all human hapiness should be equal. But I just can't ever value the happiness of others above my own.
eatmychild 4 years ago
That would put you at least a bit on the selfish side. It is a difficult balance to find. Sometimes I actually go the other way, being too selfless and needing to remind myself of the value of my own happiness.
Zetan4 4 years ago
hi, nice video , i really enjoyed it.
utilitarianism though is mostly about doing what consequences in happiness to the general welfare or community. It's not always about individual happiness.
weesoqa 4 years ago
I fail to see the difference. The general welfare or community consists of many individuals. If it's better for everyone, it's better for lots of someones.
Zetan4 4 years ago
Untrue. Utilitarianism views all possible choices. Part of the nature of it is trying to find a better choice. If there was a way to avoid killing both the 300,000 -and- the 1.5 million, that would obviously be the best choice. The things you suggested, if they had worked, would have clearly been supported by utilitarian thinking.
Zetan4 4 years ago
In this case, I would actually argue that the amount of terror and pain you recieve being ripped apart like that cannot compare to the pleasure of watching it, even multiplied by thousands, or possibly millions. It would be a truely horrific experience that would be nearly impossible to balance out.
Zetan4 4 years ago
In addition, I think a good guideline for determining what is at least a "gray area" situation is if it causes any unhappiness at all, and there is an alternative that doesn't, there's a good chance that it's still wrong.
Zetan4 4 years ago
In this case, there are two possibilities. Gladiator arena exists, causes some happiness to a lot of people, but extreme unhappiness to at least one. Gladiator arena doesn't exist, causes no happiness and no unhappiness. Since there is this alternative with no unhappiness, it is probably the "more right" of the two options.
Zetan4 4 years ago
In that case, it's sheer numbers. Yes, I would sacrifice over 300,000 Japanese to save more than 1.5 million US troops. I would also sacrifice over 300,000 Americans to save more than 1.5 million Japanese troops. It's quite simple; all people are equal.
Zetan4 4 years ago
It is called hedonism when applied only to yourself. And I wouldn't call them opposites... the opposite would involve trying to take actions that caused the least happiness, including to yourself. Don't know if there's a word for that or not; it's probably not terribly common. =P
Zetan4 5 years ago
Extreme masochism?
MishaVargas 3 years ago
you know the movie "gladiator". How would utilitarianism account for something like that? The Romans gain a huge amount of pleasure by watching the gladiator getting teared apart by the lions. Does that make it right to watch someone getting killed even if it promotes the greatest good out of the greatest amount of people?
furyp 5 years ago
Thanks. :) Yeah, I know I tend to drag on (with all of these videos, really) but I'm glad you enjoyed.
Zetan4 5 years ago