PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 2 [HD]

In this Wireless Philosophy video, 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 second video in a three part series.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[handsandfeet]

So thankful for the illustrations that visulize the lectures. Sometimes people like me who are just starting in college.. really benefit from this. Ethics is never easy and the moral dilemnas will never end, but at least understanding another's point of view adds insight.

[andrewpersaud]

Moral of the story: If you get hurt during a world cup match, pray to god the only person within distance to help is not a utilitarianist.

[danieldefranco]

But couldn't the suffering of Jones undermine the pleasure experienced by those billion people watching the World Cup match uninterrupted? The viewers may feel great at first, but if they later find out that the game was brought to them uninterrupted at the expense of someone else's intense suffering, might they experience significant guilt and, thereby, pain, a degree of pain that ultimately exceeds the pleasure from watching the game? If that's true, we can't just consider the suffering that results from interrupting the football match, but also the suffering that would result from finding out the cost of watching the game uninterrupted. While Mill claims that happiness, and thus morality, consists in maximizing pleasure and reducing pain for the greatest number of people, need that claim be exclusively understood as asserting that "the interests of the many are always privileged over the interests of the few?" Might not Mill be saying that the ill-treatment of even one person could undermine the pleasure experienced by many people, especially if the pleasure of the many depends upon the ill-treatment of the one?

[FlanzShirt]

In the real world moral decision making is a hot (emotional) process. There is ample imaging evidence to support this (see Joshua Greene's moral cognition research). Humans know instantly the choice they prefer, then add all the rational stuff later.

[isabelemond]

my main issue with both parts is that i thought the utilitarian value wasn’t the most happiness, but the most good. in my opinion the most good for a person would be to be aware of their life’s illusions, and then they would be happier. i like to think of “happiness” more as fulfillment and good than the simpler aspects of it.

[hulkslayer]

I agree with Utilitarianism. I didn't have a problem with any of it's problems. Seems the most pragmatic to me.

[ahorrell]

I think Negative Utilitarianism resolves the Jones situation, even if you consider a loss of pleasure to be itself a form of suffering. While a billion people will lose happiness/experience lost-happiness related suffering, actual physical pain is lexically prior (to use some jargon)

[raenogalada]

just came here on your channel for my exam and this is the most worthy to see out of all I have searched here. Thank you for sharing your knowledge madam and kudos for the presentation.

[TimBitten]

The answer seems clear to me:
Preventing the highest number of potentially life-threatening injuries takes priority over anything else. If, however, the non-life threatening injuries are disabling, then they count almost equally.
Jones should be asked if he is willing to remain in pain for a large amount of money, since he does in fact have the right to be rescued. If he agrees, a contract is formed and the broadcast is saved. If not, the station's financial losses from rescuing Jones, and the disappointment of however many spectators there happen to be, are unavoidable consequences if morals are to be upheld. One man's avoidable agony is not a fair price any of the sports fans, if they are truly moral, ought to be willing to pay for an uninterrupted broadcast or even the most important game ever televised.

[StratosFear]

Utilitarianism is based on the assumption that happiness/suffering can be mathematically added up. Why do we assume that?

I mean even we can add up the emotions of 10 people each feeling 10%sad and 90%happy to form a hypothetical giant with 10 times the emotional range of an ordinary human; it would still only be 10% sad and 90%happy (remember that as we are adding up the suffering so too are we adding up the happiness!).

This leads me to believe that it is not the AMOUNT of happiness/suffering that should be taken into account but rather the PERCENTAGE of it. So I say it doesn't matter whether we're talking about a million or a billion people watching the football game. The percentage of suffering in Jones should only be compared to the HIGHEST percentage of suffering per person in that 1 billion people watching the game. If the WORST person affected will only feel irritated, then we are morally obligated to save Jones. If stopping the broadcast will cause a heart attack in even one person watching the game, then we are morally obligated to let the broadcast continue.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head. Curious to know what you or anyone else may think of it.

[anthonyceliphilosophy]

I'm wondering why, when considering the potential trouble surrounding the concept of "happiness, " Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures wasn't addressed. This seems to solve problems regarding being happy about the "wrong" things.

[jokul_]

One thing I had hoped the video would touch on is an alternative interpretation for happiness's value that is brought up in "Brave New World".  Consider a scenario in which a mother loses her child.  There is a drug that she can take to forget all her sorrows and to be completely indifferent to her child's death.  Is this truly the correct conclusion?  Haven't we gained something by experiencing this suffering?

[CozenedMask]

I wish there were a stronger argument for the shocked man, because all we're really mulling over (it seems to me) is how to justify our intuition of the situation, not what's morally optimal.

[chrisvanallsburg]

what is valuable? I'd say approaching the convertibility of being, goodness, truth, and beauty is a good place to start.

[ellistomago]

Bad luck, Jones. It takes a special kind of talent to come up with a plausible, theory-testing hypothetical scenario, and the Jones example is top notch. Golf clap for TM Scanlon.

[thestudiesnikhil]

The Right word would be 'enjoymenti-ism' rather than a vague term 'happiness'.

[BrittonDeJong]

to live is to suffer, happiness has no value because it only postpones our death, only the elimination of suffering is important

[enoughnonsenseplease]

Notes From Underground and Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky are two antidotes to utilitarian ethics that I've found.

[malcolmaswad]

Basically utilitarianism is what businesses, militaries, and educator's call "game theory" the instructor broke this down well; she gave me a broad understanding in minutes. I ran across this word Niccolo machiavelli "art of war" I could not get an understanding of the word by the definition.

[nathanbryant]

why is it that situations in this case are not taken case by case as opposed to coming up with ludicrous hard line responses for them that almost no one would ever agree to go thru with