PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3 [HD]

Julia Markovits (Cornell University) gives an introduction to the moral theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the view that the right moral action is the one that maximizes happiness for all.

This is the third video in a three part series.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[amandaellaway]

It's important to note that utilitarianism is not 'short-sighted' or 'short term gratification'. Utilitarianism includes 'expected happiness', so if the one 'needy' patient is expected to cure cancer in 20 years' time, and the other 5 patients are, say, full time football players, with no prospects of saving millions of lives in the future, then the needy patient should get the medicine.

I believe that the inability to perfectly predict the long-term consequences of an action is the reason why utilitarianism sometimes fails us in the real world. And many essentially utilitarian systems deliberately simplify the consequences, leading to decisions that are ethically wrong in hindsight.

[snjarias]

Thanks for making these videos! I have used them in my Intro to Ethics class at the community college level. You have done such a great job of hitting the highlights in a very engaging way.

[avsusky]

"That's like 16 Chipotle burriots" LMFAO

[aarrodri]

The tone on the video makes it seem like you are reading from a textbook rather than elaborating on a topic you master. 

[badashphilosophy]

i love this idea of utilitarianism.

if we add to the equation that a person can spiral up into joy, or spiral down into dispair then utilitarianism is a good stable foundation for a person to start.

it is helpful because it guides one away from things that cause negative emotional outcomes like reactive patterns and into egalitarian style upliftment. i presume once the benefits of such actions are experienced it is much easier for the person to stay on the straight and narrow positive path and i think thats why i like utilitarianism theory so much, it may help people just get their foot in the door and once that happens we will have more joyful friendly peopple whose awareness guides their actions rather then pre existing internal habits and emotions from a burdened past. a utilitarian person will compound emotional happiness and be a great asset to all because to go neg or reactive is to lose the feeling thats been compounded and built up from good actions and that makes it even less appealing to do them. and i also think the resulting person would be more like a utilitarian angel not a utilitarian monster

[hhGeco]

I'm looking forward to watch the whole series as I find myself very related with this moral theory in particular. Good work

[immortaliserwow]

Much better example and food for thought: If someone is much richer than me and I am in great need of money, is it ok to rob them? What if that act can save a life? Then it totally is justified. But what if I plan on spending the money on partying? I still increase the total amount of freedom.Is it justified then? THis would have been a propper goulish example.
Truth is that utilitarianism should not be seen out of moral context. It is not a rule or a mathematical formula to solve any case. You cant put in nonsence and expect a logical answer on the other end.

[AhsanAli-etne]

She is really amazing and got a sort of anchor in video, watching all three parts was intersting without even a single moment of losing attention

[Actuary]

Interesting. I never knew where the word utility was coming from when used in economics.

[kirktizon]

By the definition of utilitarianism on her words shows that life can't be really lived without the polar opposite of pain and suffering.

[happysmash]

Honestly, these ideas that are arguments against utilitarianism don't actually seem that morally wrong to me, perhaps because I have unknowingly subscribed to utilitarianism for quite a while now.

[KemalAkin]

What about J.S. Mill? Doesn't he deserve a word in this topic?

[samspeedy]

I can't help but find every objection to utilitarianism to be self-refuting. Why do we care about Jones? Why do we care about old people not getting resources? It's either because we care about their well being and suffering, which makes us utilitarians anyway, or it's because we care about some other mysterious thing which has never been articulated or defined, and which is not itself reducible to well being and suffering (which I daresay is impossible).

[firstcooommment]

Thank you for the video, provided me some good notes for my philosophy class.

[TheRoopDhillon]

Awesome vids! Helping for my midterm in 101 tomorrow!

[greenbookcollection]

NO ONE SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE ZOMBIES, LISTEN TO THE POOR MANS PAIN! My Bentham would never say that, the discomfort the football viewers feel is only short term sadness, but the man's mutilation would scare him for life, make him feel like nothing, effect his work place relationships, other workers will feel uneasy. Take in all possibilities and there after effects and then make the choice, That's how the Benthams do.

[GoofRebelMusic]

What if someone has a mental condition thay has them always feeling very happy, no matter their material conditions. If they happen to be homeless and in poor health, we could shelter and care for them. But, if they are happy regardless, it would be better to use those funds to give them to rich guy who is only capable of feeling happiness during those fleeting moments were someone is giving him money.

And very similarly, if someone suffers debilitating depression, would Utilitarianism have us do nothing for them bc it would be better to do things for people better equipped to experience happiness?

[jessjms]

these videos are too short, consider lengthening them with more examples please

[DiscoInTheNunnery]

That was an interesting and fun series. I'm looking forward to the next part.

Here's a thought experiment - In which utilitarian world would you rather live in: one that maximizes the happiness of the least happy person (whomever that may be at any given moment) or one that maximizes the average (expected) happiness - and how are those worlds different?

[danelendil]

There is I think a very simple factor that wasn't covered: that of perspective.
So in the first example (the one with the 6 patients in the first part), we're talking about the happiness of the patients, when in fact the only happiness that will matter in the end is that of the medic - he's going to distribute the medicine in a way that will maximize his/her happiness, the patients are only relevant through the perspective of the person with the power to take action.
In the second example, with Jones and the sports transmission, again: the only happiness that will matter in the end is that of the person that makes the call; maybe it's a CEO who decides that interrupting the transmission is going to be too costly, so he's just going to give Jones some painkillers and a raise; maybe we're talking about Jones' finance, who's going to pull the plug a.s.a.p, because she's not going to be able to stand him being in pain.
All of those decisions actually abide by the principles of utilitarianism, and I think that that's how life goes almost all the time: everybody makes decisions according to their own happiness - and thus their own moral compass; remember that in the end the vast majority of people don't think of themselves as the bad guy, regardless how wrong or even monstrous their actions might seem to others.