Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: "PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE"

PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?

PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE

Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.

Funding for this program provided by

Additional funding provided by

last time we argued about

the case of the Queen verses Dudley and Stephens

the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalism
at sea

and with the arguments about

the lifeboat

in mind the arguments for and against
what Dudley and Stephens did in mind,

let's turn back to the

philosophy

the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham

Bentham was born in England in 1748,
at the age of twelve

he went to Oxford, at fifteen he went to law
school

he was admitted to the bar at age nineteen
but he never practiced law,

instead he devoted his life

to jurisprudence and moral

philosophy.

last time we began to consider Bentham's version
of utilitarianism

the main idea

is simply stated and it's this,

the highest principle of morality

whether personal or political morality

is

to maximize

the general welfare

or the collective happiness

or the overall balance of pleasure over
pain

in a phrase

maximize

utility

Bentham arrives at this principle by the following
line of reasoning

we're all governed by pain and pleasure

they are our sovereign masters and so any
moral system has to take account of them.

How best to take account?

By maximizing

and this leads to the principle

of the greatest good for the greatest
number

what exactly should we maximize?

Bentham tells us

happiness

or more precisely

utility.

Maximizing utility is a principal not only
for individuals but also for communities and

for legislators

what after all is a community

Bentham asks,

it's the sum of the individuals who comprise it

and that's why

in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the
law should be, in deciding what's just,

citizens and legislators should ask themselves
the question if we add up,

all of the benefits of this policy

and subtract

all of the costs,

the right thing to do

is the one

that maximizes

the balance

of happiness

over suffering.

that's what it means to maximize utility

now, today

I want to see

whether you agree or disagree with it,

and it often goes, this utilitarian logic, under
the name of cost-benefit analysis

which is used by companies

and by

governments

all the time

and what it involves

is placing a value usually a dollar value
to stand for utility

on the costs and the benefits

of various proposals.

recently in the Czech Republic

there was a proposal to increases the excise
tax on smoking

Philip Morris,

the tobacco company,

does huge business

in the Czech Republic. They commissioned

a study of cost-benefit analysis

of smoking

in the Czech Republic

and what their cost benefit

analysis found

was

the government gains

by

having Czech citizens smoke.

Now, how do they gain?

It's true that there are negative effects

to the public finance of the Czech government

because there are increased health care costs
for people who develop smoking-related

diseases

on the other hand there were positive
effects

and those were

added up

on the other side of the ledger

the positive effects included, for the most
part, various tax revenues that the government

derives from the sale of cigarette products
but it also included health care savings to

the government when people die early

pensions savings, you don't have to pay pensions
for as long,

and also savings

in housing costs for the elderly

and when all of the costs and benefits were added
up

the Philip Morris

study found

that there is a net public finance gain
in the Czech Republic

of a hundred and forty seven million dollars

and given the savings

in housing and health care and pension costs

the government enjoys the saving of savings
of over twelve hundred dollars

for each person who dies prematurely due to
smoking.

cost-benefit analysis

now, those among you who are defenders utilitarianism
may think that this is a unfair

test

Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and
they issued an apology for this heartless

calculation

you may say

that what's missing here is something that
the utilitarian can be easily incorporate

mainly

the value to the person and to the families
of those who die

from lung cancer.

what about the value of life?

Some cost-benefit analyses incorporate

a measure

for the value of life.

One of the most famous of these involved the
Ford Pinto case

did any of you read about that? this was back
in the 1970's, you remember that

the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car?

anybody?

it was a small car, subcompact car,
very popular

but it had one

problem which is the fuel tank was at the
back of the car

and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded

and some people were killed

and some severely injured.

victims of these injuries took Ford to court
to sue

and in the court case it turned out

that Ford had long

since known

about the vulnerable fuel tank

and had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine
whether it would be worth it

to put in a special shield

that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it
from exploding.

They did a cost benefit analysis

the cost per part

to increase the safety

of the Pinto,

they calculated at eleven dollars per part

and here's,

this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged

in the trial,

eleven dollars per part

at 12.5 million cars and trucks

came to a total cost of

137 million dollars to improve the safety

but then they calculated

the benefits

of spending all this money on a safer car

and they counted 180 deaths

and they assigned a dollar value

200 thousand dollars

per death

180 injuries

67 thousand

and then the cost to repair

the replacement cost for two thousand
vehicles that would be destroyed without the

safety device

700 dollars per vehicle,

so the benefits

turned out to be only 49.5 million,

and so they

didn't install

the device

needless to say

when this memo

of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benefit analysis came
out in the trial

it appalled the jurors

who awarded a huge settlement

is this a counter example to the utilitarian
idea of calculating

because Ford included a

measure of the value life.

Now who here wants to defend

cost-benefit analysis from

this apparent counter example

who has a defense?

or do you think it's completely destroys

the whole utilitarian calculus?

I think that

once again they've made the same mistake the previous case
did that they've assigned a dollar value

to human life and once again they failed to take into
account things like

suffering and emotional losses of families, I mean families
lost earnings

but they also lost a loved one and that

is more value than 200 thousand dollars.

Good, and wait wait wait, what's you're name?

Julie Roto.

so if two hundred thousand, Julie, is too

too low a figure because it doesn't include
the loss of a loved one,

and the loss of those years of life,

what would be, what do you think

would be a more accurate number?

I don't believe I could give a number I think
that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to

issues of human life.

I think it can't be used monetarily

so they didn't just put to low a number,

Julie says, they were wrong to try to
put any number at all.

all right let's hear someone who

you have to adjust for inflation

all right

fair enough

so what would the number of being now?

this is was thirty five years ago

two million dollars

you would put two million

and what's your name

Voicheck

Voicheck says we have to allow for inflation

we should be more generous

then would you be satisfied that this is the
right way of thinking about the question?

I guess unfortunately

it is for

there's needs to be of number put somewhere

I'm not sure what number would be but I do
agree that there could possibly

be a number put

on a human life.

all right so

Voicheck says

and here he disagrees with

Julie

Julie says we can't put a number of human
life

for the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis,
Voicheck says we have to

because we have to make decisions somehow

what do other people think about this?
Is there anyone prepared to defend cost-benefit

analysis here

as accurate, as desirable?

I think that if ford and other car companies didn't use
cost-benefit analysis they'd eventually go out

of business because they wouldn't be able
to be profitable

and millions of people wouldn't be able to use
their cars to get to jobs, to put food on the table

to feed their children so I think that if cost-benefit
analysis isn't employed

the greater good

is sacrificed

in this case. Alright let me ask, what's your name?

Raul. Raul.

there was recently a study done about cell
phone use by drivers, when people are driving

a car,

and there's a debate about whether that should be
banned

and

the figure was that some

two thousand people die

as a result of accidents

each year

using cell phones

and yet the cost benefit analysis which was done by
the center for risk analysis at 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