1
00:00:03,570 --> 00:00:06,570
Funding for this program provided by

2
00:00:06,510 --> 00:00:11,850
Additional funding provided by

3
00:00:32,850 --> 00:00:35,290
last time we argued about

4
00:00:35,290 --> 00:00:39,400
the case of the Queen verses Dudley and Stephens

5
00:00:39,400 --> 00:00:45,970
the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism
at sea

6
00:00:45,970 --> 00:00:48,420
and with the arguments about

7
00:00:48,420 --> 00:00:49,369
the lifeboat

8
00:00:49,369 --> 00:00:53,750
in mind the arguments for and against 
what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,

9
00:00:53,750 --> 00:00:56,890
let's turn back to the

10
00:00:56,890 --> 00:00:58,480
philosophy

11
00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:02,059
the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham

12
00:01:02,060 --> 00:01:06,130
Bentham was born in England in 1748,
at the age of twelve

13
00:01:06,130 --> 00:01:09,740
he went to Oxford, at fifteen he went to law
school

14
00:01:09,740 --> 00:01:15,060
he was admitted to the bar at age nineteen 
but he never practiced law,

15
00:01:15,060 --> 00:01:17,470
instead he devoted his life

16
00:01:17,470 --> 00:01:19,920
to jurisprudence and moral

17
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,170
philosophy.

18
00:01:22,170 --> 00:01:27,690
last time we began to consider Bentham's version
of utilitarianism

19
00:01:27,690 --> 00:01:28,810
the main idea

20
00:01:28,810 --> 00:01:32,870
is simply stated and it's this,

21
00:01:32,870 --> 00:01:35,750
the highest principle of morality

22
00:01:35,750 --> 00:01:38,909
whether personal or political morality

23
00:01:38,909 --> 00:01:40,260
is

24
00:01:40,260 --> 00:01:42,520
to maximize

25
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:44,390
the general welfare

26
00:01:44,390 --> 00:01:46,560
or the collective happiness

27
00:01:46,560 --> 00:01:50,070
or the overall balance of pleasure over
pain

28
00:01:50,070 --> 00:01:52,210
in a phrase

29
00:01:52,210 --> 00:01:53,210
maximize

30
00:01:53,210 --> 00:01:56,419
utility

31
00:01:56,420 --> 00:02:00,750
Bentham arrives at this principle by the following
line of reasoning

32
00:02:00,750 --> 00:02:03,150
we're all governed by pain and pleasure

33
00:02:03,150 --> 00:02:09,009
they are our sovereign masters and so any
moral system has to take account of them.

34
00:02:09,008 --> 00:02:10,999
How best to take account?

35
00:02:10,999 --> 00:02:14,209
By maximizing

36
00:02:14,209 --> 00:02:15,739
and this leads to the principle

37
00:02:15,739 --> 00:02:19,449
of the greatest good for the greatest
number

38
00:02:19,449 --> 00:02:23,029
what exactly should we maximize?

39
00:02:23,029 --> 00:02:24,698
Bentham tells us

40
00:02:24,699 --> 00:02:25,510
happiness

41
00:02:25,510 --> 00:02:27,728
or more precisely

42
00:02:27,729 --> 00:02:29,479
utility.

43
00:02:29,479 --> 00:02:34,239
Maximizing utility is a principal not only
for individuals but also for communities and

44
00:02:34,239 --> 00:02:36,569
for legislators

45
00:02:36,569 --> 00:02:38,749
what after all is a community

46
00:02:38,749 --> 00:02:41,359
Bentham asks,

47
00:02:41,359 --> 00:02:45,309
it's the sum of the individuals who comprise it

48
00:02:45,309 --> 00:02:46,780
and that's why

49
00:02:46,780 --> 00:02:53,370
in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the
law should be, in deciding what's just,

50
00:02:53,370 --> 00:02:59,029
citizens and legislators should ask themselves
the question if we add up,

51
00:02:59,029 --> 00:03:03,870
all of the benefits of this policy

52
00:03:03,870 --> 00:03:05,290
and subtract

53
00:03:05,290 --> 00:03:08,828
all of the costs,

54
00:03:08,829 --> 00:03:10,669
the right thing to do

55
00:03:10,669 --> 00:03:11,779
is the one

56
00:03:11,779 --> 00:03:13,439
that maximizes

57
00:03:13,439 --> 00:03:14,698
the balance

58
00:03:14,699 --> 00:03:16,020
of happiness

59
00:03:16,020 --> 00:03:20,869
over suffering.

60
00:03:20,869 --> 00:03:24,039
that's what it means to maximize utility

61
00:03:24,039 --> 00:03:24,988
now, today

62
00:03:24,989 --> 00:03:28,189
I want to see

63
00:03:28,189 --> 00:03:31,150
whether you agree or disagree with it,

64
00:03:31,150 --> 00:03:36,650
and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, under
the name of cost-benefit analysis

65
00:03:36,650 --> 00:03:39,719
which is used by companies

66
00:03:39,719 --> 00:03:41,219
and by

67
00:03:41,219 --> 00:03:41,978
governments

68
00:03:41,979 --> 00:03:43,729
all the time

69
00:03:43,729 --> 00:03:45,239
and what it involves

70
00:03:45,239 --> 00:03:50,789
is placing a value usually a dollar value
to stand for utility

71
00:03:50,789 --> 00:03:53,289
on the costs and the benefits

72
00:03:53,289 --> 00:03:56,539
of various proposals.

73
00:03:56,539 --> 00:03:58,879
recently in the Czech Republic

74
00:03:58,879 --> 00:04:03,370
there was a proposal to increases the excise
tax on smoking

75
00:04:03,370 --> 00:04:05,089
Philip Morris,

76
00:04:05,089 --> 00:04:08,219
the tobacco company,

77
00:04:08,219 --> 00:04:09,779
does huge business

78
00:04:09,779 --> 00:04:12,509
in the Czech Republic. They commissioned

79
00:04:12,509 --> 00:04:15,429
a study of cost-benefit analysis

80
00:04:15,430 --> 00:04:16,789
of smoking

81
00:04:16,789 --> 00:04:18,678
in the Czech Republic

82
00:04:18,678 --> 00:04:20,899
and what their cost benefit

83
00:04:20,899 --> 00:04:22,830
analysis found

84
00:04:22,830 --> 00:04:23,550
was

85
00:04:23,550 --> 00:04:25,660
the government gains

86
00:04:25,660 --> 00:04:27,349
by

87
00:04:27,349 --> 00:04:30,779
having Czech citizens smoke.

88
00:04:30,779 --> 00:04:32,360
Now, how do they gain?

89
00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:36,189
It's true that there are negative effects

90
00:04:36,189 --> 00:04:40,000
to the public finance of the Czech government

91
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:45,039
because there are increased health care costs
for people who develop smoking-related

92
00:04:45,039 --> 00:04:47,239
diseases

93
00:04:47,239 --> 00:04:50,369
on the other hand there were positive 
effects

94
00:04:50,369 --> 00:04:51,620
and those were

95
00:04:51,620 --> 00:04:53,099
added up

96
00:04:53,099 --> 00:04:55,378
on the other side of the ledger

97
00:04:55,379 --> 00:05:01,960
the positive effects included, for the most
part, various tax revenues that the government

98
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:06,239
derives from the sale of cigarette products
but it also included health care savings to

99
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:09,530
the government when people die early

100
00:05:09,530 --> 00:05:13,339
pensions savings, you don't have to pay pensions
for as long,

101
00:05:13,339 --> 00:05:14,889
and also savings

102
00:05:14,889 --> 00:05:19,679
in housing costs for the elderly

103
00:05:19,679 --> 00:05:24,539
and when all of the costs and benefits were added
up

104
00:05:24,539 --> 00:05:25,969
the Philip Morris

105
00:05:25,969 --> 00:05:27,870
study found

106
00:05:27,870 --> 00:05:32,610
that there is a net public finance gain
in the Czech Republic

107
00:05:32,610 --> 00:05:36,449
of a hundred and forty seven million dollars

108
00:05:36,449 --> 00:05:38,120
and given the savings

109
00:05:38,120 --> 00:05:41,479
in housing and health care and pension costs

110
00:05:41,479 --> 00:05:46,570
the government enjoys the saving of savings
of over twelve hundred dollars

111
00:05:46,570 --> 00:05:52,569
for each person who dies prematurely due to
smoking.

112
00:05:52,569 --> 00:05:56,740
cost-benefit analysis

113
00:05:56,740 --> 00:06:01,729
now, those among you who are defenders utilitarianism 
may think that this is a unfair

114
00:06:01,729 --> 00:06:03,389
test

115
00:06:03,389 --> 00:06:09,130
Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and
they issued an apology for this heartless

116
00:06:09,130 --> 00:06:10,990
calculation

117
00:06:10,990 --> 00:06:12,319
you may say

118
00:06:12,319 --> 00:06:17,119
that what's missing here is something that
the utilitarian can be easily incorporate

119
00:06:17,119 --> 00:06:19,339
mainly

120
00:06:19,339 --> 00:06:23,430
the value to the person and to the families
of those who die

121
00:06:23,430 --> 00:06:25,599
from lung cancer.

122
00:06:25,599 --> 00:06:29,190
what about the value of life?

123
00:06:29,190 --> 00:06:33,099
Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate

124
00:06:33,099 --> 00:06:34,560
a measure

125
00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:36,809
for the value of life.

126
00:06:36,809 --> 00:06:41,330
One of the most famous of these involved the
Ford Pinto case

127
00:06:41,330 --> 00:06:45,008
did any of you read about that? this was back
in the 1970's, you remember that

128
00:06:45,009 --> 00:06:48,210
the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car?

129
00:06:48,210 --> 00:06:51,029
anybody?

130
00:06:51,029 --> 00:06:55,879
it was a small car, subcompact car,
very popular

131
00:06:55,879 --> 00:06:58,059
but it had one

132
00:06:58,059 --> 00:07:01,959
problem which is the fuel tank was at the
back of the car

133
00:07:01,959 --> 00:07:07,960
and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded

134
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:10,210
and some people were killed

135
00:07:10,210 --> 00:07:14,349
and some severely injured.

136
00:07:14,349 --> 00:07:18,998
victims of these injuries took Ford to court
to sue

137
00:07:18,999 --> 00:07:21,669
and in the court case it turned out

138
00:07:21,669 --> 00:07:24,030
that Ford had long

139
00:07:24,030 --> 00:07:25,248
since known

140
00:07:25,249 --> 00:07:27,719
about the vulnerable fuel tank

141
00:07:27,719 --> 00:07:33,599
and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine
whether it would be worth it

142
00:07:33,599 --> 00:07:36,300
to put in a special shield

143
00:07:36,300 --> 00:07:40,490
that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it
from exploding.

144
00:07:40,490 --> 00:07:42,979
They did a cost benefit analysis

145
00:07:42,979 --> 00:07:46,318
the cost per part

146
00:07:46,319 --> 00:07:48,239
to increase the safety

147
00:07:48,239 --> 00:07:50,299
of the Pinto,

148
00:07:50,299 --> 00:07:55,688
they calculated at eleven dollars per part

149
00:07:55,689 --> 00:07:57,189
and here's,

150
00:07:57,189 --> 00:08:00,609
this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged

151
00:08:00,609 --> 00:08:03,089
in the trial,

152
00:08:03,089 --> 00:08:05,960
eleven dollars per part

153
00:08:05,960 --> 00:08:09,998
at 12.5 million cars and trucks

154
00:08:09,999 --> 00:08:13,559
came to a total cost of

155
00:08:13,370 --> 00:08:17,370
137 million dollars to improve the safety

156
00:08:17,370 --> 00:08:18,789
but then they calculated

157
00:08:18,789 --> 00:08:20,139
the benefits

158
00:08:20,139 --> 00:08:23,300
of spending all this money on a safer car

159
00:08:23,300 --> 00:08:26,800
and they counted 180 deaths

160
00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:28,749
and they assigned a dollar value

161
00:08:28,749 --> 00:08:30,449
200 thousand dollars

162
00:08:30,449 --> 00:08:32,490
per death

163
00:08:32,490 --> 00:08:35,250
180 injuries

164
00:08:35,250 --> 00:08:37,490
67 thousand

165
00:08:37,490 --> 00:08:38,909
and then the cost to repair

166
00:08:38,909 --> 00:08:43,289
the replacement cost for two thousand
vehicles that would be destroyed without the

167
00:08:43,289 --> 00:08:45,030
safety device

168
00:08:45,030 --> 00:08:48,060
700 dollars per vehicle,

169
00:08:48,060 --> 00:08:50,390
so the benefits

170
00:08:50,390 --> 00:08:53,930
turned out to be only 49.5 million,

171
00:08:53,930 --> 00:08:55,270
and so they

172
00:08:55,270 --> 00:08:56,329
didn't install

173
00:08:56,330 --> 00:08:58,140
the device

174
00:08:58,140 --> 00:08:59,840
needless to say

175
00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:01,740
when this memo

176
00:09:01,160 --> 00:09:09,160
of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came
out in the trial

177
00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:11,250
it appalled the jurors

178
00:09:11,250 --> 00:09:15,950
who awarded a huge settlement

179
00:09:15,950 --> 00:09:21,810
is this a counter example to the utilitarian
idea of calculating

180
00:09:21,810 --> 00:09:23,040
because Ford included a

181
00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:27,319
measure of the value life.

182
00:09:27,320 --> 00:09:30,770
Now who here wants to defend

183
00:09:30,770 --> 00:09:33,240
cost-benefit analysis from

184
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:35,320
this apparent counter example

185
00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:38,720
who has a defense?

186
00:09:38,720 --> 00:09:41,590
or do you think it's completely destroys

187
00:09:41,590 --> 00:09:47,410
the whole utilitarian calculus?

188
00:09:47,410 --> 00:09:48,760
I think that

189
00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:53,210
once again they've made the same mistake the previous case
did that they've assigned a dollar value

190
00:09:53,210 --> 00:09:56,570
to human life and once again they failed to take into
account things like

191
00:09:56,570 --> 00:10:00,580
suffering and emotional losses of families, I mean families
lost earnings

192
00:10:00,580 --> 00:10:03,980
but they also lost a loved one and that

193
00:10:03,980 --> 00:10:06,820
is more value than 200 thousand dollars.

194
00:10:06,820 --> 00:10:09,170
Good, and wait wait wait, what's you're name?

195
00:10:09,170 --> 00:10:10,479
Julie Roto.

196
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,400
so if two hundred thousand, Julie, is too

197
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:18,660
too low a figure because it doesn't include
the loss of a loved one,

198
00:10:18,660 --> 00:10:21,660
and the loss of those years of life,

199
00:10:21,660 --> 00:10:23,980
what would be, what do you think

200
00:10:23,980 --> 00:10:27,290
would be a more accurate number?

201
00:10:27,290 --> 00:10:32,430
I don't believe I could give a number I think
that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to

202
00:10:32,430 --> 00:10:33,560
issues of human life.

203
00:10:33,560 --> 00:10:36,199
I think it can't be used monetarily

204
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:39,270
so they didn't just put to low a number,

205
00:10:39,270 --> 00:10:44,510
Julie says, they were wrong to try to
put any number at all.

206
00:10:44,510 --> 00:10:49,540
all right let's hear someone who

207
00:10:49,540 --> 00:10:51,860
you have to adjust for inflation

208
00:10:57,700 --> 00:10:59,130
all right

209
00:10:59,130 --> 00:11:00,050
fair enough

210
00:11:00,050 --> 00:11:02,660
so what would the number of being now?

211
00:11:02,660 --> 00:11:07,640
this is was thirty five years ago

212
00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:10,330
two million dollars

213
00:11:10,330 --> 00:11:12,030
you would put two million

214
00:11:12,030 --> 00:11:14,079
and what's your name

215
00:11:14,080 --> 00:11:15,410
Voicheck

216
00:11:15,410 --> 00:11:17,329
Voicheck says we have to allow for inflation

217
00:11:17,330 --> 00:11:19,640
we should be more generous

218
00:11:19,640 --> 00:11:25,170
then would you be satisfied that this is the
right way of thinking about the question?

219
00:11:25,170 --> 00:11:27,310
I guess unfortunately

220
00:11:27,310 --> 00:11:29,589
it is for

221
00:11:29,590 --> 00:11:32,980
there's needs to be of number put somewhere

222
00:11:32,980 --> 00:11:37,330
I'm not sure what number would be but I do
agree that there could possibly

223
00:11:37,330 --> 00:11:39,490
be a number put

224
00:11:39,490 --> 00:11:41,060
on a human life.

225
00:11:41,060 --> 00:11:42,439
all right so

226
00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:44,420
Voicheck says

227
00:11:44,420 --> 00:11:46,280
and here he disagrees with

228
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:46,649
Julie

229
00:11:46,649 --> 00:11:49,750
Julie says we can't put a number of human
life

230
00:11:49,750 --> 00:11:53,670
for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis,
Voicheck says we have to

231
00:11:53,670 --> 00:11:59,870
because we have to make decisions somehow

232
00:11:59,870 --> 00:12:04,750
what do other people think about this?
Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit

233
00:12:04,750 --> 00:12:06,270
analysis here

234
00:12:06,270 --> 00:12:09,810
as accurate, as desirable?

235
00:12:09,810 --> 00:12:16,000
I think that if ford and other car companies didn't use
cost-benefit analysis they'd eventually go out

236
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:18,949
of business because they wouldn't be able
to be profitable

237
00:12:18,949 --> 00:12:23,139
and millions of people wouldn't be able to use
their cars to get to jobs, to put food on the table

238
00:12:23,139 --> 00:12:27,939
to feed their children so I think that if cost-benefit
analysis isn't employed

239
00:12:27,939 --> 00:12:29,699
the greater good

240
00:12:29,700 --> 00:12:31,870
is sacrificed

241
00:12:31,870 --> 00:12:34,810
in this case. Alright let me ask, what's your name?

242
00:12:34,810 --> 00:12:37,599
Raul. Raul.

243
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,760
there was recently a study done about cell
phone use by drivers, when people are driving

244
00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:43,090
a car,

245
00:12:43,090 --> 00:12:47,080
and there's a debate about whether that should be
banned

246
00:12:47,080 --> 00:12:48,660
and

247
00:12:48,660 --> 00:12:50,689
the figure was that some

248
00:12:50,690 --> 00:12:54,990
two thousand people die

249
00:12:54,990 --> 00:12:57,280
as a result of accidents

250
00:12:57,280 --> 00:12:59,240
each year

251
00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:02,120
using cell phones

252
00:13:02,120 --> 00:13:07,860
and yet the cost benefit analysis which was done by
the center for risk analysis at Harvard

253
00:13:07,860 --> 00:13:10,520
found that if you look at the benefits

254
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:13,560
of the cell phone use

255
00:13:13,560 --> 00:13:15,089
and you put some

256
00:13:15,090 --> 00:13:19,050
value on the life, it comes out about
the same

257
00:13:19,050 --> 00:13:23,290
because of the enormous economic benefit
of enabling people to take advantage

258
00:13:23,290 --> 00:13:27,370
of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals
and talk to friends and so on

259
00:13:27,370 --> 00:13:30,370
while they're driving

260
00:13:30,370 --> 00:13:32,060
doesn't that suggest that

261
00:13:32,060 --> 00:13:35,619
it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures
on questions

262
00:13:35,620 --> 00:13:37,590
of human life?

263
00:13:37,590 --> 00:13:39,330
well I think that if

264
00:13:39,330 --> 00:13:41,780
the great majority of people

265
00:13:41,780 --> 00:13:47,569
tried to derive maximum utility out of a service
like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones

266
00:13:47,570 --> 00:13:47,989
provide

267
00:13:47,989 --> 00:13:50,400
that sacrifice is necessary

268
00:13:50,400 --> 00:13:52,160
for

269
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:53,230
satisfaction to occur.

270
00:13:53,230 --> 00:13:59,200
You're an outright utilitarian. In, yes okay.

271
00:13:59,200 --> 00:14:02,820
all right then, one last question Raul

272
00:14:02,820 --> 00:14:05,810
and I put this to Voicheck,

273
00:14:05,810 --> 00:14:07,829
what dollar figure should be put

274
00:14:07,829 --> 00:14:12,870
on human life to decide whether to ban the
use of cell phones

275
00:14:12,870 --> 00:14:14,640
well I don't want to

276
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:16,199
arbitrarily

277
00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:18,140
calculate a figure, I mean right now

278
00:14:18,140 --> 00:14:19,370
I think that

279
00:14:21,350 --> 00:14:23,610
you want to take it under advisement.

280
00:14:23,610 --> 00:14:24,790
yeah I'll take it under advisement.

281
00:14:24,790 --> 00:14:28,689
but what roughly speaking would it be? you've
got 23 hundred deaths

282
00:14:28,690 --> 00:14:32,400
you've got to assign a dollar value to know
whether you want to prevent those deaths by

283
00:14:32,400 --> 00:14:37,069
banning the use of cell phones in cars

284
00:14:37,070 --> 00:14:38,900
so what would you're hunch be?

285
00:14:38,900 --> 00:14:40,350
how much?

286
00:14:40,350 --> 00:14:40,799
million

287
00:14:40,799 --> 00:14:42,280
two million

288
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:44,410
two million was Voitech's figure

289
00:14:44,410 --> 00:14:46,120
is that about right? maybe a million.

290
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:50,500
a million.?!

291
00:14:50,500 --> 00:14:55,110
Alright that's good, thank you

292
00:14:55,110 --> 00:15:00,440
So these are some of the controversies that arise
these days from cost-benefit analysis especially

293
00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:01,859
those that involve

294
00:15:01,859 --> 00:15:06,770
placing a dollar value on everything to be
added up.

295
00:15:06,770 --> 00:15:08,840
well now I want to turn

296
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:15,110
to your objections, to your objections not necessarily
to cost benefit analysis specifically,

297
00:15:15,110 --> 00:15:18,400
because that's just one version of the

298
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:21,959
utilitarian logic in practice today,

299
00:15:21,960 --> 00:15:26,830
but to the theory as a whole, to the idea

300
00:15:26,830 --> 00:15:30,000
that the right thing to do,

301
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:33,710
the just basis for policy and law,

302
00:15:33,710 --> 00:15:35,559
is to maximize

303
00:15:35,559 --> 00:15:39,750
utility.

304
00:15:39,750 --> 00:15:41,590
How many disagree

305
00:15:41,590 --> 00:15:43,359
with the utilitarian

306
00:15:43,359 --> 00:15:44,330
approach

307
00:15:44,330 --> 00:15:46,390
to law

308
00:15:46,390 --> 00:15:48,480
and to the common good?

309
00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:52,230
How many bring with it?

310
00:15:52,230 --> 00:15:55,200
so more agree than disagree.

311
00:15:55,200 --> 00:15:59,560
so let's hear from the critics

312
00:15:59,560 --> 00:16:02,209
my main issue with it is that I feel like

313
00:16:02,209 --> 00:16:06,280
you can't say that just because someone's
in the minority

314
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:11,650
what they want and need is less valuable than
someone who's in the majority

315
00:16:11,650 --> 00:16:14,189
so I guess I have an issue with the idea that

316
00:16:14,190 --> 00:16:16,099
the greatest good for the greatest number

317
00:16:16,099 --> 00:16:18,070
is okay because

318
00:16:18,070 --> 00:16:21,040
there is still what about people who are in

319
00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:24,719
the lesser number, like it's not fair to them
they didn't have a say in where they wanted

320
00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:25,840
to be.

321
00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:28,880
alright now that's an interesting objection, you're
worried about

322
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:32,460
the effect on minority. yes.

323
00:16:32,460 --> 00:16:34,940
what's your name by the way. Anna.

324
00:16:34,940 --> 00:16:39,819
alright who has an answer to Anna's worry about
the effect on the minority

325
00:16:39,819 --> 00:16:41,689
What do you say to Anna?

326
00:16:41,690 --> 00:16:42,540
she said that

327
00:16:42,540 --> 00:16:47,490
the minorities value less, I don't think that's
the case because individually the minorities

328
00:16:47,490 --> 00:16:51,339
value is just the same as the individual in the majority
it's just that

329
00:16:51,339 --> 00:16:54,520
the numbers outweigh the

330
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:55,670
minority

331
00:16:55,670 --> 00:16:58,919
and I mean at a certain point you have to make a
decision

332
00:16:58,919 --> 00:17:01,510
and I'm sorry for the minority but

333
00:17:01,510 --> 00:17:02,640
sometimes

334
00:17:02,640 --> 00:17:03,670
it's for the general

335
00:17:03,670 --> 00:17:08,839
for the greater good. For the greater good, Anna what do you
say? what's your name? Youngda.

336
00:17:08,839 --> 00:17:10,839
What do you say to Youngda?

337
00:17:10,839 --> 00:17:13,589
Youngda says you just have to add up people's
preferences

338
00:17:13,589 --> 00:17:17,698
and those in the minority do have their preferences
weighed.

339
00:17:17,699 --> 00:17:22,000
can you give an example of the kind of thing
you're worried about when you say you're worried

340
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:24,880
about utilitarianism violating

341
00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:27,970
the concern or respect due the minority?

342
00:17:27,970 --> 00:17:29,730
can you give an example.

343
00:17:29,730 --> 00:17:35,179
so well with any of the cases that we've talked
about, like with the shipwreck one,

344
00:17:35,179 --> 00:17:36,450
I think that

345
00:17:36,450 --> 00:17:39,700
the boy who was eaten

346
00:17:39,700 --> 00:17:39,980
still had

347
00:17:39,980 --> 00:17:43,560
just as much of a right to live as the other people
and

348
00:17:43,560 --> 00:17:44,710
just because

349
00:17:44,710 --> 00:17:45,980
he was the

350
00:17:48,120 --> 00:17:50,610
minority in that case the one who

351
00:17:50,610 --> 00:17:53,459
maybe had less of a chance to keep living

352
00:17:53,460 --> 00:17:54,870
that doesn't mean

353
00:17:54,870 --> 00:17:58,449
that the others automatically have a right
to eat him

354
00:17:58,450 --> 00:17:59,680
just because

355
00:17:59,680 --> 00:18:01,849
it would give a greater amount of people

356
00:18:01,849 --> 00:18:03,290
the chance to live.

357
00:18:03,290 --> 00:18:05,740
so there may be a certain rights

358
00:18:05,740 --> 00:18:07,850
that the minority

359
00:18:07,850 --> 00:18:12,550
members have that the individual has that
shouldn't be traded off

360
00:18:12,550 --> 00:18:14,399
for the sake of

361
00:18:14,400 --> 00:18:16,520
utility?

362
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:18,210
yes Anna?

363
00:18:18,210 --> 00:18:21,990
Now this would be a test for you,

364
00:18:21,990 --> 00:18:24,550
back in ancient Rome

365
00:18:24,550 --> 00:18:29,510
they threw Christians to the lions in the
coliseum for sport

366
00:18:29,510 --> 00:18:33,890
if you think how the utilitarian calculus
would go

367
00:18:33,890 --> 00:18:38,770
yes, the Christian thrown to the lion suffers enormous
excruciating pain,

368
00:18:38,770 --> 00:18:45,770
but look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans.

369
00:18:48,460 --> 00:18:50,580
Youngda. Well

370
00:18:50,580 --> 00:18:51,889
in that time

371
00:18:51,890 --> 00:18:53,250
I don't think

372
00:18:54,920 --> 00:19:01,710
in the modern-day of time to value the, um, to given 
a number to the happiness given to the people watching

373
00:19:01,710 --> 00:19:02,900
I don't think

374
00:19:02,900 --> 00:19:05,300
any

375
00:19:05,300 --> 00:19:07,490
policy maker would say

376
00:19:07,490 --> 00:19:11,390
the pain of one person, the suffering of one person is
much much,

377
00:19:11,390 --> 00:19:14,680
in comparison to the happiness gained

378
00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:20,460
no but you have to admit that if there were
enough Romans delirious with happiness,

379
00:19:20,460 --> 00:19:25,220
it would outweigh even the most excruciating
pain of a handful of

380
00:19:25,220 --> 00:19:28,600
Christians thrown to the lion.

381
00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:33,570
so we really have here two different objections
to utilitarianism

382
00:19:33,570 --> 00:19:35,030
one has to do

383
00:19:35,030 --> 00:19:37,850
with whether utilitarianism

384
00:19:37,850 --> 00:19:39,559
adequately respects

385
00:19:39,559 --> 00:19:40,740
individual rights

386
00:19:40,740 --> 00:19:42,500
or minority rights

387
00:19:42,500 --> 00:19:45,150
and the other has to do

388
00:19:45,150 --> 00:19:46,940
with the whole idea

389
00:19:46,940 --> 00:19:48,980
of aggregating

390
00:19:48,980 --> 00:19:49,900
utility

391
00:19:49,900 --> 00:19:51,610
for preferences

392
00:19:51,610 --> 00:19:53,070
or values

393
00:19:53,070 --> 00:19:56,470
is it possible to aggregate all values

394
00:19:56,470 --> 00:19:58,050
to translate them

395
00:19:58,050 --> 00:20:00,360
into dollar terms?

396
00:20:00,360 --> 00:20:02,479
there was

397
00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:07,000
in the 1930's

398
00:20:07,000 --> 00:20:09,190
a psychologist

399
00:20:09,190 --> 00:20:10,840
who tried

400
00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:12,370
to address

401
00:20:12,370 --> 00:20:15,850
the second question. He tried to prove

402
00:20:15,850 --> 00:20:18,530
what utilitarianism assumes,

403
00:20:18,530 --> 00:20:22,040
that it is possible

404
00:20:22,040 --> 00:20:23,230
to translate

405
00:20:23,230 --> 00:20:27,309
all goods, all values, all human concerns

406
00:20:27,309 --> 00:20:28,908
into a single uniform measure

407
00:20:28,909 --> 00:20:30,230
and he did this

408
00:20:30,230 --> 00:20:32,660
by conducting a survey

409
00:20:32,660 --> 00:20:37,610
of the young recipients of relief, this was
in the 1930's

410
00:20:37,610 --> 00:20:42,000
and he asked them, he gave them a list of
unpleasant experiences

411
00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:45,360
and he asked them how much would you have to
be paid to undergo

412
00:20:45,360 --> 00:20:49,899
the following experiences and he kept track

413
00:20:49,900 --> 00:20:51,040
for example

414
00:20:51,040 --> 00:20:57,240
how much would you have to be paid to have
one upper front tooth pulled out

415
00:20:57,240 --> 00:21:04,240
or how much would you have to be paid to have one little
one tow cut off?

416
00:21:05,030 --> 00:21:11,649
or eat a live earth worm, six inches long

417
00:21:11,650 --> 00:21:18,650
or to live the rest of your life on a farm in
Kansas

418
00:21:19,430 --> 00:21:24,480
or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands

419
00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:26,140
now what do you suppose

420
00:21:26,140 --> 00:21:32,900
what do you suppose was the most expensive
item on that list

421
00:21:32,900 --> 00:21:39,750
Kansas?

422
00:21:39,750 --> 00:21:44,840
You're right it was Kansas

423
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:46,059
for a Kansas

424
00:21:46,059 --> 00:21:47,619
people said they'd have to pay them

425
00:21:47,619 --> 00:21:51,980
they have to be paid three hundred
thousand dollars

426
00:21:57,340 --> 00:21:59,800
what do you think

427
00:21:59,800 --> 00:22:03,139
what do you think was the next most expensive?

428
00:22:03,140 --> 00:22:06,010
not the cat

429
00:22:06,010 --> 00:22:08,190
not the tooth

430
00:22:08,190 --> 00:22:11,250
not the toe

431
00:22:11,250 --> 00:22:16,580
the worm!

432
00:22:16,580 --> 00:22:20,600
people said you'd have to pay them a hundred
thousand dollars

433
00:22:20,600 --> 00:22:23,419
to eat the worm

434
00:22:23,420 --> 00:22:28,010
what do you think was the least expensive
item?

435
00:22:28,010 --> 00:22:30,010
not the cat

436
00:22:30,010 --> 00:22:31,300
the tooth

437
00:22:31,300 --> 00:22:34,990
during the depression people were willing
to have their tooth pulled

438
00:22:34,990 --> 00:22:39,600
for only forty five hundred dollars

439
00:22:39,600 --> 00:22:40,669
now

440
00:22:42,020 --> 00:22:45,010
here's what Thorndike

441
00:22:45,010 --> 00:22:48,460
concluded from his study

442
00:22:48,460 --> 00:22:51,650
any want or satisfaction which exists, exists

443
00:22:51,650 --> 00:22:54,600
in some amount and is therefore measurable

444
00:22:54,600 --> 00:22:55,949
the life of a dog

445
00:22:55,950 --> 00:22:57,010
or a cat

446
00:22:57,010 --> 00:22:59,430
or a chicken consists

447
00:22:59,430 --> 00:23:00,979
of appetites

448
00:23:00,979 --> 00:23:01,880
cravings

449
00:23:01,880 --> 00:23:04,290
desires and their gratifications

450
00:23:04,290 --> 00:23:05,750
so does the life

451
00:23:05,750 --> 00:23:06,940
of human beings

452
00:23:06,940 --> 00:23:09,409
though the appetites and desires

453
00:23:09,409 --> 00:23:12,450
are more complicated

454
00:23:12,450 --> 00:23:14,330
but what about

455
00:23:14,330 --> 00:23:15,990
Thorndike's study?

456
00:23:15,990 --> 00:23:17,870
does it support

457
00:23:17,870 --> 00:23:20,209
Bentham's idea

458
00:23:20,210 --> 00:23:22,130
that all

459
00:23:22,130 --> 00:23:28,390
goods all values can be captured according
to a single uniform measure of value

460
00:23:28,390 --> 00:23:34,289
or does the preposterous character of those
different items on the list

461
00:23:34,289 --> 00:23:37,220
suggest the opposite conclusion

462
00:23:37,220 --> 00:23:40,290
that may be whether we're talking about life

463
00:23:40,290 --> 00:23:42,120
or Kansas

464
00:23:42,120 --> 00:23:44,179
or the worm

465
00:23:44,180 --> 00:23:45,440
maybe

466
00:23:45,440 --> 00:23:47,810
the things we value

467
00:23:47,810 --> 00:23:49,399
and cherish

468
00:23:49,400 --> 00:23:51,350
can't be captured

469
00:23:51,350 --> 00:23:54,280
according to a single uniform measure of value

470
00:23:54,280 --> 00:23:56,129
and if they can't

471
00:23:56,130 --> 00:23:57,910
what are the consequences

472
00:23:57,910 --> 00:24:00,740
for the utilitarian theory

473
00:24:00,740 --> 00:24:02,180
of morality

474
00:24:02,180 --> 00:24:09,180
that's a question we'll continue with next
time

475
00:24:13,179 --> 00:24:15,530
alright now let's take the other

476
00:24:15,530 --> 00:24:17,680
part of the poll

477
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:19,309
which is the

478
00:24:19,309 --> 00:24:21,470
the highest

479
00:24:21,470 --> 00:24:23,410
experience or pleasure?

480
00:24:23,410 --> 00:24:25,659
how many say

481
00:24:25,659 --> 00:24:31,720
Shakespeare

482
00:24:31,720 --> 00:24:38,120
how many say fear Factor

483
00:24:38,120 --> 00:24:39,760
no you can't be serious

484
00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:46,160
really?

485
00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:48,530
last time

486
00:24:48,530 --> 00:24:53,510
last time we began to consider some objections

487
00:24:53,510 --> 00:24:56,570
to Jeremy Bentham's version

488
00:24:56,570 --> 00:25:01,790
of utilitarianism

489
00:25:01,790 --> 00:25:04,950
people raised two objections in the discussion

490
00:25:04,950 --> 00:25:08,380
we had

491
00:25:08,380 --> 00:25:10,600
the first

492
00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:12,709
was the objection, the claim

493
00:25:12,710 --> 00:25:14,760
that utilitarianism,

494
00:25:14,760 --> 00:25:16,970
by concerning itself

495
00:25:16,970 --> 00:25:20,110
with the greatest good for the greatest number

496
00:25:20,110 --> 00:25:23,120
fails adequately to respect

497
00:25:23,120 --> 00:25:25,479
individual rights.

498
00:25:25,480 --> 00:25:28,880
today we have debates

499
00:25:28,880 --> 00:25:29,990
about torture

500
00:25:29,990 --> 00:25:33,610
and terrorism

501
00:25:33,610 --> 00:25:35,139
suppose

502
00:25:35,140 --> 00:25:41,350
a suspected terrorists was apprehended
on September tenth

503
00:25:41,350 --> 00:25:44,189
and you had reason to believe

504
00:25:44,190 --> 00:25:46,490
that the suspect

505
00:25:46,490 --> 00:25:51,230
had crucial information about an impending
terrorist attack that would kill over three thousand

506
00:25:51,230 --> 00:25:52,200
people

507
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:55,690
and you couldn't extract the information

508
00:25:55,690 --> 00:25:57,670
would it be just

509
00:25:57,670 --> 00:25:59,440
to torture

510
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:01,070
the suspect

511
00:26:01,070 --> 00:26:03,060
to get the information

512
00:26:03,060 --> 00:26:05,550
or

513
00:26:05,550 --> 00:26:07,770
do you say no

514
00:26:07,770 --> 00:26:14,550
there is a categorical moral duty of 
respect for individual rights

515
00:26:14,550 --> 00:26:17,899
in a way we're back to the questions we started
with t

516
00:26:17,900 --> 00:26:23,910
about trolley cars and organ transplants so that's
the first issue

517
00:26:23,910 --> 00:26:29,250
and you remember we considered some examples of
cost-benefit analysis

518
00:26:29,250 --> 00:26:33,870
but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit
analysis

519
00:26:33,870 --> 00:26:39,969
when it came to placing a dollar value on
human life

520
00:26:39,970 --> 00:26:42,290
and so that led us to the

521
00:26:42,290 --> 00:26:44,500
second objection,

522
00:26:44,500 --> 00:26:48,810
it questioned whether it's possible to translate
all values

523
00:26:48,810 --> 00:26:52,879
into a single uniform measure of value

524
00:26:52,880 --> 00:26:57,580
it asks in other words whether all values
are commensurable

525
00:26:57,580 --> 00:27:00,080
let me give you one other

526
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:01,299
example

527
00:27:01,299 --> 00:27:07,240
of an experience, this actually is a true
story, it comes from personal experience

528
00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:12,900
that raises a question at least about whether
all values can be translated without

529
00:27:12,900 --> 00:27:14,060
loss

530
00:27:14,060 --> 00:27:20,158
into utilitarian terms

531
00:27:20,159 --> 00:27:22,390
some years ago

532
00:27:22,390 --> 00:27:28,080
when I was a graduate student I was at Oxford
in England and they had menâs and women's

533
00:27:28,080 --> 00:27:29,800
colleges they weren't yet mixed

534
00:27:29,800 --> 00:27:31,428
and the women's colleges had rules

535
00:27:31,429 --> 00:27:33,590
against

536
00:27:33,590 --> 00:27:37,470
overnight male guests

537
00:27:37,470 --> 00:27:40,080
by the nineteen seventies these

538
00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:44,030
rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,

539
00:27:44,030 --> 00:27:51,030
or so I was told,

540
00:27:51,600 --> 00:27:56,549
by the late nineteen seventies when I was there,
pressure grew to relax these rules and it became

541
00:27:56,549 --> 00:28:01,100
the subject of debate among the faculty at St. Anne's College

542
00:28:01,100 --> 00:28:03,840
which was one of these all women colleges

543
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:06,629
the older women on the faculty

544
00:28:06,630 --> 00:28:10,720
we're traditionalists they were opposed to
change

545
00:28:10,720 --> 00:28:12,820
on conventional moral grounds

546
00:28:12,820 --> 00:28:14,320
but times had changed

547
00:28:14,320 --> 00:28:17,110
and they were embarrassed

548
00:28:17,110 --> 00:28:20,000
to give the true grounds of their objection

549
00:28:20,000 --> 00:28:22,809
and so the translated their arguments

550
00:28:22,809 --> 00:28:26,120
into utilitarian terms

551
00:28:26,120 --> 00:28:27,419
if men stay overnight,

552
00:28:27,420 --> 00:28:31,680
they argued, the costs to the college will increase.

553
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:33,490
how you might wonder

554
00:28:33,490 --> 00:28:39,429
well they'll want to take baths, and that
will use up hot water they said

555
00:28:39,429 --> 00:28:40,779
furthermore they argued

556
00:28:40,779 --> 00:28:46,780
we'll have to replace the mattresses more often

557
00:28:46,780 --> 00:28:48,379
the reformers

558
00:28:48,380 --> 00:28:52,250
met these arguments by adopting the following
compromise

559
00:28:52,250 --> 00:28:53,280
each woman

560
00:28:53,280 --> 00:29:00,280
could have a maximum of three overnight male
guest each week

561
00:29:01,160 --> 00:29:05,940
they didn't say whether it had to be the same
one, or three different

562
00:29:05,940 --> 00:29:06,800
provided

563
00:29:06,800 --> 00:29:09,240
and this is the compromise provided

564
00:29:09,240 --> 00:29:10,400
the guest

565
00:29:10,400 --> 00:29:15,340
paid fifty pence to defray the cost to the college

566
00:29:15,340 --> 00:29:17,179
the next day

567
00:29:17,180 --> 00:29:23,080
the national headline in the national newspaper
read St. Anne's girls, fifty pence a night

568
00:29:29,500 --> 00:29:31,040
another

569
00:29:31,040 --> 00:29:31,730
illustration

570
00:29:31,730 --> 00:29:34,730
of the difficulty of translating

571
00:29:34,730 --> 00:29:36,150
all values

572
00:29:36,150 --> 00:29:38,930
in this case a certain idea of virtue

573
00:29:38,930 --> 00:29:44,200
into utilitarian terms

574
00:29:44,200 --> 00:29:46,980
so that's all to illustrate

575
00:29:46,980 --> 00:29:48,830
the second objection

576
00:29:48,830 --> 00:29:52,679
to utilitarianism, at least the
part of that objection

577
00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:54,780
that questions rather

578
00:29:54,780 --> 00:29:56,620
the utilitarianism

579
00:29:56,620 --> 00:29:58,809
is right to assume

580
00:29:58,809 --> 00:30:00,670
that we can

581
00:30:00,670 --> 00:30:02,420
assume the uniformity of

582
00:30:02,420 --> 00:30:08,230
value, the commensurability of values
and translate all moral considerations

583
00:30:08,230 --> 00:30:09,740
into

584
00:30:09,740 --> 00:30:10,280
dollars

585
00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:12,220
or money.

586
00:30:12,220 --> 00:30:14,510
But there is a second

587
00:30:14,510 --> 00:30:19,690
aspect to this worry about aggregating values
and preferences

588
00:30:19,690 --> 00:30:21,990
why should we

589
00:30:21,990 --> 00:30:23,120
weigh

590
00:30:23,120 --> 00:30:25,260
all preferences

591
00:30:25,260 --> 00:30:27,390
that people have

592
00:30:27,390 --> 00:30:32,650
without assessing whether they're good preferences
or bad preferences

593
00:30:32,650 --> 00:30:35,120
shouldn't we distinguish

594
00:30:35,120 --> 00:30:36,010
between

595
00:30:36,010 --> 00:30:37,590
higher

596
00:30:37,590 --> 00:30:38,260
pleasures

597
00:30:38,260 --> 00:30:41,760
and lower pleasures.

598
00:30:41,760 --> 00:30:44,250
Now, part of the appeal of

599
00:30:44,250 --> 00:30:49,380
not making any qualitative distinctions about
the worth of people's preferences, part of the

600
00:30:49,380 --> 00:30:50,820
appeal

601
00:30:50,820 --> 00:30:55,250
is that it is non-judgmental and egalitarian

602
00:30:55,250 --> 00:30:58,110
the Benthamite utilitarian says

603
00:30:58,110 --> 00:31:01,199
everybody's preferences count

604
00:31:01,200 --> 00:31:04,890
and they count regardless of what people want

605
00:31:04,890 --> 00:31:08,580
regardless of what makes it different people

606
00:31:08,580 --> 00:31:09,530
happy. For Bentham,

607
00:31:09,530 --> 00:31:11,250
all that matters

608
00:31:11,250 --> 00:31:12,960
you'll remember

609
00:31:12,960 --> 00:31:16,010
are the intensity and the duration

610
00:31:16,010 --> 00:31:18,270
of a pleasure or pain

611
00:31:18,270 --> 00:31:24,040
the so-called higher pleasures or nobler
virtues are simply those, according to Bentham

612
00:31:24,040 --> 00:31:25,420
that produce

613
00:31:25,420 --> 00:31:26,419
stronger,

614
00:31:26,419 --> 00:31:29,380
longer, pleasure

615
00:31:29,380 --> 00:31:32,790
yet a famous phrase to express this idea

616
00:31:32,790 --> 00:31:35,770
the quantity of pleasure being equal

617
00:31:35,770 --> 00:31:37,059
pushpin

618
00:31:37,059 --> 00:31:39,519
is as good as poetry.

619
00:31:39,519 --> 00:31:41,789
What was pushpin?

620
00:31:41,789 --> 00:31:46,929
It was some kind of a child's game like to tidily winks
pushpin is as good as poetry

621
00:31:46,929 --> 00:31:48,850
Bentham said

622
00:31:48,850 --> 00:31:50,509
and lying behind this idea

623
00:31:50,509 --> 00:31:51,510
I think

624
00:31:51,510 --> 00:31:52,779
is the claim

625
00:31:52,779 --> 00:31:54,090
the intuition

626
00:31:54,090 --> 00:31:55,870
that it's a presumption

627
00:31:55,870 --> 00:31:57,949
to judge

628
00:31:57,950 --> 00:31:58,979
whose pleasures

629
00:31:58,979 --> 00:32:00,670
are intrinsically higher

630
00:32:00,670 --> 00:32:03,850
or worthier or better

631
00:32:03,850 --> 00:32:07,010
and there is something attractive in this

632
00:32:07,010 --> 00:32:09,770
refusal to judge, after all some people like

633
00:32:09,770 --> 00:32:11,790
Mozart, others

634
00:32:11,790 --> 00:32:12,520
Madonna

635
00:32:12,520 --> 00:32:15,090
some people like ballet

636
00:32:15,090 --> 00:32:16,389
others

637
00:32:16,390 --> 00:32:17,360
bowling,

638
00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:19,439
who's to say

639
00:32:19,440 --> 00:32:23,140
a Benthamite might argue, who's to say which 
of these pleasures

640
00:32:23,140 --> 00:32:24,260
whose pleasures

641
00:32:24,260 --> 00:32:25,460
are higher

642
00:32:25,460 --> 00:32:26,350
worthier

643
00:32:26,350 --> 00:32:27,500
nobler

644
00:32:27,500 --> 00:32:31,570
than others?

645
00:32:31,570 --> 00:32:35,980
But, is that right?

646
00:32:35,980 --> 00:32:40,310
this refusal to make qualitative distinctions

647
00:32:40,310 --> 00:32:42,179
can we

648
00:32:42,180 --> 00:32:45,170
altogether dispense with the idea

649
00:32:45,170 --> 00:32:49,010
that certain things we take pleasure in are

650
00:32:49,010 --> 00:32:50,660
better or worthier

651
00:32:50,660 --> 00:32:53,890
than others

652
00:32:53,890 --> 00:32:58,640
think back to the case of the Romans in the coliseum,
one thing that troubled people about that

653
00:32:58,640 --> 00:32:58,960
practice

654
00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:01,170
is that it seemed to violate the rights

655
00:33:01,170 --> 00:33:04,490
of the Christian

656
00:33:04,490 --> 00:33:07,250
another way of objecting to what's going
on there

657
00:33:07,250 --> 00:33:10,720
is that the pleasure that the Romans
take

658
00:33:10,720 --> 00:33:13,480
in this bloody spectacle

659
00:33:13,480 --> 00:33:15,850
should that pleasure

660
00:33:15,850 --> 00:33:16,500
which is a base,

661
00:33:16,500 --> 00:33:19,130
kind of corrupt

662
00:33:19,130 --> 00:33:22,730
degrading pleasure, should that even

663
00:33:22,730 --> 00:33:26,960
be valorized or weighed in deciding what
the

664
00:33:26,960 --> 00:33:33,770
the general welfare is?

665
00:33:33,770 --> 00:33:38,760
so here are the objections to Bentham's
utilitarianism

666
00:33:38,760 --> 00:33:42,800
and now we turn to someone who tried to

667
00:33:42,800 --> 00:33:45,889
respond to those objections,

668
00:33:45,890 --> 00:33:47,820
a later day utilitarian

669
00:33:47,820 --> 00:33:50,120
John Stuart Mill

670
00:33:50,120 --> 00:33:52,780
so what we need to

671
00:33:52,780 --> 00:33:54,510
examine now

672
00:33:54,510 --> 00:33:58,809
is whether John Stuart Mill had a convincing
reply

673
00:33:58,809 --> 00:34:05,090
to these objections to utilitarianism.

674
00:34:05,090 --> 00:34:06,750
John Stuart Mill

675
00:34:06,750 --> 00:34:08,760
was born in 1806

676
00:34:08,760 --> 00:34:11,369
his father James Mill

677
00:34:11,369 --> 00:34:14,079
was a disciple of Benthamâs

678
00:34:14,079 --> 00:34:17,389
and James Mills set about giving his son

679
00:34:17,389 --> 00:34:20,329
John Stuart Mill a model education

680
00:34:20,329 --> 00:34:22,429
he was a child prodigy

681
00:34:22,429 --> 00:34:23,569
John Stuart Mill

682
00:34:23,569 --> 00:34:27,859
the knew Latin, sorry, Greek at the age of three, 
Latin at eight

683
00:34:27,859 --> 00:34:29,139
and at age ten

684
00:34:29,139 --> 00:34:33,659
he wrote a history of Roman law.

685
00:34:33,659 --> 00:34:35,649
At age twenty

686
00:34:35,649 --> 00:34:39,129
he had a nervous breakdown

687
00:34:39,129 --> 00:34:43,549
this left him in a depression for five years

688
00:34:43,549 --> 00:34:46,800
but at age twenty five what helped lift him
out of this depression

689
00:34:46,800 --> 00:34:49,949
is that he met Harriet Taylor

690
00:34:49,949 --> 00:34:52,659
she in no doubt married him, they lived happily ever after

691
00:34:52,659 --> 00:34:54,849
and it was under her

692
00:34:54,849 --> 00:34:56,659
influence

693
00:34:56,659 --> 00:34:59,859
the John Stuart Mill try to humanize

694
00:34:59,859 --> 00:35:01,720
utilitarianism

695
00:35:01,720 --> 00:35:05,279
what Mill tried to do was to see

696
00:35:05,279 --> 00:35:07,710
whether the utilitarian calculus could be

697
00:35:07,710 --> 00:35:09,029
enlarged

698
00:35:09,029 --> 00:35:11,200
and modified

699
00:35:11,200 --> 00:35:13,759
to accommodate

700
00:35:13,759 --> 00:35:17,429
humanitarian concerns

701
00:35:17,429 --> 00:35:20,390
like the concern to respect individual rights

702
00:35:20,390 --> 00:35:24,598
and also to address the distinction between
higher and lower

703
00:35:24,599 --> 00:35:26,439
pleasures.

704
00:35:26,439 --> 00:35:30,368
In 1859 Mill wrote a famous book
on liberty

705
00:35:30,369 --> 00:35:35,399
the main point of which was the importance
of defending individual rights and minority

706
00:35:35,399 --> 00:35:36,380
rights

707
00:35:36,380 --> 00:35:38,329
and in 1861

708
00:35:38,329 --> 00:35:40,339
toward the end of his life

709
00:35:40,339 --> 00:35:43,130
he wrote the book we read is part of this course

710
00:35:43,130 --> 00:35:45,099
Utilitarianism.

711
00:35:45,099 --> 00:35:46,599
It makes it clear

712
00:35:46,599 --> 00:35:49,739
that utility is the only standard of morality

713
00:35:49,739 --> 00:35:50,769
in his view

714
00:35:50,769 --> 00:35:52,549
so he's not challenging

715
00:35:52,550 --> 00:35:53,949
Bentham's premise,

716
00:35:53,949 --> 00:35:55,279
he's affirming it.

717
00:35:55,279 --> 00:35:58,829
he says very explicitly the sole evidence,

718
00:35:58,829 --> 00:36:04,659
it is possible to produce that anything is
desirable is that people actually do

719
00:36:04,659 --> 00:36:05,929
desire it.

720
00:36:05,929 --> 00:36:11,679
so he stays with the idea that our de facto
actual empirical desires are the only

721
00:36:11,679 --> 00:36:12,979
basis

722
00:36:12,979 --> 00:36:15,618
for moral judgment.

723
00:36:15,619 --> 00:36:17,549
but then

724
00:36:17,549 --> 00:36:18,979
page eight

725
00:36:18,979 --> 00:36:24,879
also in chapter two, he argues that it is possible
for a utilitarian to distinguish

726
00:36:24,879 --> 00:36:26,319
higher from lower

727
00:36:26,320 --> 00:36:28,970
pleasures.

728
00:36:28,970 --> 00:36:30,519
now, those of you who've read

729
00:36:30,519 --> 00:36:32,078
Mill already

730
00:36:32,079 --> 00:36:33,329
how

731
00:36:33,329 --> 00:36:36,559
according to him is it possible to draw that
distinction?

732
00:36:36,559 --> 00:36:40,079
How can a utilitarian

733
00:36:40,079 --> 00:36:42,819
distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures

734
00:36:42,819 --> 00:36:43,540
from

735
00:36:43,540 --> 00:36:48,859
lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones?

736
00:36:48,859 --> 00:36:50,519
If you tried both of them

737
00:36:50,519 --> 00:36:55,308
and you'll prefer the higher one naturally
always

738
00:36:55,309 --> 00:36:59,819
that's great, that's right. What's your name? John.

739
00:36:59,819 --> 00:37:01,759
so as John points out

740
00:37:01,759 --> 00:37:05,019
Mill says here's the test,

741
00:37:05,019 --> 00:37:07,868
since we can't step outside

742
00:37:07,869 --> 00:37:10,490
actual desires, actual preferences

743
00:37:10,490 --> 00:37:11,649
that would

744
00:37:11,650 --> 00:37:13,670
violate utilitarian premises,

745
00:37:13,670 --> 00:37:16,819
the only test

746
00:37:16,819 --> 00:37:17,600
of whether

747
00:37:17,600 --> 00:37:19,769
a pleasure is higher

748
00:37:19,769 --> 00:37:26,468
or lower is whether someone who has experienced
both

749
00:37:26,469 --> 00:37:28,109
would prefer it.

750
00:37:28,109 --> 00:37:29,369
And here,

751
00:37:29,369 --> 00:37:31,259
in chapter two

752
00:37:31,259 --> 00:37:32,900
we see the passage

753
00:37:32,900 --> 00:37:37,199
where Mill makes the point that John just described

754
00:37:37,199 --> 00:37:42,680
of two pleasures, if there be one to which all
are almost all who have experience

755
00:37:42,680 --> 00:37:46,219
of both give a decided preference,

756
00:37:46,219 --> 00:37:51,859
irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to
prefer it, in other words no outside, no independent

757
00:37:51,859 --> 00:37:53,390
standard,

758
00:37:53,390 --> 00:37:57,529
then that is the more desirable pleasure.

759
00:37:57,529 --> 00:37:59,829
what do people think about that argument.

760
00:37:59,829 --> 00:38:01,549
does that

761
00:38:01,549 --> 00:38:03,489
does it succeeded?

762
00:38:03,489 --> 00:38:06,380
how many think that it does succeed?

763
00:38:06,380 --> 00:38:11,489
of arguing within utilitarian terms for a
distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

764
00:38:11,489 --> 00:38:12,390
how many

765
00:38:12,390 --> 00:38:17,788
think it doesn't succeed?

766
00:38:17,789 --> 00:38:20,829
I want to hear your reasons.

767
00:38:20,829 --> 00:38:22,249
but before

768
00:38:22,249 --> 00:38:23,848
we give the reasons

769
00:38:23,849 --> 00:38:26,329
let's do an experiment

770
00:38:26,329 --> 00:38:28,719
of Mills'

771
00:38:28,719 --> 00:38:31,569
claim.

772
00:38:31,569 --> 00:38:35,199
In order to do this experiment

773
00:38:35,199 --> 00:38:39,859
we're going to look that three

774
00:38:39,859 --> 00:38:41,558
short excerpts

775
00:38:41,559 --> 00:38:44,889
of popular entertainment

776
00:38:44,889 --> 00:38:48,170
the first one is a Hamlet soliloquy

777
00:38:48,170 --> 00:38:52,939
it'll be followed by two other

778
00:38:52,939 --> 00:38:55,420
experiences

779
00:38:55,420 --> 00:38:58,259
see what you think.

780
00:38:58,259 --> 00:39:02,249
'what a piece of work is a man

781
00:39:02,249 --> 00:39:05,509
how noble in reason

782
00:39:05,509 --> 00:39:07,579
how infinite in faculties

783
00:39:07,579 --> 00:39:11,439
in form and moving, how express and admirable

784
00:39:11,439 --> 00:39:14,949
in action how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god

785
00:39:14,949 --> 00:39:16,430
the beauty of the world

786
00:39:16,430 --> 00:39:18,348
the paragon of animals

787
00:39:18,349 --> 00:39:21,259
and yet, to me

788
00:39:21,259 --> 00:39:24,689
what is this quintessence of dust?

789
00:39:24,689 --> 00:39:31,689
man delights not me.

790
00:39:43,309 --> 00:39:47,749
Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality

791
00:39:47,749 --> 00:39:52,609
each show, six contestants from around the country battle
each other in three

792
00:39:52,609 --> 00:39:59,609
extreme stunts. these stunts are designed to challenge 
these contestants both physically and mentally

793
00:40:00,419 --> 00:40:02,288
six contestants, three stunts, one winner.

794
00:40:02,289 --> 00:40:09,289
Fear factor.

795
00:40:16,449 --> 00:40:22,919
The Simpsons. Well hi diddly-o peddle to the metal o-philes! 
Flanders- since when do you like anything cool.

796
00:40:22,919 --> 00:40:25,240
well, I don't care for the speed, but I can't get enough of that 
safety gear

797
00:40:25,240 --> 00:40:28,729
helmets, roll bars, caution flags. I like the fresh
air

798
00:40:28,729 --> 00:40:35,499
and looking at the poor people in the infield.

799
00:40:35,499 --> 00:40:41,319
Dang Cletus, why you got to park by my parents.

800
00:40:41,320 --> 00:40:43,029
Now hunny, it's my parents too.

801
00:40:55,759 --> 00:41:00,629
I don't even have to ask which one you like
most

802
00:41:00,629 --> 00:41:05,109
the Simpsons? How many like the Simpson's most?

803
00:41:05,109 --> 00:41:10,140
How many Shakespeare?

804
00:41:10,140 --> 00:41:12,710
What about fear factor?

805
00:41:12,710 --> 00:41:15,959
how many preferred fear factor?

806
00:41:15,959 --> 00:41:22,368
really?

807
00:41:22,369 --> 00:41:24,079
people overwhelmingly

808
00:41:24,079 --> 00:41:25,769
like the Simpsons

809
00:41:25,769 --> 00:41:29,229
better

810
00:41:29,229 --> 00:41:31,598
than Shakespeare. alright, now let's take the other

811
00:41:31,599 --> 00:41:33,749
part of the poll

812
00:41:33,749 --> 00:41:35,799
which is the

813
00:41:35,799 --> 00:41:37,529
highest

814
00:41:37,529 --> 00:41:39,409
experience or pleasure?

815
00:41:39,409 --> 00:41:41,729
how many say

816
00:41:41,729 --> 00:41:47,788
Shakespeare?

817
00:41:47,789 --> 00:41:49,960
how many say

818
00:41:49,960 --> 00:41:54,189
fear factor?

819
00:41:54,189 --> 00:41:59,069
no you can't be serious

820
00:41:59,069 --> 00:42:01,038
really?

821
00:42:01,039 --> 00:42:02,709
alright go ahead you can say it.

822
00:42:02,709 --> 00:42:03,439
I found that one

823
00:42:03,439 --> 00:42:04,709
the most entertaining

824
00:42:04,709 --> 00:42:09,428
I know but which do you think was the worthiest, 
the noblest experience, I know you find it

825
00:42:09,429 --> 00:42:10,920
the most anything

826
00:42:10,920 --> 00:42:15,920
if something is good just because it is pleasurable
what is the matter if you have some kind of

827
00:42:15,920 --> 00:42:17,209
abstract

828
00:42:17,209 --> 00:42:21,729
idea of whether it is good by someone else's
sense or not.

829
00:42:21,729 --> 00:42:25,038
Alright so you come down on the straight Benthamite's side

830
00:42:25,039 --> 00:42:26,429
whose to judge

831
00:42:26,429 --> 00:42:29,279
and why should we judge

832
00:42:29,279 --> 00:42:33,880
apart from just registering and aggregating
de facto preferences, alright fair enough.

833
00:42:33,880 --> 00:42:35,349
what's your name?

834
00:42:35,349 --> 00:42:37,329
Nate? okay fair enough

835
00:42:37,329 --> 00:42:38,219
Alright so

836
00:42:38,219 --> 00:42:40,919
how many think that the Simpson's is actually

837
00:42:40,919 --> 00:42:46,259
apart from liking is actually the higher experience

838
00:42:46,259 --> 00:42:47,420
higher than Shakespeare.

839
00:42:47,420 --> 00:42:49,309
Alright let's see the vote for Shakespeare again

840
00:42:49,309 --> 00:42:52,869
how many think Shakespeare is higher?

841
00:42:52,869 --> 00:42:53,869
alright so

842
00:42:53,869 --> 00:42:55,540
why is it

843
00:42:55,540 --> 00:42:58,999
ideally I'd like to hear from someone is there
someone

844
00:42:58,999 --> 00:43:02,109
think Shakespeare is highest

845
00:43:02,109 --> 00:43:02,989
but who preferred

846
00:43:02,989 --> 00:43:04,060
watching

847
00:43:04,060 --> 00:43:08,739
the Simpsons

848
00:43:08,739 --> 00:43:14,160
Like I guess just sitting and watching the Simpsons, it's entertaining
because the make jokes, they make us laugh but

849
00:43:14,160 --> 00:43:17,839
someone has to tell us that Shakespeare was this great writer
we had to be taught how to read him, how to

850
00:43:17,839 --> 00:43:20,630
understand him, we had to be taught how to

851
00:43:20,630 --> 00:43:23,150
take in Rembrandt, how to analyze a painting.

852
00:43:23,150 --> 00:43:25,859
well how do, what's your name? Aneesha.

853
00:43:25,859 --> 00:43:27,840
Aneesha, when you say someone

854
00:43:27,840 --> 00:43:31,259
told you that Shakespeare's better

855
00:43:31,259 --> 00:43:37,299
are you accepting it on blind faith you voted that
Shakespeare's higher only because the culture

856
00:43:37,299 --> 00:43:41,529
tells you that our teachers tell you that
or do you

857
00:43:41,529 --> 00:43:44,049
actually agree with that yourself

858
00:43:44,049 --> 00:43:48,319
well in the sense that Shakespeare, no, but earlier you made

859
00:43:48,319 --> 00:43:49,740
an example of Rembrandt

860
00:43:49,740 --> 00:43:54,479
I feel like I would enjoy a reading a comic book
more than I would enjoy a kind of analyzing

861
00:43:54,479 --> 00:43:58,348
Rembrandt because someone told me it was
great, you know. Right so of some this seems

862
00:43:58,349 --> 00:44:01,699
to be, you're suggesting a kind of

863
00:44:01,699 --> 00:44:05,319
cultural convention and pressure. We're told

864
00:44:05,319 --> 00:44:12,319
what books, what works of art are great. who else?

865
00:44:15,309 --> 00:44:19,640
although I enjoyed watching the Simpsons more
in this particular moment in Justice,

866
00:44:19,640 --> 00:44:23,049
if I were to spend the rest of my life
considering

867
00:44:23,049 --> 00:44:25,369
the three different

868
00:44:25,369 --> 00:44:26,869
video clips shown

869
00:44:26,869 --> 00:44:29,119
I would not want to spend

870
00:44:29,119 --> 00:44:31,869
that remainder of my life considering

871
00:44:31,869 --> 00:44:33,800
the latter two clips.

872
00:44:33,800 --> 00:44:36,650
I think I would derive more pleasure

873
00:44:36,650 --> 00:44:38,309
from being able to

874
00:44:38,309 --> 00:44:39,269
branch out in my own mind

875
00:44:39,269 --> 00:44:40,488
sort of

876
00:44:40,489 --> 00:44:44,869
considering more deep pleasures, more
deep thoughts.

877
00:44:44,869 --> 00:44:48,630
and tell me your name

878
00:44:48,630 --> 00:44:49,630
Joe.

879
00:44:49,630 --> 00:44:52,559
Joe, so if you had to spend the rest of your life
on

880
00:44:52,559 --> 00:44:55,409
on a farm in Kansas with only

881
00:44:55,409 --> 00:44:57,489
with only Shakespeare

882
00:44:57,489 --> 00:45:02,079
or the collected episodes of the Simpsons

883
00:45:02,079 --> 00:45:04,119
you would prefer

884
00:45:04,119 --> 00:45:06,599
Shakespeare

885
00:45:06,599 --> 00:45:09,849
what do you conclude from that

886
00:45:09,849 --> 00:45:12,149
about John Stuart Mill's test

887
00:45:12,149 --> 00:45:15,078
but the test of a higher pleasure

888
00:45:15,079 --> 00:45:16,359
is whether

889
00:45:16,359 --> 00:45:18,369
people who have experienced

890
00:45:18,369 --> 00:45:21,509
both prefer it.

891
00:45:21,509 --> 00:45:23,880
can I cite another example briefly?

892
00:45:23,880 --> 00:45:25,130
in biology

893
00:45:25,130 --> 00:45:28,769
in neuro biology last year we were told of a rat who was
tested

894
00:45:28,769 --> 00:45:31,209
a particular center in the brain

895
00:45:31,209 --> 00:45:35,879
where the rat was able to stimulate its
brain and cause itself intense pleasure repeatedly

896
00:45:35,879 --> 00:45:38,368
the rat did not eat or drink until it died

897
00:45:38,369 --> 00:45:42,179
so the rat was clearly experiencing intense
pleasure

898
00:45:42,179 --> 00:45:46,269
now if you asked me right now if I'd rather
experience intense pleasure

899
00:45:46,269 --> 00:45:47,140
or have

900
00:45:47,140 --> 00:45:52,690
a full lifetime of higher pleasure, I would consider
intense pleasure to be lower pleasure, right

901
00:45:52,690 --> 00:45:55,799
now enjoy intense pleasure

902
00:45:55,799 --> 00:46:01,969
yes I would

903
00:46:01,969 --> 00:46:03,159
but over a lifetime I think

904
00:46:03,159 --> 00:46:04,360
I would think

905
00:46:04,360 --> 00:46:06,899
almost a complete majority here would agree

906
00:46:06,899 --> 00:46:11,630
that they would rather be a human
with higher pleasure that rat

907
00:46:11,630 --> 00:46:13,269
with intense pleasure

908
00:46:13,269 --> 00:46:14,930
for a momentary period of time

909
00:46:14,930 --> 00:46:15,870
so now

910
00:46:15,870 --> 00:46:18,959
in answer to your question, right, I think

911
00:46:18,959 --> 00:46:21,348
this proves that, or I won't say proves

912
00:46:21,349 --> 00:46:24,999
I think the conclusion

913
00:46:24,999 --> 00:46:28,649
is that Mill's theory that when a majority people are
asked

914
00:46:28,650 --> 00:46:31,439
what they would rather do,

915
00:46:31,439 --> 00:46:33,118
they will answer

916
00:46:33,119 --> 00:46:34,689
that they would rather

917
00:46:34,689 --> 00:46:39,499
engage in a higher pleasure. So you think that this
supports Mills, that Mills was on to something here

918
00:46:39,499 --> 00:46:40,738
I do.

919
00:46:40,739 --> 00:46:42,629
all right is there anyone

920
00:46:42,629 --> 00:46:46,839
who disagrees with Joe who thinks that
our experiment

921
00:46:46,839 --> 00:46:48,578
disproves

922
00:46:48,579 --> 00:46:49,959
Mills'

923
00:46:49,959 --> 00:46:51,098
test

924
00:46:51,099 --> 00:46:53,239
shows that that's not an adequate way

925
00:46:53,239 --> 00:46:57,689
that you can't distinguish higher pleasures within
the utilitarian

926
00:46:57,689 --> 00:47:02,649
framework.

927
00:47:05,879 --> 00:47:09,509
If whatever is good is truly just whatever
people prefer it's truly relative and there's

928
00:47:09,509 --> 00:47:11,519
no objective definition then

929
00:47:11,519 --> 00:47:14,888
there will be some society where people prefer
Simpsons

930
00:47:14,889 --> 00:47:15,849
more

931
00:47:15,849 --> 00:47:21,380
anyone can appreciate the Simpsons, but I think
it does take education to appreciate Shakespeare

932
00:47:21,380 --> 00:47:25,660
Alright, you're saying it takes education to appreciate
higher

933
00:47:25,660 --> 00:47:27,319
true thing

934
00:47:27,319 --> 00:47:29,719
Mill's point is

935
00:47:29,719 --> 00:47:32,890
that the higher pleasures do require

936
00:47:32,890 --> 00:47:35,089
cultivation and appreciation and education

937
00:47:35,090 --> 00:47:37,799
he doesn't dispute that

938
00:47:37,799 --> 00:47:38,650
but

939
00:47:38,650 --> 00:47:41,660
once having been cultivated

940
00:47:41,660 --> 00:47:44,029
and educated

941
00:47:44,029 --> 00:47:45,509
people will see

942
00:47:45,509 --> 00:47:48,270
not only see the difference between higher
lower

943
00:47:48,270 --> 00:47:49,009
pleasures

944
00:47:49,009 --> 00:47:51,539
but will it actually

945
00:47:51,539 --> 00:47:52,769
prefer

946
00:47:52,769 --> 00:47:53,970
the higher

947
00:47:53,970 --> 00:47:55,848
to the lower.

948
00:47:55,849 --> 00:47:59,519
you find this famous passage from John Stuart
Mill-

949
00:47:59,519 --> 00:48:00,808
it is better

950
00:48:00,809 --> 00:48:03,869
to be a human being dissatisfied

951
00:48:03,869 --> 00:48:06,109
then a pig satisfied.

952
00:48:06,109 --> 00:48:10,538
Better to the Socrates dissatisfied than
a fool satisfied

953
00:48:10,539 --> 00:48:12,229
and if the fool

954
00:48:12,229 --> 00:48:13,439
or the pig

955
00:48:13,439 --> 00:48:15,538
are of a different opinion

956
00:48:15,539 --> 00:48:18,209
it is because they only know

957
00:48:18,209 --> 00:48:20,700
their side of the question.

958
00:48:20,700 --> 00:48:22,339
so here you have

959
00:48:22,339 --> 00:48:23,159
an attempt

960
00:48:23,159 --> 00:48:24,609
to distinguish

961
00:48:24,609 --> 00:48:27,199
higher from lower

962
00:48:27,199 --> 00:48:28,719
pleasures

963
00:48:28,719 --> 00:48:33,169
so going to an art museum or being a couch
potato, swilling beer watching television

964
00:48:33,169 --> 00:48:35,489
at home

965
00:48:35,489 --> 00:48:37,950
sometimes Mill agrees we might succumb

966
00:48:37,950 --> 00:48:40,839
to the temptation

967
00:48:40,839 --> 00:48:41,839
to do the latter,

968
00:48:41,839 --> 00:48:46,308
to be couch potatoes,

969
00:48:46,309 --> 00:48:47,779
but even when we do that

970
00:48:47,779 --> 00:48:49,609
out of indolence

971
00:48:49,609 --> 00:48:50,680
and sloth,

972
00:48:50,680 --> 00:48:52,200
we know

973
00:48:52,200 --> 00:48:54,029
that the pleasure we get

974
00:48:54,029 --> 00:48:55,670
gazing at Rembrandts

975
00:48:55,670 --> 00:48:56,989
in the museum

976
00:48:56,989 --> 00:49:00,219
is actually higher,

977
00:49:00,219 --> 00:49:03,190
because we've experienced both.

978
00:49:03,190 --> 00:49:05,699
And is a higher pressure

979
00:49:05,699 --> 00:49:06,940
gazing at Rembrandts

980
00:49:06,940 --> 00:49:11,499
because of engages our higher human faculties

981
00:49:11,499 --> 00:49:13,848
what about Mill's attempt

982
00:49:13,849 --> 00:49:18,890
to reply to the objection about individual rights?

983
00:49:18,890 --> 00:49:21,859
In a way he uses the same

984
00:49:21,859 --> 00:49:25,319
kind of argument

985
00:49:25,319 --> 00:49:27,859
and this comes out in chapter five

986
00:49:27,859 --> 00:49:33,369
he says while I dispute the pretensions of any
theory which sets up an imaginary standard

987
00:49:33,369 --> 00:49:34,889
of justice

988
00:49:34,889 --> 00:49:39,719
not grounded on utility,

989
00:49:39,719 --> 00:49:41,389
but still

990
00:49:41,389 --> 00:49:43,429
he considers

991
00:49:43,429 --> 00:49:44,599
justice

992
00:49:44,599 --> 00:49:48,549
grounded on utility to be what he calls the
chief part

993
00:49:48,549 --> 00:49:52,679
and incomparably the most sacred and binding
part

994
00:49:52,679 --> 00:49:54,599
of all morality.

995
00:49:54,599 --> 00:49:57,249
so justice is higher

996
00:49:57,249 --> 00:50:00,049
individual rights are privileged

997
00:50:00,049 --> 00:50:01,899
but not for

998
00:50:01,899 --> 00:50:05,310
reasons that depart from utilitarian assumptions.

999
00:50:05,310 --> 00:50:06,769
Justice is a name

1000
00:50:06,769 --> 00:50:09,069
for certain moral requirements

1001
00:50:09,069 --> 00:50:11,220
which, regarded collectively

1002
00:50:11,220 --> 00:50:14,519
stand higher in the scale of social utility

1003
00:50:14,519 --> 00:50:17,109
and are therefore

1004
00:50:17,109 --> 00:50:19,209
of more

1005
00:50:19,209 --> 00:50:20,678
paramount obligation

1006
00:50:20,679 --> 00:50:23,200
than any others

1007
00:50:23,200 --> 00:50:28,919
so justice is sacred, it's prior, it's privileged,
it isn't something that can easily be traded

1008
00:50:28,920 --> 00:50:30,890
off against lesser things

1009
00:50:30,890 --> 00:50:32,239
but the reason

1010
00:50:32,239 --> 00:50:33,619
is ultimately

1011
00:50:33,619 --> 00:50:35,799
Mills Claims

1012
00:50:35,799 --> 00:50:37,929
a utilitarian reason

1013
00:50:37,929 --> 00:50:39,239
once you consider

1014
00:50:39,239 --> 00:50:41,199
the long run interests

1015
00:50:41,199 --> 00:50:43,539
of humankind,

1016
00:50:43,539 --> 00:50:44,670
of all of us,

1017
00:50:44,670 --> 00:50:46,329
as progressive

1018
00:50:46,329 --> 00:50:47,699
beings.

1019
00:50:47,699 --> 00:50:51,279
If we do justice and if we respect rights

1020
00:50:51,279 --> 00:50:52,609
society as a whole

1021
00:50:52,609 --> 00:50:55,949
will be better off in the long run.

1022
00:50:55,949 --> 00:50:57,999
Well is that convincing?

1023
00:50:57,999 --> 00:50:59,158
Or

1024
00:50:59,159 --> 00:51:04,549
is Mill actually, without admitting it, stepping
outside

1025
00:51:04,549 --> 00:51:06,219
utilitarian considerations

1026
00:51:06,219 --> 00:51:07,789
in arguing

1027
00:51:07,789 --> 00:51:11,129
for qualitatively higher

1028
00:51:11,129 --> 00:51:12,788
pleasures

1029
00:51:12,789 --> 00:51:14,479
and for sacred

1030
00:51:14,479 --> 00:51:16,948
or specially important

1031
00:51:16,949 --> 00:51:18,479
individual rights?

1032
00:51:18,479 --> 00:51:21,718
we haven't fully answered that question

1033
00:51:21,719 --> 00:51:23,809
because to answer that question

1034
00:51:23,809 --> 00:51:26,259
in the case of rights and justice

1035
00:51:26,259 --> 00:51:28,869
will require that we explore

1036
00:51:28,869 --> 00:51:30,419
other ways,

1037
00:51:30,419 --> 00:51:33,368
non utilitarian ways

1038
00:51:33,369 --> 00:51:35,030
of accounting for the basis

1039
00:51:35,030 --> 00:51:36,479
or rights

1040
00:51:36,479 --> 00:51:38,269
and then asking

1041
00:51:38,269 --> 00:51:40,408
whether they succeed

1042
00:51:40,409 --> 00:51:42,949
as for Jeremy Bentham,

1043
00:51:42,949 --> 00:51:44,969
who launched

1044
00:51:44,969 --> 00:51:46,099
utilitarianism

1045
00:51:46,099 --> 00:51:47,419
as a doctrine

1046
00:51:47,419 --> 00:51:49,979
in moral and legal philosophy

1047
00:51:49,979 --> 00:51:53,819
Bentham died in 1832 at the
age of eighty five

1048
00:51:53,819 --> 00:51:57,509
but if you go to London you can visit him
today

1049
00:51:57,509 --> 00:51:58,729
literally.

1050
00:51:58,729 --> 00:52:01,439
he provided in his will

1051
00:52:01,440 --> 00:52:03,390
that his body be preserved,

1052
00:52:03,390 --> 00:52:05,489
embalmed and displayed

1053
00:52:05,489 --> 00:52:07,739
in the university of London

1054
00:52:07,739 --> 00:52:11,069
where he still presides in a glass case

1055
00:52:11,069 --> 00:52:12,950
with a wax head

1056
00:52:12,950 --> 00:52:14,989
dressed in his actual clothing.

1057
00:52:14,989 --> 00:52:17,049
you see before he died,

1058
00:52:17,049 --> 00:52:22,339
Bentham addressed himself to a question consistent
with his philosophy,

1059
00:52:22,339 --> 00:52:23,499
of what use

1060
00:52:23,499 --> 00:52:26,839
could a dead man be to the living

1061
00:52:26,839 --> 00:52:30,499
one use, he said, would be to make one's corpse
available

1062
00:52:30,499 --> 00:52:33,519
for the study of anatomy

1063
00:52:33,519 --> 00:52:37,129
in the case of great philosophers, however,

1064
00:52:37,129 --> 00:52:38,159
better yet

1065
00:52:38,159 --> 00:52:44,919
to preserve one's physical presence in order
to inspire future generations of thinkers.

1066
00:52:44,919 --> 00:52:47,618
You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?

1067
00:52:47,619 --> 00:52:50,410
Here's what he looks like

1068
00:52:50,410 --> 00:52:53,549
There he is

1069
00:52:53,549 --> 00:52:55,459
now, if you look closely

1070
00:52:55,459 --> 00:52:57,459
you'll notice

1071
00:52:57,459 --> 00:52:58,529
that

1072
00:52:58,529 --> 00:53:05,529
the embalming up his actual had was not a
success so they substituted a waxed head

1073
00:53:06,910 --> 00:53:10,009
and at the bottom for verisimilitude

1074
00:53:10,009 --> 00:53:13,390
you can actually see his actual had

1075
00:53:13,390 --> 00:53:14,979
on a plate

1076
00:53:16,529 --> 00:53:17,809
you see it?

1077
00:53:17,809 --> 00:53:22,599
right there

1078
00:53:22,599 --> 00:53:25,709
so, what's the moral of the story?

1079
00:53:25,709 --> 00:53:29,499
the moral of the story

1080
00:53:29,499 --> 00:53:33,698
by the way they bring him out during meetings
of the board at university college London

1081
00:53:33,699 --> 00:53:40,659
and the minutes record him as present but
not voting.

1082
00:53:40,659 --> 00:53:42,539
here is a philosopher

1083
00:53:42,539 --> 00:53:45,109
in life and in death

1084
00:53:45,109 --> 00:53:46,769
who adhered

1085
00:53:46,769 --> 00:53:48,399
to the principles

1086
00:53:48,400 --> 00:53:55,400
of his philosophy. we'll continue with rights next time.

1087
00:53:57,439 --> 00:54:00,808
Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice

1088
00:54:00,809 --> 00:54:03,369
join the conversation, take a pop quiz,

1089
00:54:03,369 --> 00:54:07,799
watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit Justiceharvard.org

1090
00:54:07,799 --> 00:54:14,799
It's the right thing to do.

1091
00:54:49,739 --> 00:54:53,789
funding for this program is provided by

1092
00:54:53,789 --> 00:54:55,189
additional funding provided by