-
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