Skip to main content

The simplest form of utilitarianism

I've heard it said that utilitarianism has this pragmatic benefit: it could constitute a plausible ethical consensus (even if we're all only pretending to believe it?) that could lessen the intensity of moral conflicts.  In other words, it is better to argue over non-fundamental things than over fundamental things, because we're more likely to go to war over the latter than the former.   

Thinking this through: reaping this benefit would require us, I suppose, to give our consent to the simplest possible form of utilitarianism, because only that one can promise to turn serious substantive moral conflicts into mere mechanical computations. 

In the spirit of Jeremy Bentham, portrayed above, then, let us suppose that pleasure could be measured in, say "positive hedons." Pain could be treated as negative hedons. Consider whether the govt should require a vaccine. Add up all the positive hedons the policy will create (discounting for uncertainties), subtract the negative hedons, and get the hedon total, which you then compare to the hedon totals for alternative inconsistent decisions. 

Arguments would still occur, but they'd be technical-sounding quarrels over the arithmetic, since the big questions would have been settled by the presumed consensus. Since people aren't likely to go to war over their differing calculations, this may well be a peaceful and so an attractive vision to some. 

Consider, to flesh this out a bit further, one premise necessary there: that one presumes the value of a continuing life, in hedons, is positive. Otherwise, murder is up for grabs, and "the victim would have had a negative-hedons life" becomes an affirmative defense. Further, consider the above example of vaccines again. Why does a  vaccine that works properly have any hedons to its credit? Because we presume it lengthens life. So, on this simple view, we need to presume that the balance of negative and positive hedons is positive. 

Suppose that if I had not gotten my MMR vaccine when I was a child, I would die ... today. But since I did, and it works, I will live ... oh, another 20 years. On the positive side of the ledger, then, we include whatever is the positive number of hedons we attribute to the extra 20 years of my life. Does that vary person to person, or do we assume a general background figure?

But anyway, something like that simple version of utilitarian can be credited, I suppose, with the possible consequence of making disputes over such questions technical boring ones, the sort for which nobody would take up arms. "Imagine ... nothing to kill or die for."

If we regard that versions as silly to the point of infantilism, and we try to correct it into a less silly version, we forfeit the simple consensus that this dream of peace relies upon. People might well fight for the very different versions they'll adopt once they start thinking for themselves and realize they aren't calculating machines alone. 

But almost nobody believes that this simple counting-style utilitarianism is true, and there is NO chance of getting the world to that fantasy consensus on it. Zip. 

Fun little fantasy, though.


  1. I question your assumption that we typically go to war over things that we argue about--that wars are arguments that have gotten out of hand. More typically, I believe, we go to war over psychological needs, particularly the need for power over others. This need is most prevalent in government leaders--why, after all, did they seek to become leaders in the first place? Also important is the need to submit to authority; this explains why people follow their leaders to war, even though it is contrary to their interests. Of course, the psychological issues are far more more complex than I've just outlined them as, but studying them is the direction that we should take.

  2. That's a good point. In general, though, I think that humans are pack animals. Like other mammals we divide the world into "us" and "them," where the various thems, other packs, are competitors for resources. Non-rational psychology does enter into this picture in that it determines who gets to be considered part of "us," part of a particular pack, and of course as you suggest it helps explain who leads the pack and who follows. Still, my suspicion is that most conflicts between packs are resource conflicts. THEIR pack is standing between ours and something we want. Those are usually the arguments that lead to wars, and that utilitarianism if everyone could agree on it would presumably tame. But of course everyone won't agree on it, for one obvious reason because utilitarianism tells us that there is nothing special about "us" as distinct from "them." So long as the creatures on both sides feel pleasures and pains. Which is a lesson that pack animals are chronically incapable of internalizing.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…