Chương trình được tài trợ bởi:
Tài trợ phụ bởi
lần trước chúng ta đã tranh luận
về trường hợp vụ Nữ hoàng kiện Dudley và Stephens
vụ đắm tàu, vụ ăn thịt người trên biển
và với những lập luận về
vụ đắm tàu,
những lập luận ủng hộ và chống lại những suy nghĩ của Dudley và Stephens,
hãy quay trở lại với
vấn đề triết học
triết học vị lợi của Jeremy Bentham
Bentham sinh ra ở Anh năm 1748,
12 tuổi ông vào học Oxford, 15 tuổi ông học trường luật.
ông được nhận vào đoàn luật sư năm 19 tuổi, nhưng anh ta chưa bao giờ hành nghề luật sư,
thay vào đó, ông dâng trọn đời mình
cho Luật học và
Triết học đạo đức.
lần trước chúng ta đã bắt đầu xem xét một phiên bản về thuyết vị lợi của Bentham
ý tưởng chính
đơn giản được phát biểu như thế này,
nguyên tắc tối cao của đạo đức,
cho dù là đạo đức cá nhân hay đạo đức chính trị
Đều là
tối đa hóa
phúc lợi chung
hay hạnh phúc của tập thể,
hay sự cân bằng tổng thể giữa niềm vui và nỗi thống khổ
Nói cách khác là
tối đa hóa
tính có ích
Bentham đưa ra nguyên tắc này bằng dòng lập luận rằng,
tất cả chúng ta đều bị chi phối bởi nỗi đau và niềm vui
chúng là những bậc thầy tối cao của chúng ta, và do vậy bất kỳ hệ thống đạo đức nào cũng phải tính đến chúng.
Tính như thế nào là tốt nhất?
Bằng cách tối đa hóa
và điều này dẫn đến nguyên tắc
rằng lợi ích lớn nhất cho nhiều người nhất
Vậy chính xác chúng ta nên tối đã hóa tiện ích gì?
Bentham nói với chúng ta
đó là hạnh phúc
hay chính xác hơn là tính có ích.
tính có ích.
Tối đa hóa tiện ích là một nguyên tắc không chỉ cho cá nhân mà còn cho cộng đồng, và
Cả đối với các nhà lập pháp,
cuối cùng là cho cả mốt cuộc cộng đồng
mà Bentham yêu cầu
đó là tổng thể các cá nhân bao gồm trong đó,
và đó là lý do
trong việc quyết định chính sách tốt nhất, trong việc quyết định luật lệ nên như thế nào, trong việc quyết định điều gì là công bằng,
công dân và các nhà lập pháp nên hỏi chính bản thân họ câu hỏi, rằng nếu chúng ta cộng hết,
tất cả những lợi ích của chính sách này,
rồi trừ đi
tất cả các chi phí,
việc đúng nên làm
là cái mà
tối đa hóa được
sự cân bằng
giữa hạnh phúc
và đau khổ.
Đó là ý nghĩa của việc tối đa hóa tiện ích
Bây giờ, ngày hôm nay
tôi muốn xem
liệu các bạn đồng ý hay không đồng ý với điều đó,
và suy luận vị lợi này thường diễn ra dưới cái tên phân tích phí tổn - lợi ích
Thường xuyên được sử dụng bởi các công ty
và bởi
chính phủ
Và nó luôn luôn l
iên quan đến việc
đặt một giá trị - thường là giá trị tiền bạc - để đại diện cho tính có lợi ích
Dựa trên chi phí và lợi ích
của nhiều đề xuất khác nhau.
Mới gần đây, ở Cộng hòa Séc,
có một đề xuất tăng thuế tiêu thụ đặc biệt đối với thuốc lá
Philip Morris,
Một công ty thuốc lá,
doanh thu khổng lồ
Ở Cộng hòa Séc. Họ đã thực hiện
một nghiên cứu về phân tích lợi ích - chi phí
Của việc hút thuốc lá
ở Cộng hòa Séc.
Và phân tích lợi ích chi phí của họ
Cho thấy
rằng
chính phủ sẽ có lợi
bằng việc
có công dân Séc hút thuốc lá.
Bây giờ, hãy xem xem chính phủ đạt được lợi ích như thế nào?
Đúng là việc này có những tác động tiêu cực
cho tài chính công của chính phủ Séc
bởi vì có sự gia tăng chi phí chăm sóc sức khỏe cho những người mắc các bệnh liên quan
đến hút thuốc
Mặc khác, những bệnh tật này lại tạo ra những tác động tích cực
và tất cả
đã được cộng dồn lại
ở phái bên kia sổ cái
những tác động tích cực bao gồm, chủ yếu là các nguồn thu thuế khác nhau mà chính phủ
thu được từ doanh số bán các sản phẩm thuốc lá, nhưng còn gồm cả khoản tiết kiệm được
từ chi phí chăm sóc sức khỏe chính phủ không phải chi trả khi người ta chết sớm
tiết kiệm lương hưu, bạn không phải trả lương hưu trong thời gian dài, và cả tiết kiệm được
tiết kiệm
chi phí nhà ở cho người già.
Và khi tất cả các chi phí và lợi ích được cộng dồn lại
nghiên cứu của Philip Morris
cho thấy rằng
tài chính công ở Cộng hòa Séc có một khoản thu ròng
147 triệu đô la và còn tiết kiệm được
và tiết kiệm được
chi phí nhà ở, chăm sóc sức khỏe và lương hưu.
Chính phủ được hưởng khoản tiết kiệm hơn 1.200 đô la
khi mỗi người chết sớm vì hút thuốc.
phân tích chi phí - lợi ích,
ngay bây giờ, trong số những bạn ủng hộ thuyết vị lợi có thể nghĩ rằng đây là một cuộc kiểm tra không công bằng.
khảo nghiệm của Philip Morris
đã bị báo chí chỉ trích và họ đã phải xin lỗi vì phép tính
vô nhân đạo này
bạn có thể nói rằng
điều thiếu sót ở đây là thứ mà thuyết vị lợi có thể dễ dàng kết nối lại với nhau
chủ yếu là
giá trị đối với con người và gia đình của những người đã qua đời
vì ung thư phổi.
Thế còn giá trị của mạng sống thì sao?
Một số phân tích lợi ích - chi phí kết hợp
cả thước đo
giá trị cuộc sống.
Một trong những vụ nổi tiếng nhất trong số đó liên quan đến vụ xe Ford Pinto
Các bạn đã đọc về vụ đó không? Trở lại vào những năm 1970, chắc các bạn vẫn nhớ
mẫu xe Ford Pinto, đó là một loại xe hơi?
Có ai còn nhớ không?
đó là một mẫu xe nhỏ, xe ô tô nhỏ, rất phổ biến
nhưng có một vấn đề
là bình xăng nằm phía sau xe
và thực tế trong những vụ va chạm từ phía sau, bình xăng đã phát nổ
Và, một số người đã thiệt mạng,
một số người bị thương nặng.
nạn nhân của những vụ tai nạn này đã kiện hãng Ford ra tòa,
và trong phiên tòa, hóa ra
Ford đã biết
từ rất lâu trước đó
về bình xăng dễ bị nổ
và đã thực hiện phân tích lợi ích - chi phí để xác định liệu có đáng
để đặt một tấm chắn đặc biệt
để bảo vệ bình xăng và ngăn nó phát nổ không.
Họ đã làm một phân tích lợi ích - chi phí
chi phí cho mỗi phần
để tăng độ an toàn
của chiếc Pinto,
họ đã tính toán ra tầm 11 đô la cho mỗi bộ phận
và đây,
đây là phân tích - lợi ích chi phí
được đưa ra ở phiên xét xử,
Mỗi bộ phận 11 đô la
cho 12,5 triệu chiếc xe hơi và xe tải
nên tổng chi phí
là 137 triệu đô la để cải thiện sự an toàn
nhưng sau đó họ đã tính toán
lợi ích
của việc tiêu tất cả số tiền này để có một mẫu xe an toàn hơn
và họ đếm được 180 người chết
và quy ra giá trị bằng tiền
200 nghìn đô la
cho mỗi người chết,
180 người bị thương
nhận 67 nghìn đô la,
và tiếp đó là chi phí sửa chữa,
thay thế cho 2000 chiếc xe bị phá hủy nếu không có
thiết bị an toàn.
700 đô la mỗi xe.
Như vậy, hóa ra những lợi ích
chỉ khoảng 49,5 triệu.
Thế nên họ đã
không lắp đặt
thiết bị an toàn.
Không cần phải nói
khi bản ghi nhớ
về phân tích lợi ích-chi phí của Công ty Ford Motor được đưa ra trong buổi xét xử
nó khiến bồi thẩm viên kinh hoàng.
Và họ đã yêu cầu một khoản phạt khổng lồ
Liệu đây có phải là một ví dụ đi ngược lại với ý tưởng vị lợi khi tính toán
vì Ford đã đưa vào phép tính
thước đo giá trị của mạng sống?
Bây giờ, bạn nào ở đây muốn bảo vệ
phân tích lợi - ích chi phí
Từ ví dụ phản đề rõ ràng này,
có ai muốn biện hộ không?
hay bạn nghĩ nó đã hoàn toàn phá hủy
phép tính tính vị lợi?
Vâng. Tôi nghĩ rằng,
một lần nữa họ lại mắc cùng một sai lầm như ở ví dụ trước khi họ đã gán một giá trị bằng tiền
cho sinh mạng con người và một lần nữa họ không tính đến những thứ như
đau khổ và mất mát về tình cảm gia đình. Ý tôi là những gia đình đã bị mất đi nguồn sống
nhưng họ cũng mất đi người thân và điều đó
còn đáng giá hơn 200 nghìn đô la.
Tốt, nhưng chờ đã nào, bạn tên gì?
Julie Roto.
Vậy nếu là 200 nghìn đô la, Julie,
Là một con số quá thấp vì chưa bao gồm sự mất mát của một người thân,
và sự mất mát của những năm tháng cuộc đời,
Vậy bạn nghĩ con số nào,
bạn nghĩ con số bao nhiêu sẽ chính xác hơn?
Tôi không tin là mình có thể đưa ra một con số. Tôi nghĩ rằng kiểu phân tích này không nên áp dụng cho
những vấn đề về sinh mạng con người.
Tôi nghĩ rằng không thể dung tiền đối với vấn đề này.
Vậy họ không chỉ đưa ra một con số quá thấp
Julie nói rằng, họ đã sai khi cố gắng áp đặt bất kỳ một con số nào.
được rồi, hãy nghe một ý kiến khác. Ai nào?
Phải tính thêm cả điều chỉnh do lạm phát nữa
được rồi,
thế là công bằng.
Vậy bây giờ con số sẽ là bao nhiêu?
Đấy là 35 năm trước
Hai triệu đô la.
Bạn đưa ra con số hai triệu đô la.
Và bạn tên gì?
Voicheck
Voicheck nói rằng chúng ta phải tính thêm cả lạm phát,
chúng ta nên hào phóng hơn
Nếu vậy các bạn có hài lòng xem đây là cách nghĩ đúng cho câu hỏi này không?
Thật không may, tôi đoán là.
Cần phải
đặt ra một con số ở đâu đó
Tôi không chắc sẽ là số nào nhưng tôi đồng ý rằng có thể
gán cho mạng người
một con số.
Được rồi,
như vậy Voicheck nói,
và ở đây cậu ấy không đồng ý với
Julie
Julie nói rằng chúng ta không thể gán cho mạng người một con số,
để phân tích lợi ích - chi phí, Voicheck nói rằng chúng ta phải làm như vậy
bởi vì bằng cách này hay cách khác, chúng ta phải quyết định
những bạn khác nghĩ sao về điều này? Có ai sẵn sàng để biện hộ rằng
phân tích lợi ích - chi phí ở đây
Là chính xác và thỏa đáng không?
Tôi nghĩ rằng, nếu Ford và các công ty xe hơi khác không sử dụng phân tích lợi ích - chi phí thì cuối cùng họ sẽ bị phá sản
vì họ sẽ chẳng thể có lợi nhuận
và hàng triệu người sẽ không có ô tô của hãng này để đi làm, để có thức ăn trên bàn
để nuôi con cái của họ, vì vậy tôi nghĩ rằng nếu phân tích lợi ích - chi phí không được sử dụng,
thì một lợi ích lớn hơn
sẽ mất đi
trong trường hợp đó. Được rồi, cho tôi hỏi, bạn tên gì?
Raul. Raul.
Gần đây đã có một nghiên cứu được thực hiện về việc sử dụng điện thoại di động của tài xế khi đang lái
một chiếc ô tô,
và có một cuộc tranh luận liệu việc đó có nên bị cấm hay không
và
con số là,
khoảng hai nghìn người chết
vì tai nạn
mỗi năm,
khi sử dụng điện thoại di động
Và phân tích lợi ích - chi phí được thực hiện bởi trung tâm phân tích rủi ro ở Harvard
found that if you look at the benefits
of the cell phone use
and you put some
value on the life, it comes out about the same
because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage
of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on
while they're driving
doesn't that suggest that
it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions
of human life?
well I think that if
the great majority of people
tried to derive maximum utility out of a service like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones
provide
that sacrifice is necessary
for
satisfaction to occur.
You're an outright utilitarian. In, yes okay.
all right then, one last question Raul
and I put this to Voicheck,
what dollar figure should be put
on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones
well I don't want to
arbitrarily
calculate a figure, I mean right now
I think that
you want to take it under advisement.
yeah I'll take it under advisement.
but what roughly speaking would it be? you've got 23 hundred deaths
you've got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those deaths by
banning the use of cell phones in cars
so what would you're hunch be?
how much?
million
two million
two million was Voitech's figure
is that about right? maybe a million.
a million.?!
Alright that's good, thank you
So these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost-benefit analysis especially
those that involve
placing a dollar value on everything to be added up.
well now I want to turn
to your objections, to your objections not necessarily to cost benefit analysis specifically,
because that's just one version of the
utilitarian logic in practice today,
but to the theory as a whole, to the idea
that the right thing to do,
the just basis for policy and law,
is to maximize
utility.
How many disagree
with the utilitarian
approach
to law
and to the common good?
How many bring with it?
so more agree than disagree.
so let's hear from the critics
my main issue with it is that I feel like
you can't say that just because someone's in the minority
what they want and need is less valuable than someone who's in the majority
so I guess I have an issue with the idea that
the greatest good for the greatest number
is okay because
there is still what about people who are in
the lesser number, like it's not fair to them they didn't have a say in where they wanted
to be.
alright now that's an interesting objection, you're worried about
the effect on minority. yes.
what's your name by the way. Anna.
alright who has an answer to Anna's worry about the effect on the minority
What do you say to Anna?
she said that
the minorities value less, I don't think that's the case because individually the minorities
value is just the same as the individual in the majority it's just that
the numbers outweigh the
minority
and I mean at a certain point you have to make a decision
and I'm sorry for the minority but
sometimes
it's for the general
for the greater good. For the greater good, Anna what do you say? what's your name? Youngda.
What do you say to Youngda?
Youngda says you just have to add up people's preferences
and those in the minority do have their preferences weighed.
can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about when you say you're worried
about utilitarianism violating
the concern or respect due the minority?
can you give an example.
so well with any of the cases that we've talked about, like with the shipwreck one,
I think that
the boy who was eaten
still had
just as much of a right to live as the other people and
just because
he was the
minority in that case the one who
maybe had less of a chance to keep living
that doesn't mean
that the others automatically have a right to eat him
just because
it would give a greater amount of people
the chance to live.
so there may be a certain rights
that the minority
members have that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off
for the sake of
utility?
yes Anna?
Now this would be a test for you,
back in ancient Rome
they threw Christians to the lions in the coliseum for sport
if you think how the utilitarian calculus would go
yes, the Christian thrown to the lion suffers enormous excruciating pain,
but look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans.
Youngda. Well
in that time
I don't think
in the modern-day of time to value the, um, to given a number to the happiness given to the people watching
I don't think
any
policy maker would say
the pain of one person, the suffering of one person is much much,
in comparison to the happiness gained
no but you have to admit that if there were enough Romans delirious with happiness,
it would outweigh even the most excruciating pain of a handful of
Christians thrown to the lion.
so we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism
one has to do
with whether utilitarianism
adequately respects
individual rights
or minority rights
and the other has to do
with the whole idea
of aggregating
utility
for preferences
or values
is it possible to aggregate all values
to translate them
into dollar terms?
there was
in the 1930's
a psychologist
who tried
to address
the second question. He tried to prove
what utilitarianism assumes,
that it is possible
to translate
all goods, all values, all human concerns
into a single uniform measure
and he did this
by conducting a survey
of the young recipients of relief, this was in the 1930's
and he asked them, he gave them a list of unpleasant experiences
and he asked them how much would you have to be paid to undergo
the following experiences and he kept track
for example
how much would you have to be paid to have one upper front tooth pulled out
or how much would you have to be paid to have one little one tow cut off?
or eat a live earth worm, six inches long
or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas
or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands
now what do you suppose
what do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list
Kansas?
You're right it was Kansas
for a Kansas
people said they'd have to pay them
they have to be paid three hundred thousand dollars
what do you think
what do you think was the next most expensive?
not the cat
not the tooth
not the toe
the worm!
people said you'd have to pay them a hundred thousand dollars
to eat the worm
what do you think was the least expensive item?
not the cat
the tooth
during the depression people were willing to have their tooth pulled
for only forty five hundred dollars
now
here's what Thorndike
concluded from his study
any want or satisfaction which exists, exists
in some amount and is therefore measurable
the life of a dog
or a cat
or a chicken consists
of appetites
cravings
desires and their gratifications
so does the life
of human beings
though the appetites and desires
are more complicated
but what about
Thorndike's study?
does it support
Bentham's idea
that all
goods all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value
or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list
suggest the opposite conclusion
that may be whether we're talking about life
or Kansas
or the worm
maybe
the things we value
and cherish
can't be captured
according to a single uniform measure of value
and if they can't
what are the consequences
for the utilitarian theory
of morality
that's a question we'll continue with next time
alright now let's take the other
part of the poll
which is the
the highest
experience or pleasure?
how many say
Shakespeare
how many say fear Factor
no you can't be serious
really?
last time
last time we began to consider some objections
to Jeremy Bentham's version
of utilitarianism
people raised two objections in the discussion
we had
the first
was the objection, the claim
that utilitarianism,
by concerning itself
with the greatest good for the greatest number
fails adequately to respect
individual rights.
today we have debates
about torture
and terrorism
suppose
a suspected terrorists was apprehended on September tenth
and you had reason to believe
that the suspect
had crucial information about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over three thousand
people
and you couldn't extract the information
would it be just
to torture
the suspect
to get the information
or
do you say no
there is a categorical moral duty of respect for individual rights
in a way we're back to the questions we started with t
about trolley cars and organ transplants so that's the first issue
and you remember we considered some examples of cost-benefit analysis
but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benefit analysis
when it came to placing a dollar value on human life
and so that led us to the
second objection,
it questioned whether it's possible to translate all values
into a single uniform measure of value
it asks in other words whether all values are commensurable
let me give you one other
example
of an experience, this actually is a true story, it comes from personal experience
that raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without
loss
into utilitarian terms
some years ago
when I was a graduate student I was at Oxford in England and they had menâs and women's
colleges they weren't yet mixed
and the women's colleges had rules
against
overnight male guests
by the nineteen seventies these
rules were rarely enforced and easily violated,
or so I was told,
by the late nineteen seventies when I was there, pressure grew to relax these rules and it became
the subject of debate among the faculty at St. Anne's College
which was one of these all women colleges
the older women on the faculty
we're traditionalists they were opposed to change
on conventional moral grounds
but times had changed
and they were embarrassed
to give the true grounds of their objection
and so the translated their arguments
into utilitarian terms
if men stay overnight,
they argued, the costs to the college will increase.
how you might wonder
well they'll want to take baths, and that will use up hot water they said
furthermore they argued
we'll have to replace the mattresses more often
the reformers
met these arguments by adopting the following compromise
each woman
could have a maximum of three overnight male guest each week
they didn't say whether it had to be the same one, or three different
provided
and this is the compromise provided
the guest
paid fifty pence to defray the cost to the college
the next day
the national headline in the national newspaper read St. Anne's girls, fifty pence a night
another
illustration
of the difficulty of translating
all values
in this case a certain idea of virtue
into utilitarian terms
so that's all to illustrate
the second objection
to utilitarianism, at least the part of that objection
that questions rather
the utilitarianism
is right to assume
that we can
assume the uniformity of
value, the commensurability of values and translate all moral considerations
into
dollars
or money.
But there is a second
aspect to this worry about aggregating values and preferences
why should we
weigh
all preferences
that people have
without assessing whether they're good preferences or bad preferences
shouldn't we distinguish
between
higher
pleasures
and lower pleasures.
Now, part of the appeal of
not making any qualitative distinctions about the worth of people's preferences, part of the
appeal
is that it is non-judgmental and egalitarian
the Benthamite utilitarian says
everybody's preferences count
and they count regardless of what people want
regardless of what makes it different people
happy. For Bentham,
all that matters
you'll remember
are the intensity and the duration
of a pleasure or pain
the so-called higher pleasures or nobler virtues are simply those, according to Bentham
that produce
stronger,
longer, pleasure
yet a famous phrase to express this idea
the quantity of pleasure being equal
pushpin
is as good as poetry.
What was pushpin?
It was some kind of a child's game like to tidily winks pushpin is as good as poetry
Bentham said
and lying behind this idea
I think
is the claim
the intuition
that it's a presumption
to judge
whose pleasures
are intrinsically higher
or worthier or better
and there is something attractive in this
refusal to judge, after all some people like
Mozart, others
Madonna
some people like ballet
others
bowling,
who's to say
a Benthamite might argue, who's to say which of these pleasures
whose pleasures
are higher
worthier
nobler
than others?
But, is that right?
this refusal to make qualitative distinctions
can we
altogether dispense with the idea
that certain things we take pleasure in are
better or worthier
than others
think back to the case of the Romans in the coliseum, one thing that troubled people about that
practice
is that it seemed to violate the rights
of the Christian
another way of objecting to what's going on there
is that the pleasure that the Romans take
in this bloody spectacle
should that pleasure
which is a base,
kind of corrupt
degrading pleasure, should that even
be valorized or weighed in deciding what the
the general welfare is?
so here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism
and now we turn to someone who tried to
respond to those objections,
a later day utilitarian
John Stuart Mill
so what we need to
examine now
is whether John Stuart Mill had a convincing reply
to these objections to utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill
was born in 1806
his father James Mill
was a disciple of Benthamâs
and James Mills set about giving his son
John Stuart Mill a model education
he was a child prodigy
John Stuart Mill
the knew Latin, sorry, Greek at the age of three, Latin at eight
and at age ten
he wrote a history of Roman law.
At age twenty
he had a nervous breakdown
this left him in a depression for five years
but at age twenty five what helped lift him out of this depression
is that he met Harriet Taylor
she in no doubt married him, they lived happily ever after
and it was under her
influence
the John Stuart Mill try to humanize
utilitarianism
what Mill tried to do was to see
whether the utilitarian calculus could be
enlarged
and modified
to accommodate
humanitarian concerns
like the concern to respect individual rights
and also to address the distinction between higher and lower
pleasures.
In 1859 Mill wrote a famous book on liberty
the main point of which was the importance of defending individual rights and minority
rights
and in 1861
toward the end of his life
he wrote the book we read is part of this course
Utilitarianism.
It makes it clear
that utility is the only standard of morality
in his view
so he's not challenging
Bentham's premise,
he's affirming it.
he says very explicitly the sole evidence,
it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do
desire it.
so he stays with the idea that our de facto actual empirical desires are the only
basis
for moral judgment.
but then
page eight
also in chapter two, he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish
higher from lower
pleasures.
now, those of you who've read
Mill already
how
according to him is it possible to draw that distinction?
How can a utilitarian
distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures
from
lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones?
If you tried both of them
and you'll prefer the higher one naturally always
that's great, that's right. What's your name? John.
so as John points out
Mill says here's the test,
since we can't step outside
actual desires, actual preferences
that would
violate utilitarian premises,
the only test
of whether
a pleasure is higher
or lower is whether someone who has experienced both
would prefer it.
And here,
in chapter two
we see the passage
where Mill makes the point that John just described
of two pleasures, if there be one to which all are almost all who have experience
of both give a decided preference,
irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, in other words no outside, no independent
standard,
then that is the more desirable pleasure.
what do people think about that argument.
does that
does it succeeded?
how many think that it does succeed?
of arguing within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
how many
think it doesn't succeed?
I want to hear your reasons.
but before
we give the reasons
let's do an experiment
of Mills'
claim.
In order to do this experiment
we're going to look that three
short excerpts
of popular entertainment
the first one is a Hamlet soliloquy
it'll be followed by two other
experiences
see what you think.
'what a piece of work is a man
how noble in reason
how infinite in faculties
in form and moving, how express and admirable
in action how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god
the beauty of the world
the paragon of animals
and yet, to me
what is this quintessence of dust?
man delights not me.
Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality
each show, six contestants from around the country battle each other in three
extreme stunts. these stunts are designed to challenge these contestants both physically and mentally
six contestants, three stunts, one winner.
Fear factor.
The Simpsons. Well hi diddly-o peddle to the metal o-philes! Flanders- since when do you like anything cool.
well, I don't care for the speed, but I can't get enough of that safety gear
helmets, roll bars, caution flags. I like the fresh air
and looking at the poor people in the infield.
Dang Cletus, why you got to park by my parents.
Now hunny, it's my parents too.
I don't even have to ask which one you like most
the Simpsons? How many like the Simpson's most?
How many Shakespeare?
What about fear factor?
how many preferred fear factor?
really?
people overwhelmingly
like the Simpsons
better
than Shakespeare. alright, now let's take the other
part of the poll
which is the
highest
experience or pleasure?
how many say
Shakespeare?
how many say
fear factor?
no you can't be serious
really?
alright go ahead you can say it.
I found that one
the most entertaining
I know but which do you think was the worthiest, the noblest experience, I know you find it
the most anything
if something is good just because it is pleasurable what is the matter if you have some kind of
abstract
idea of whether it is good by someone else's sense or not.
Alright so you come down on the straight Benthamite's side
whose to judge
and why should we judge
apart from just registering and aggregating de facto preferences, alright fair enough.
what's your name?
Nate? okay fair enough
Alright so
how many think that the Simpson's is actually
apart from liking is actually the higher experience
higher than Shakespeare.
Alright let's see the vote for Shakespeare again
how many think Shakespeare is higher?
alright so
why is it
ideally I'd like to hear from someone is there someone
think Shakespeare is highest
but who preferred
watching
the Simpsons
Like I guess just sitting and watching the Simpsons, it's entertaining because the make jokes, they make us laugh but
someone has to tell us that Shakespeare was this great writer we had to be taught how to read him, how to
understand him, we had to be taught how to
take in Rembrandt, how to analyze a painting.
well how do, what's your name? Aneesha.
Aneesha, when you say someone
told you that Shakespeare's better
are you accepting it on blind faith you voted that Shakespeare's higher only because the culture
tells you that our teachers tell you that or do you
actually agree with that yourself
well in the sense that Shakespeare, no, but earlier you made
an example of Rembrandt
I feel like I would enjoy a reading a comic book more than I would enjoy a kind of analyzing
Rembrandt because someone told me it was great, you know. Right so of some this seems
to be, you're suggesting a kind of
cultural convention and pressure. We're told
what books, what works of art are great. who else?
although I enjoyed watching the Simpsons more in this particular moment in Justice,
if I were to spend the rest of my life considering
the three different
video clips shown
I would not want to spend
that remainder of my life considering
the latter two clips.
I think I would derive more pleasure
from being able to
branch out in my own mind
sort of
considering more deep pleasures, more deep thoughts.
and tell me your name
Joe.
Joe, so if you had to spend the rest of your life on
on a farm in Kansas with only
with only Shakespeare
or the collected episodes of the Simpsons
you would prefer
Shakespeare
what do you conclude from that
about John Stuart Mill's test
but the test of a higher pleasure
is whether
people who have experienced
both prefer it.
can I cite another example briefly?
in biology
in neuro biology last year we were told of a rat who was tested
a particular center in the brain
where the rat was able to stimulate its brain and cause itself intense pleasure repeatedly
the rat did not eat or drink until it died
so the rat was clearly experiencing intense pleasure
now if you asked me right now if I'd rather experience intense pleasure
or have
a full lifetime of higher pleasure, I would consider intense pleasure to be lower pleasure, right
now enjoy intense pleasure
yes I would
but over a lifetime I think
I would think
almost a complete majority here would agree
that they would rather be a human with higher pleasure that rat
with intense pleasure
for a momentary period of time
so now
in answer to your question, right, I think
this proves that, or I won't say proves
I think the conclusion
is that Mill's theory that when a majority people are asked
what they would rather do,
they will answer
that they would rather
engage in a higher pleasure. So you think that this supports Mills, that Mills was on to something here
I do.
all right is there anyone
who disagrees with Joe who thinks that our experiment
disproves
Mills'
test
shows that that's not an adequate way
that you can't distinguish higher pleasures within the utilitarian
framework.
If whatever is good is truly just whatever people prefer it's truly relative and there's
no objective definition then
there will be some society where people prefer Simpsons
more
anyone can appreciate the Simpsons, but I think it does take education to appreciate Shakespeare
Alright, you're saying it takes education to appreciate higher
true thing
Mill's point is
that the higher pleasures do require
cultivation and appreciation and education
he doesn't dispute that
but
once having been cultivated
and educated
people will see
not only see the difference between higher lower
pleasures
but will it actually
prefer
the higher
to the lower.
you find this famous passage from John Stuart Mill-
it is better
to be a human being dissatisfied
then a pig satisfied.
Better to the Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
and if the fool
or the pig
are of a different opinion
it is because they only know
their side of the question.
so here you have
an attempt
to distinguish
higher from lower
pleasures
so going to an art museum or being a couch potato, swilling beer watching television
at home
sometimes Mill agrees we might succumb
to the temptation
to do the latter,
to be couch potatoes,
but even when we do that
out of indolence
and sloth,
we know
that the pleasure we get
gazing at Rembrandts
in the museum
is actually higher,
because we've experienced both.
And is a higher pressure
gazing at Rembrandts
because of engages our higher human faculties
what about Mill's attempt
to reply to the objection about individual rights?
In a way he uses the same
kind of argument
and this comes out in chapter five
he says while I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard
of justice
not grounded on utility,
but still
he considers
justice
grounded on utility to be what he calls the chief part
and incomparably the most sacred and binding part
of all morality.
so justice is higher
individual rights are privileged
but not for
reasons that depart from utilitarian assumptions.
Justice is a name
for certain moral requirements
which, regarded collectively
stand higher in the scale of social utility
and are therefore
of more
paramount obligation
than any others
so justice is sacred, it's prior, it's privileged, it isn't something that can easily be traded
off against lesser things
but the reason
is ultimately
Mills Claims
a utilitarian reason
once you consider
the long run interests
of humankind,
of all of us,
as progressive
beings.
If we do justice and if we respect rights
society as a whole
will be better off in the long run.
Well is that convincing?
Or
is Mill actually, without admitting it, stepping outside
utilitarian considerations
in arguing
for qualitatively higher
pleasures
and for sacred
or specially important
individual rights?
we haven't fully answered that question
because to answer that question
in the case of rights and justice
will require that we explore
other ways,
non utilitarian ways
of accounting for the basis
or rights
and then asking
whether they succeed
as for Jeremy Bentham,
who launched
utilitarianism
as a doctrine
in moral and legal philosophy
Bentham died in 1832 at the age of eighty five
but if you go to London you can visit him today
literally.
he provided in his will
that his body be preserved,
embalmed and displayed
in the university of London
where he still presides in a glass case
with a wax head
dressed in his actual clothing.
you see before he died,
Bentham addressed himself to a question consistent with his philosophy,
of what use
could a dead man be to the living
one use, he said, would be to make one's corpse available
for the study of anatomy
in the case of great philosophers, however,
better yet
to preserve one's physical presence in order to inspire future generations of thinkers.
You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?
Here's what he looks like
There he is
now, if you look closely
you'll notice
that
the embalming up his actual had was not a success so they substituted a waxed head
and at the bottom for verisimilitude
you can actually see his actual had
on a plate
you see it?
right there
so, what's the moral of the story?
the moral of the story
by the way they bring him out during meetings of the board at university college London
and the minutes record him as present but not voting.
here is a philosopher
in life and in death
who adhered
to the principles
of his philosophy. we'll continue with rights next time.
Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice
join the conversation, take a pop quiz,
watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit Justiceharvard.org
It's the right thing to do.
funding for this program is provided by
additional funding provided by