Utilitarianism in 4 Minutes

What if instead of providing homeless shelters, food, and work programs for all homeless people around the country, we murdered them and harvested their organs so that we could save the lives of thousands of hard working people who needed organ transplants? Haha - just kidding. But many think that this is what the idea of utilitarianism is all about - doing actions that have a consequence that will do the most good for the most people – in this case taking organs from people who do little for their community and giving them to people who do much for their community. But it’s not quite as simple as organ stealing as you might think.

My Mic:

Music Credits:
Snares - Circuit

In the mid-18th century the philosopher and statesman Jeremy Bentham was born in England. This guy was straight up hippie for his time. He believed in freedom of speech, abolition of slavery, women’s rights, gay rights - I mean this is stuff that some people don’t even believe in today. He also founded the idea of utilitarianism - the main principle being that “the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness.”

But here’s where the misunderstandings come in. First we have to define what Bentham and other utilitarian’s consider happiness or pleasure. Some might think that this means they can watch porn, smoke weed, and eat Oreos all day. But that would be wrong. You see the utilitarianism people have distinguished two types of pleasure. A higher pleasure - related to our intellect and a lower pleasure - related to our senses. You see it is not just how much pleasure we receive, but the quality of it as well – kind of like anything in life. 10 ok cookies might not be as yummy as 1 extremely f*cking delicious cookie. In utilitarianism the delicious cookie is intellectual pleasure, and is more highly valued than physical pleasure – the ok cookie. So if you’re thinking about watching porn, try reading a book about Particle Physics or Paleomagnetism instead. At the same time our happiness is not just a selfish individual kind of happiness, but rather communal. Everyone’s happiness counts the same and there is no room for prejudice or discrimination – it is the total amount of happiness that the masses has that counts.

Think of it like this – the action that you do that gives the most amount of people happiness is the best action you can do – which might mean you actually make sacrifices to your happiness in order to make others happy. So to put it into mathematical terms it might look like total amount of happiness in all people + the right action to get the most amount of people happy = utilitarianism.
But there are problems to this idea. First, we don’t all agree on what makes us happy. For one person, it might mean having a loving family, for another it might mean playing World of Warcraft all day long, and for another it might mean living in a cave somewhere in India.

The second problem is after miraculously coming up with a consensus as to what happiness is it’s even harder to figure out what the right action is to arrive at such happiness. There is a famous thought experiment that goes something like this. There is a train speeding down the railroad. There is a switch up ahead. On one side you have five people tied to the tracks and on the other you have one person tied down. You are in a position to switch the track so the train runs over the one person rather than the five people. Would you do it? The utilitarian would perform the action that creates the most amount of happiness and would switch the track. One life taken is better than five, right? But what if that one guy was a philanthropic humanitarian and the other five were just a**holes? Well, sh*t then you might have some disagreements. Could you reform the douchebags to become better people so that they could do more good than the one guy? Or maybe after this experience the one good guy becomes an a**hole because he realizes that in spite of his good guyness he still was tied down to a train for some unknown reason and now wants to start living for himself.

[xxsarumanxx]

1:29 - Bentham did NOT believe in any sort of higher or lower pleasures. He simply used his Hedonic calculus to determine which action would produce the most happiness. Mill, on the other hand, did believe that there were higher and lower pleasures ("It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied", Utilitarianism, 1861)

[JohnThomas]

Nicely produced video, but there are some serious issues worth pointing out:
*1.* John Stuart Mill's view regarding higher and lower pleasures is a minority position among contemporary utilitarians. Most side with Bentham, who Mill characterised as saying that _"quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry."_
*2.* The fact that we don't all agree about what makes us happy is not a problem for utilitarianism. Utilitarians don't need to _"miraculously come up with consensus about what happiness is."_ People express their preferences in many observable ways - how they vote, what they purchase, where they choose to live etc. Utilitarians take differences in preferences into account when they decide what's best. Economists and politicians do the same thing when they recommend public spending designed to satisfy different demands within their communities.
*3.* The fact that it isn't always easy to figure out how best to maximise happiness also poses little problem to utilitarianism. We all have to make prudential choices in life. Sometimes we get things right, sometimes we don't. Utilitarianism simply makes moral decision making similar to prudential decision making. We do our best to make the world a happier place. That's the most we can reasonably expect to do; i.e. to do our best.
*4.* The fact that some people use what they *think* is utilitarian reasoning to do things like fund less important medical research or exploit workers in poor countries to get cheap coffee merely illustrates that such people aren't capable of good utilitarian reasoning. Interestingly, that's why some leading utilitarian thinkers including Henry Sidgwick, Peter Singer and Katarzyna Lazari-Radek think that it may not be the best theory to teach ordinary people. That may seem elitist, but when you look at the poor quality of reasoning people often use in online forums, I suspect that they are right. Even the presence of the coffee example at the end of this video raises doubts about the author's understanding of utilitarianism and utilitarians. Contemporary utilitarians are at the forefront of efforts to reduce global poverty and income inequality.

[dorahthedestroyer]

"a few thousand sla... i mean cheap labour" XD

[zeemalvern]

You make utilitarianism modern and relatable, super helpful. Thanks, man!

[GetThePicture]

Another GRTEAT video. You got one of the best channels in this genre dude. Your videos forces us to think. Keep it up

[ironmantis]

Happiness is overrated, suffering is what gives life meaning.

[BiznizTrademark]

Quite good description of utilitarianism, although I would not have mentioned the distinction of lower and higher pleasures, since few utilitarians have ever subscribed to it.

[benjamin_burke]

I think one of the things you fail to mention in this video is that 'utility' can be measured in more ways than collective happiness for the most individuals. Maybe instead the system is striving for economic prosperity, the preservation of the species, raised living standards, extending human rights.

[dominiqueforde]

I’m studying for and exam in ethics and I couldn’t find anything more understandable or relatable that’s this...thanks

[pb]

Great video. I like the Freudian slip at the end.

[johndonwood]

One of the main ideas that Mill tries to put across is that the utilitarian tries to place him or herself in the shoes of other people especially in regards to their welfare. We must all want what is good not only for ourselves but for other people as well.

[topolo]

How do you not have more suscribers? Your videos are awesome!!!

[turboglitter]

Hey, great video, but there's something I want to point out ...

There are not a few thousand workers / slaves underpaid by a few million consumers ... in fact, there are hundreds of millions of underpaid workers / slaves by a few million consumers.
The masses are the workers of the third world countries, not the consumers of the first world countries.

despite this, good work!

[leonaswift]

This was so good, refreshing in comparison to the monotone videos that sound like they're reciting a textbook. Thank you!

[pipsantos]

All philosophy focusing on happiness can be exploited. The teat for whether something is wrong or not wrong should be whether it violated individual freedom or it did not. Period. People can pursue happiness (if they want to) if they're free.

[PascaldeAguiar]

Well done ! It's very well explained in a very short time !

[Spiceodog]

Well the problem is that the homeless aren’t parasites on our community, they’re the victims of it so it’s not logical to see killing a homeless person to save a shop owner as a net good .

[katiehewitt]

It’s because of this utilitarianism that people are so unhappy

[jamesm]

"So if ur thinking about watching porn, try reading a book..." f*** is this dude thinking "about particle physics" bruh...

[bobagguk]

I understand why my teacher sent the link instead of showing it in class 🥴