 Hello everyone. Today, we are going to talk about utilitarianism. We have till now talked about consequentialism and hedonism as a moral theory. Today, we talk about utilitarianism as a moral theory. Now, utilitarianism as generally put is called the greatest code of the greatest number. So, what matters here is good and of the greatest number. Now, what is the description of this thing called code? That brings variations in the various shades of utilitarianism. Now, utilitarianism is basically based on the principle of utility. Now, let us read what does the principle of utility say. It says that the moral end to be sought in all that we do is the greatest possible balance of good over evil or the least possible balance of evil over good in the world as a whole. Here, good and evil mean non-moral good and evil. It makes a few assumptions. It assumes that good or evil may be measured and here, they are used as non-moral terms here. Now, this goes on to subscribe to something called ethical naturalism. We will talk about it in a short time. Now, what is it for a theory to be a utilitarian theory? What makes one a utilitarian? A utilitarian is one who is searching for utility. What is utility? Not usefulness per se, but it means that act is high on utility that brings about the desired goodness. What is the desired goodness? Well, utilitarianism is mostly tied up with hedonism that well, pleasure or happiness turns out to be the most desired consequence. Now, let us take a few steps back and try to remember what all have we talked about. We have talked about consequentialism as a theory that well, where we judge an act depending on the consequence it yields. Now, what is this consequence? Now, utilitarianism puts forth that well, it brings forth the greatest good of the greatest number. Hedonism claimed that it should bring about the pleasure. So, an act is right as long as it brings about maximizing pleasure. That was the hedonistic stand. The utilitarian stand talks about utility that which brings about the maximum utility or that function which helps in bringing about the desired consequences or what is good. Now, let us think slowly and carefully. The utilitarian makes a claim that well, we bring about something that is good for the greatest good of the greatest number. So, now, when we talked about the agents, how many agents are we talking about? We are talking about everyone. It could be domain specific or universally that would include the whole world. Now, an action is right if it brings about the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, what is this good and evil? Paying attention to the slide. Now, let us read the sentence once more. When it says that it is the greatest possible balance of good over evil. Now, here what is meant by good is a non-moral good. What does it mean? Well, it means that well, so as evil here, a non-moral evil as suggested here. Now, what is a non-moral good? Now, a non-moral good would be something that has cannot be reduced any further. Now, we have what is the utilitarian's notion. Utilitarian's notion of good is reducible to a naturalistic notion, a notion of say happiness. Now, when you are happy, you generally know it naturally. You are biologically, psychologically equipped to be aware of your stage when you are happy. So, the happiness is to be understood as a natural notion. So, what comes out to be right or good is what brings about happiness. So, notice that well, good is being reduced to happiness. This is a function of reduction. That what is good, which almost looks like a smiley, good being reduced to happiness. Now, this good when it is reduced to happiness, we are also making a deeper claim. The deeper claim is that of naturalism. That is, we see that right and wrong are no more figments or creations or any abstract entities different from what, abstract and distinct entities from what is natural. Now, there were times in the history of civilization when held a notion that well, the good and the bad and evil were something which depended upon something extrinsic, something abstract, maybe religion, maybe something which had nothing to do with happiness. So, it might sometimes get along happiness. It might not, but that was not how it was defined. Now, the utilitarian defines it with natural concepts of good and evil. So, well, if health is required or disease is an evil and health is good, which is a very naturalistic notion. So, any act that promotes health and stays keeps you away from disease is a right act to do. Now, the same thing at the level of a nation. Let us say that a country decides to make one day or a city decides to make one day in the city a cycling day. So, where everybody bicycles to their place of destiny, except of course, the emergency services and senior citizens and all people who are not capable of using bicycles. Now, such a day brings about the health or is contributes to a better health of the population at large. So, a utilitarian decision could be to enforce that well, one day is a cycling day. Now, it attains a proper good that is health, but this could also be a violation of rights. Let us look at it this way. Now, why if I am a citizen of that city, I would ask the question that how and what gives you the right to take away my freedom to use my vehicle on any day of the city. Now, the utilitarian well it says that well it is the greatest good of the greatest number and your individual freedom can be or may be subsumed or trampled more harshly put for this attainment of this greater goal. So, utilitarianism is not equivalent to totalitarianism, but it gives greatest happiness of the greatest number. Now, the natural question arises that what how do you arrive at this greatest happiness of the greatest number. Well, now coming to the next slide, a little bit of history on utilitarianism. Please look at the slide it says there was a philosopher called Bentham, Jeremy Bentham who put forth this version of utilitarianism which is called gross or more importantly quantitative utilitarianism which has been given a connotation of a gross utilitarianism. Now, the quantitative utilitarianism says that the hedonic calculus of pleasures and pains during using seven dimensions. They are intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity or proximity, fricinity or fruitfulness, purity and extent. Now, what it is basically saying is that well happiness can be calculated how well because it has these seven factors. So, it has seven common factors any instance of happiness has seven common factors and we need to determine that how these to what extent right. So, suppose to take an example that we are evaluating happiness one. Now, h one has seven factors right. Now, each of these factors as mentioned here all these seven factors are multiplied by what assessed in terms of these factors and then the summation is taken. Let us say we do require quantitative utilitarianism to find out that well electricity in two villages is better or you have water supply in five or irrigation to five villages is better. So, Bentham went ahead to actually form an entire school of utilitarianism called the quantitative utilitarians who actually try to quantify happiness and because this is necessary quantify happiness not in any absolute sense, but in a relative sense, relative sense vis a vis when we have two choices what would bring the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Now, to me my happiness is intuitively evident, but now let us not dismiss or find something strange about these quantitative utilitarians. Look at it this way now. If quantitative utilitarians are making a claim of attaching numbers to happiness, it is not a silly thing. It is in fact a necessary thing to make to make policy decisions say at a macro level. Say you would like to decide whether beaming cable TV to 12 villages is more important or is writer that way than providing mobile phone connectivity to one village. When choices are close by, when it is difficult to take an intuitive stand and which very often it is difficult at the macro level, a quantitative or a philosophic calculus is always helpful. Now, using these seven factors Bentham constructed a system wherein we can find the cumulative or the total sum of the pleasures giving it a gross happiness value. So, an average gross here would not mean that lowly, but it would mean that a summation of the happiness value. So, enact A gives some total of happiness value as x and enact B gives some total of happiness value as y. Now, if x is greater than y, then A is a more desirable is the right thing to do over B. Now, the quantitative utilitarians are not so intuitively unaware that we tend to underestimate the power or to attach numbers to one of the happiness indexes, but then they have tried hard to work out whether that is at all possible and they have worked out a gross a model, a system of attaching numbers to happiness. Now, there were some problems to this or some features. Now, the moment we mentioned seven common factors or characteristics of pleasure or a happiness, there was a problem. There was a problem that there seemed to be this kind of a classification seems to disregard the difference in various qualities of happiness or pleasure. So, as the quantitative utilitarians are ridiculed by the claim that well, if quantitative utilitarianism is true, then push pin is as good as poetry or it does not make any difference between the intellectual pleasures and the what we would call more superficial pleasures. It would not make a difference between watching a movie and say reading a classic. Now, let us look at gossiping and watching a work of art. Now, to many of us, it would seem that well, there is a difference in category in different kinds of happiness. So, quantitative utilitarianism is perhaps failing in capturing that difference in qualities. The quantitative utilitarians do answer that well, these seven factors give difference, different weightage and maybe a happiness or a pleasure which is of purely the intellectual kind can be assessed higher in one of these factors mentioned here. But well, any factors say intensity or duration, we can strap up the intensity or again play around with these seven variables to find out the value of the pleasure anyway. Now, to on further thinking, there was another philosopher called Mill who proposed the theory of refined or qualitative utilitarianism. Now, notice that Mill and Bentham both preserve the utilitarian spirit, but it is Mill only makes augments a difference to quantitative utilitarianism by adding that there are different qualities of pleasure and that cultural and intellectual are superior to pleasure. So, it makes a hierarchy of pleasures. Now, this hierarchy of pleasures was missing here, but it is present here. Now, Mill opine that this hierarchy of pleasure can better represent a calculation, better represent the philosophic calculus. Now, the qualitative utilitarians are like Mill or in the school of Mill claim that well, there are differences in kinds of pleasure and there that needs to be given weightage or attached value and that these earlier mentioned seven factors of the quantitative utilitarians do not capture that difference and this qualitative measure captures the difference. But nevertheless, we must be aware or we must remind ourselves that well, both of them are essentially in the same strain of utilitarianism that where they are seeking the parameter or the paradigm of right or good as that which promotes the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, the recent utilitarians talk about certain factors, certain factors like, well, may be good needs a little more elaborate description, may be health, sufficient food, a proper place to stay is just not enough to describe good. What is the constituent of this notion of good that the utilitarians put forth? Now, let us take a look at the slide. Now, these are the recent versions of utilitarianism which comes out to question that what is this entity called good? How do you describe it? Now, remember that this good that they are talking about was non-moral good for the classical philosophers. It was health and happiness, but well, new version of utilitarianism would like to say that it is not health and happiness because that may be a universal minimum, but that is an act of universalization. Whereas, more optimistically or more egalitarianly, a better description of good would be something called preference satisfaction. Now, what is preference satisfaction? Preference satisfaction is that well, each one of us. Now, if you look at what I say is that each one of us is having an order or a hierarchy of preferences of different things in life. Some may value food more than rest, some may value rest more than leisure, some may value leisure more than work. So, there is a wide variety or difference in the ways we make a hierarchy amongst our preferences. So, the utilitarian, the recent utilitarian trend has been to say that well, if it is no more just a blanket good or happiness that determines an action as a right action, but perhaps any action is right which promotes the greatest good of the greatest number and the greatest good here is greatest preference satisfaction. So, very commonsensically put, it is that well, any act that would enable more people to exercise their preferences, that to live out their preferences makes it a right act. Now, transposing this claim to the world around us today, we can perhaps see a very strong evidence of preference satisfaction utilitarianism as a common goal. The government, the establishment, the institutions, the companies, everybody wants to give the individual as much freedom as possible, so that the individual can choose what is the, can choose according to his or her own preferences. Now, does not that make sense? We would say, for an example, we would like to, because you say you are in an educational institute or a college, you are staying in a hostel. Now, this hostel would like to give you each of you single room, so that each one of you can live the way you would like to live. So, the good that perhaps communitarian living brings along should be a matter of choice, if one deserves to be, to live communitarianly live in a double room or a triple room or a dormitory, there could be preferences like that. Maybe some people would like to, would prefer to stay in a dormitory or at least a two-seater than a single room. Now, these are where individuals' preferences come into the play. So, the utilitarian stops short of describing the content of good and puts that description to the individual that, in a way, relatively to every individual that, whatever the individual would like to have as an order of preferences, that becomes preference utilitarianism. Now, preference satisfaction, as we look at the slide, as an example of utilitarians who are non-hedonists. Still now, we have been talking about hedonists and utilitarians, right? We have been talking about people who have been both hedonists and utilitarians. Now, this is an example of somebody who is, who need not be a hedonist, may or may not be a hedonist, but is a utilitarian nevertheless, that is, having one's own preferences satisfied. These preferences could be utilitarian, could be hedonistic or not. Now, we would talk about various versions of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Now, act utilitarianism claims that well, to determine the right action, the act utilitarian assesses all the consequences of any particular act and that which brings the greatest good for the greatest number is the right act. No rules or generalization from past experience. Rule utilitarianism again places back the centrality of rules and morality and it further claims that we ought to determine, promote and follow rules that will promote the general good for everyone. Now, what to act utilitarianism? Now, we read out the definitions of act and rule utilitarianism. Now, what does act utilitarianism say? Well, both of them are versions of utilitarianism. Both of them believe in the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, they differ in the way we achieve the greatest good of the greatest number. The act utilitarian is an atomist believes to assess each act as to what, how much good would it be getting over. So, in any case, if we have a choice between two or more acts, we choose the act depending on all the consequences that the act brings along. Sounds fairly simple, sounds perhaps a little convincing or perhaps not because how can we assess all the possible consequences of an act and sitting at it, we would have to be spend a lot of time before each act that we do. Well, the rule utilitarianism hopes to come over this enormous temporality in making decisions in saying that well, the rule utilitarians also believe that in getting out the greatest good of the greatest number, but how is where they differ. While the act utilitarians chosen act saw its consequence or forecast its consequences both direct and indirect and then decided that the rule utilitarianism believe in making rules that would bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, say something like should I lie or speak the truth. Now, the rule utilitarianism would say that well, let us have a rule that would bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, every time neither can we contemplate, neither do we have the luxury of time to contemplate over what this particular act might lead to and secondly nor are we able to be sure of the actual consequences over the intended consequences. Now, these are problems with act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism hopes to jump this problem with the claim that well, let us make rules. Let us make rules that bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. Suppose, we have seen that well, in this particular act, my lying brings in more benefit to most of the people involved, then my lying becomes right. This is the act utilitarian version. The rule utilitarian version is claiming that well, if I have a rule that I lie when it is convenient, will that lead to a happier state of affairs or an unhappier state of affairs. Now, if that leads to an unhappier state of affairs in the long run, including all possibilities, then it is perhaps not right or it is not leading to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So, thereof the rule utilitarians try to explain that well. We would like to, as mentioned in the slide, that we ought to determine, promote and follow rules that will promote the general good of everyone. So, this exercise of determining, promoting and following also implicitly takes place. Perhaps, this originates with culture. Its promotion comes with society and it is followed by the individual. Now, look at the various code of conducts that we have. Say, something like being considered to the physically challenged. Now, it has evolved as a courtesy and it becomes a part of a culture. It is promoted by society, because if you do not look, people look down upon you if you are unkind to the physically challenged and it is followed by the individual. So, perhaps this is an example of rule utilitarianism, where our customs come to stay, because they lead to a greater happiness of the greater number or general good for everyone. We would now talk about Mills utilitarianism. As you would recollect, we have talked about the various versions of utilitarianism. Bentham's gross utilitarianism, which was quantitative in nature. It tried to attach a number to all pleasures without making a distinction in categories. Mills further refined this utilitarianism and thereof, it was called refined utilitarianism or qualitative utilitarianism and it made a distinction between the various categories of pleasure. Now, we take a look at an excerpt from Mills book on utilitarianism with the same name. Let us look at the slide. It states that the utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice, which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers wasted. Now here, what is Mills basically trying to put forth? He is trying to put forth that well, there is nothing in a sacrifice that is good in itself. There is nothing that is intrinsically good in a sacrifice. So, there is nothing intrinsically good about any act. Now, what does this mean? Well, when he says that well, the refined utilitarianism as per Mills admits that people do make great sacrifices, sacrificing their greatest good for the good of the collective. But there is nothing in that sacrifice, which makes it a good by itself. The only thing that makes that sacrifice a good is the consequence that it achieves or tends to achieve. Now, if it does not achieve that consequence, can it be further called good? That is where perhaps the utilitarians encounter some difficult questions. Now, coming to the next slide, we have talked about act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism determines the right action by assessing all the consequences of any particular act and that which brings the greatest good for the greatest number is the right act. There are no rules, no generalization from experience. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand, tries to determine, promote and follow rules that will promote the general good for everyone. Now, it plays the centrality of rules in morality. Now, one might ask a question that what is it in a rule or how do the utilitarians, being consequentialists ever stick to the rule as a credo of morality. Isn't it the case that consequentialists always dependent on objectives and they stayed away from what was rules? Well, utilitarians being consequentialists also value objectives, but there is a way of valuing objectives or judging by the consequences and still having rules about it. Let us take an example. Now, every time that you mix a cup of sugar or every time that you mix a spoon of sugar to your tea, it gets sweeter. You know that it seems to be trivially true. Are you ever uncertain that mixing a spoon of sugar to your cup of tea would make it less sweeter than what it was? Perhaps, no. It would even be naive, not even naive. It would be insane to ask or conceive such a thought. Now, let us just look at this simple example and what does it stand for? It stands for one that well, we take that adding of sugar act makes the tea sweeter the consequence. We take this connection between the act and the consequence as rigid and non-negotiable. Now, in the long run, if in the broad picture, if we come to see that well, if there is a connection between certain kinds of acts leading to more desirable ends or consequences, some acts which are better in bringing about the greatest good of the greatest number, shall we not make these acts or shall we not make rules that make these kind of acts desirable? Let us take an example. Now, say the act utilitarian, say we have a healthy person admitted to a hospital and there are seven or eight patients requiring different organs. Now, this relatively healthy patient who has been admitted into the hospital, possibly for a minor ailment, may actually have, if the doctor is an act utilitarian, in certain interpretations, he would actually or she would actually like to harvest the organs from this healthy patient who has been admitted and well, provide these necessary organs to all the other people who are in need of organs for survival. So, the death of one person could lead to a flourishing or happiness and life and flourishing of another eight people. Act utilitarian, this seems to be sensible. Rule utilitarian would like to make this act wrong by citing certain rules that this kind of a rule, if this thing is made a rule, it will not promote general happiness, because people, healthy people, people at large would start getting worried about going to the hospital, lest they lose their lives. So, it brings upon a general climate of insecurity, which is not conducive, in fact, which is contrary to a happy state of affairs. Now, let us look at the slide. Now, the rule utilitarians would say that well, therefore, we have to determine certain rules, which we see in the long term that brings about the general good for everyone. So, it is a long term thinking, long term and a wide perspective, as wide as can be. So, these two would make us, would liberate us from individual or atomic acts, rather give us certain rules. Now, recent utilitarians have advanced further and now they have come out to make a change in the content of good. Preference satisfaction is the key word that is being used here. Now, what is good depends on the individual. Now, let us say earlier, what was good was equal to happiness. Now, this is where the preference utilitarian, this joins good from happiness. They put that you prefer to use the term preference satisfaction or preference utilitarianism as the term. So, it commits to individualism, wherein we see that having once preferences satisfied is a criteria for utilitarianism. Therefore, instead of greatest good of the greatest number, it becomes greatest preference satisfaction of the greatest number. So, here, the preference utilitarian, now take a look at this, preference utilitarianism. Now, it is going away from the fundamental commitment of hedonism that utilitarianism stuck with that happiness is a desirable, is the good and it is good for all. So, it was an unambiguous claim, naturalistic claim that happiness is a universal good and chasing happiness is the right thing to do. Now, the preference utilitarian would rather say that it is our ability to make choices, to have preferences, to have a hierarchy between choices that is more important than what is the content of happiness. So, any system is good or any policy is good only or any act is good only, when it enables the greatest number of people to have the widest preference satisfaction possibility. So, unless until the satisfaction of one's preferences interferes with another individual's preference satisfaction ability, it ought to be maintained. So, now, this coming to the slide, this is called as preference utilitarianism, Siegwick and Moore have been proponents of such a theory. Now, taking a look at the slide, it claims that here, in preference utilitarianism, a utilitarian assessment of the situation takes into account the preferences of the individuals involved, except where those preferences come into direct conflict with the preference of others. So, preference satisfaction becomes the primary aim and there is no thrust on happiness as the single aim. This is where there is a departure from hedonism. Now, so we see this is a modern utilitarian tendencies that tend to be departing from hedonism and this is where we see today's urban lifestyles are conducive to preference satisfaction of the wider variety. The notion of privacy, the notion of private space is again an essential for maximizing preference satisfaction. Now, let us talk about some predicaments with utilitarianism. Let us talk about the first predicament, say medical experimentation and on humans and animals. Now, let us construe a situation that where we need to test a vaccine or a medication or a medical procedure and we need a guinea pig for that. Now, guinea pig has entered into our colloquial terminology as being a sacrificial creature. So, the very colloquial sense or connotation of the term guinea pig can make you understand why utilitarianism is a little different in treating rights. Now, the guinea pig has no rights of its own. The guinea pig is a means for the welfare of the majority. One sacrifice by the guinea pig is essential for the welfare of the majority. Now, most of the times it has been that animals have been used as testing creatures for newer medications, vaccines, procedures, beauty products and a wide variety of things. Now, the utilitarian is quite simple in its thinking. He says or it urges that well, when it means the greatest happiness of the greatest number, why does it have to be the happiness of only human beings? What is this number? Now, certain utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer have extended this greatest number to all sentient beings. Now, what are sentient beings? Now, if we extend this utilitarianism to sentient beings that would include animals. So, now if we consider that well, if animals are sentient beings and are taking animals as guinea pigs or testing creatures in laboratories and huge amounts of deaths or huge number of deaths happening of these animals, of infecting them purposefully with pathogens and then watching how the pathogen develops, isn't it spreading more harm than good? Isn't it spreading more unhappiness than happiness? Well, if the whole universe is taken as comprising of sentient beings, then just human beings have no stake or no position in inflicting suffering to advance their own survival, because it will be happiness of a few verses the unhappiness of the many. So, medical experimentation raises a crucial question that where do we find that well, there is no justification, no utilitarian justification for sacrificing animals for medical research. In fact, sometimes it is also that human beings are tried as test cases for the last batch of vaccines to be introduced of the prototypes. So, now a utilitarian would be very careful and in fact that is has led to the formation of animal rights activism and societies like societies of prevention of cruelty to animals of people's ethical treatment towards animals, is that well, let us have the greatest happiness of the greatest number and this number would include all sentient beings. But this would keep a serious stop to medical research. In fact, now there is an increasing tendency to reach an equilibrium between advancement in medical sciences and the use of sacrificial animals in schools, when laboratories recommend inter-operation or opening up of a frog or a rabbit to familiarize students with their inner parts. Now, this is gradually being seen as something which is unacceptable because it does increase suffering. So, why not have plastic or any synthetic made creatures which can be used for these intersections that the students do, these operations that the students do. Now, coming back to the next thing that we talk about is compulsory organ harvesting. Now, let us ask a question that well, if the law requires, now coming to compulsory organ harvesting, if the law requires that well, any cadaver or any corpse is liable to be harvested for organs which might be functioning and proper for essentially for transferring to other patients who are in need of such organs that by default or that by compulsion no person can refuse the extraction or the harvesting of organs of his or her near and dear ones cadaver. In fact, let us also assume that no individual can make a commitment that well that she or she would not allow his or her organs to be harvested. Now, the utilitarian perspective is very clear. The utilitarian perspective would say that well, if I would like the individual's choice about his or her body is immaterial and as long as this individual, this choice, this is not exercised in the negative that is an individual voluntarily being a utilitarian oneself, the individual offers his or her body to science, it actually benefits many others. So, this is a typical utilitarian goal. A problem occurs when this sacrifice is made out to be as compulsory, as mandatory rather than as chosen. Now, is there something wrong if this sacrifice is supposed to be is made mandatory? If there is something intuitively difficult with this, it is perhaps because what we are feeling is that sense of right over one's own body is being violated. Let us think about it. Now, would you sign a document which would allow somebody, which would allow a hospital or a doctor to harvest your organs after your death? Now, this would determine your position on utilitarianism. Now, coming to it, now the other problem that utilitarians face, imagine that you have chosen and you have committed your body to a medical harvest. But unfortunately, this agent who has committed oneself to donating his or her organs meets with such an accident where none of his or her organs are in a position to be harvested. Then from the utilitarian consequentialist perspective, this sacrifice is belittled. This sacrifice does not hold value, because it essentially has not brought about more goodness. So, there has been nothing intrinsically right about this act of sacrifice, which the agent in all good sense perhaps made, but circumstantially was not able, it was not able to be implemented. Now, what about the other two crucial perspectives that we talk about are environmental preservation and slavery. Now, these are also questions that one needs to think that well, why do we save the environment? Why are we concerned about the environment? Why are we concerned about any species that is about to go extinct? It is perhaps because the environment is crucial not only to our happiness of at this time, our meaning the entire human race or creatures existing in the world right now, but also the greatest happiness of the greatest number over time. So, leaving a proper environment for the generations to come is again a justification for saving the environment. Now, look at it this way, the utilitarian is actually reducing his own self to make it useful to the coming generations. Now, let us look at another interesting predicament that is slavery. Now, if a minor section of the population is turned into slaves, who do all the menial or dangerous jobs that are there in the society. So, that 95 percent or 99 percent of the society lives a much happier state of affairs, would that be something you would be uncomfortable with? Well, the utilitarian would say that well, the sacrifice of this 1 percent brings about greater happiness for the other 99 percent. So, why not go in for slavery as something, but there was something which we felt is intrinsically wrong with slavery, despite of the fact that it is a much more perhaps a much more efficient system, and it does bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Now, let us explore the limitations of what do we mean by the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Now, happiness is a very vague term as most of you would have perhaps realized that well, happiness would mean that one that anything could be happiness. In fact, if you see in the slide its rights happiness is so broad that it could mean preference satisfaction or even any other goal or objective set by the persons in the question. So, actually happiness then could mean the same thing as preference satisfaction. Now, if this is the case then well, preference satisfaction is nothing but restating the old thesis of utilitarianism. Now, another limitation that we find with utilitarianism is that it depends on our ability to know what gives other people happiness or what is for their general welfare. This is not always the case and may change from time to time. Now, the utilitarianism utilitarian cannot make a accurate forecast in what that what would give what gives other people happiness because over a course of time our uncertainty could render certain objectives as or certain consequences as contrary to the motivation that they caused earlier. So, for example, if we come up with say parent comes up with this policy that well, she or he would raise a child in a strict regimen. So, as to bring about a happy state of affairs, but or the child grows up to be to study well and to be a successful individual, but he does not do so. The strictness he reacts to the strictness and leaves home and runs away. Now, this does not bring about the happiness of the family. So, there is a difference always which we talked about in consequentialism to between the intended consequences and between the actual consequences. Now, let us arrive at the another limitation that it talks about that what it arrives at the ought from the is. Now, that is a crucial philosophical leap that is taken by utilitarianism which many philosophers find unjustified. Now, can be that happiness is desirable, which again comes to the question. Happiness is desired does that make us make it also or imply that happiness is desirable or that we ought to pursue happiness. Now, this is a mistake that many philosophers have pointed out that the utilitarian makes that once we talk about what is the case which is factually evident from empirical evidence does not serve as a prescription or as a norm for what how things should be. Paying attention on the slide well, the first another limitation that is pointed out the moral call a person's got to do what a person's got to do well is a more political correct version of what is frequently said that a man's got to do what a man's got to do. Well, this moral call that we refer to that acts that one feels that one should do irrespective of the consequences. Utilitarianism does not pay attention or does not talk about these acts that which we feel perhaps morally obliged to do or have somehow a sense of necessity to be done irrespective of the consequences that it brings along. Now, the second point we talk about what about failed great attempts. Now, the utilitarian is quiet is in fact uncharitable and unkind to failed great attempts because attempts that are made for great things but do not achieve their consequences judging by the consequences it does not matter. So, this is although a utilitarian could counter argue that well this is a rare thing to happen but nevertheless even if it is rare it is possible and if it is possible well there is one instance where we see that the moral act is not rewarded or acts that we perhaps tend to believe that is moral is discarded because it does not achieve the objective. Now, the next limitation that they talk about is the central flavor of utilitarianism there is a spelling mistake here the central flavor of utilitarianism is that goodness does not in here in an action but is only given by setting that action in the context of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So, this is a crucial philosophical position of utilitarians that goodness does not lie in the action it lies in the setting that brings about the consequences. So, thereof we can see that well goodness is the utilitarian takes the goodness away from the action and into the entire setting. Now, how would you judge an act which is out of the setting or which could not achieve its intended consequences. Another limitation that it has talked about that the utilitarian is more of a goal centered approach than an agent centered approach. This is essentially continuing in the same flavor that we talked about that more the utilitarian is so much fixated on the goal that the agent does not matter for anymore. Now, looking at another limitation of utilitarianism that it justifies a paternalistic approach. Now, the utilitarian since it values the collective or the greater number more than the individual. So, it does go the individual into a pathway that is leading to the benefit of the greater number. Now, paternalistic approach is certain in certain manners is not is contrary to having one's own rights. Now, another limitation which utilitarianism talks about is that utilitarianism that is about utilitarianism that it does not take seriously the distinction between persons. This is pointed out by a philosopher called Rawls that utilitarianism impersonal an approach to some greater good. So, it takes does not take into account what is the each unique position that each individual is in. It puts everybody in one common denominator. Now, another philosopher called Bernard Williams has pointed out that what about recognizing the individual the rights and the projects of the individual. Now, this has been a very common critique of utilitarians that well, it is contrary to the rights of the individual. It is always letting the greater good dominate over the individual and the individual intrinsically no matter of what the consequences is supposed to have some rights. Now, this is the attitude which is being subsumed by the utilitarian. Now, the last critique of utilitarianism that we would be talking about is by a philosopher called Hume. Now, Hume says that the effects of an action form part of a chain that stretches into an indefinite future. There is always the possibility that a very positive result of an action may subsequently lead to very negative consequences. Now, this is an essential claim which questions are causation or are principle. Now, if you would remember the example that we talked about about the spoon of full of sugar in a cup of tea making it sweeter. We thought that putting a spoon full of sugar in the cup of tea only makes it sweeter. So, there is nothing questionable about that. In fact, it seems to be trivially true, but it is perhaps not the case because Hume's claim here brings about to the fact that well, we see that Hume's claim brings to light this notice that well, perhaps what we anticipate and what happens need not always be the same. In a relatively smaller example of the sugar mixing in the tea to make it sweeter, it seems to be more immune, but on a larger scale when we do something which as Hume says is an act that stretches into an indefinite future. The possibility that a very positive result of an action may lead to a very, very negative consequences. So, again we are not very sure about what it is that an act would lead to that this greatest good of the greatest number eventually over time is not for us to see it perhaps requires God's eyes, God's point of view to or so to say perspective from nowhere or from everywhere to know what is the greater good because greater good over greater time we have found many cases where our notion of the greater good of the greatest number has changed over time. Say paternalism, say a form of governance where the collective takes important decisions on behalf of the individual was supposed to lead to the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but then it did not systems that or governments that followed that policies have failed. There are various instances throughout history where we find that well greatest the greatest happiness of the greatest number has been the motivation for policies and acts, but in course of time that greatest happiness has not only become insignificant, but also has been the cause of the greatest unhappiness. If you look around in India the green revolution was supposed to be where the moral decision that we took was interfering in the course of nature to yield more food. The green revolution was supposed to be a successful an act and scientific intervention into the order of nature and agriculture for getting out the greatest good of the greatest number, providing food for all, but may be 50 years of hence scientist today do not have such an opinion that that intervention in nature has been for the greatest good of the greatest number over time. So, something like producing too much of food, something like affluence, affluence is we India is in the throes of growing bludgeoning, burgeoning developing economy. So, does it mean that it will bring about the rational now is that it will bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but will it that is for us to see. So, perhaps the utilitarian in its ambitious effort to and claim or ambitious, but well well natured intention of understanding what acts would eventually lead to what kind of consequences is way over estimating our ability to forecast consequences over the length of time and the breadth of people that would be all for utilitarianism.