Ethics 5 Utilitarianism

A discussion of the essential points of utilitarianism as well as its strengths and weaknesses

Category:

Education

Tags:

• business
• ethics
• utilitarianism

[Skabeeri]

like your videos... are you a professor?

[wmiller24]

@Skabeeri Yes, I teach philosophy and ethics and Widener University, in Chester, Pennsylvania (that's a few miles south of Philadelphia).

[kly45]

Could someone help me? Is it possible to argue that utilitarianism is similar to argumentum ad populum? Just a thought really.....

[wmiller24]

@kly45 I don't think so. An argument ad populum is simply an appeal to popularity, e.g., "my decision must be correct because most people support it." There may be occasions when that which is right and that which is popular are the same, but, popular opinion is often short-sighted and is most often determined by emotion rather than reason. Utilitarianism argues that the right decision is that one that produces the best result when both short term and long term effects have been considered.

[deepessence]

Serious question...would gang rape be justified from a utilitarian standpoint?

[wmiller24]

Normally I might not reply to this, but since you say it is a serious question, I will answer. Utilitarianism is not deontological, which means that there are no moral codes that apply, other than that of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Nevertheless, given the incredibly severe damage that rape causes to an individual and to society, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which gang rape would produce the greatest long-term benefits for society as a whole.

[violetember]

Why do philosophy commentators on youtube ALWAYS have thier bookshelf behind them?

[alanic60able]

Thank you that was a grate explanation.

[sogand4m]

Very helpful video thank you

[plutocratarianism]

The best way I see of labeling the U.S. government and justice system would be pragmatic and deontological, it is a system based on adhering to rules made up by the elites to protect their interests, and not society as a whole, those who break the rules face vindicative harsh punishments that actually have a detrimental effect on society as a whole in the long run.

[plutocratarianism]

It's obvious, the way the U.S. Government and Justice system works is largely not utilitarian. The economic costs of all these overcrowded jails and prisons are not a way of maximizing the good, they are too costly to maintain. The U.S. and most businesses and banks thinks only short term, not long term like China does.

The U.S. is doomed to fail in the near future, and we all see it coming because its a failed system that is not utilitarian and does not benefit society as a whole.

[kakashi1992e]

It seems like the best action, "that which produces the greatest net benefit," is prone to the whims and imperfections of human judgement. Determination of that which has the greatest net benefit seems subjective in itself... thus it seems like it would be very difficult to actually apply Utilitarianism in real life. It gets sticky when we talk about the intangibles, I guess.

[RagingAudioslave]

Isn't the definition of "good" or "benefit" in Utilitarianism completely arbitrary? One could define "good" as getting closer to a Christian God, one could define this as obtaining the maximum amount of pleasure, a hedonistic view.

If this is true, Utilitarianism is basically useless, isn't it?

[ZOA360]

weakness? in the real world not everyone can get what they want, it's just not possible. To obtain anything, something things must be sacrificed, that is the rule in this society, that is the natural rule since the dawn of life. People always try to have the good outweigh the bad, but no matter there will always be some "bad" per say.

[diogotomediogo]

preference utilitarianism

[Thesocraticbreed]

@wmiller24 Isn't it possible to say that a government may be able to break its own laws if it helps the people in the long run? Yet on the other hand, if a tyrant takes over and a government were to not only restrict the people too much... but to not have a senate, or a house... that tyrannicide is justified? I think that J.S Mill supported it in his On Liberty.