Can a Completely Utilitarian Decision be made?

I was never really a big fan of utilitarianism. The main idea behind utilitarianism is that one should always act in a way that ensures the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This statement has three flaws. First, it does not take into account human emotions. Second, utilitarianism might promote the oppression of the minority. Last, utilitarianism never offers any way to quantitatively calculate happiness.

Can human beings make perfectly objective decisions? I really don’t think so. Human beings have empathy. We let our emotions control our actions. So, if we were put into the trolley situation, then we probably wouldn’t push the fat man because we would know what it would feel like to be in his situation. Even if the person who needs to push the fat man, has no idea who he is, he still will feel that empathy and not push him. This is the biggest problem with utilitarianism; we humans cannot make objective decisions. Every decision we make is biased, if we want them to be or not. A completely accepting and unbiased human being doesn’t exist. In class we talked about this and the Mills responded by saying that a utilitarian action must not be influenced by emotion. That’s where my problem comes in; I believe that humans can’t make decisions without emotions getting in the way. A person who simply calculates pleasures and “the greatest good,” isn’t really a person, but a robot.

Another flaw that I see in utilitarianism is that it seems incompatible with human rights. If we have a society where we only act upon the greatest good for the greatest amount, then we could have a society where the minority is exploited. If exploitation of the 2% is beneficial to the 98%, then wouldn’t it be fine to oppress that minority? It is causing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Finally, utilitarianism never offers a definite and quantitative measurement of happiness. So, it is impossible to calculate the greatest good for the greatest amount. Since there is no definite way to measure happiness, most people will differ in their definition and quantification of happiness. So, different people will perform different actions when put into the trolley situation or any situation where a decision has to be made. One interesting point that Dr. J made in class is that if one tries to quantify happiness it’s always (1+X) and that X is different for every individual in every situation.

Rotten Professor

 
     For me personally I think that it is hard to take on only one view of a philosopher. I would much rather combine the thoughts of several because in different circumstances they just dont seem to be applicable.  I think the symposiums have shown me especially that there are flaws for specific ideas in almost all philosophies.  There are specific circumstances that come up that most right minded people would not know what to do in real life and could not just rely on a philosophy.  Here are some examples of ones that I thought were outliers to Kant and Mill's philosophies.
     Suppose there is a teacher that all of the students dont like and he has a small family that doesn't like him either.  You are an up and coming Doctor at Lebonhaur hospital and this healthy man comes in for a checkup, he is totally healthy.  There are always sick people that could use some of this professor's organs.  Say if you were to take this guy back to your private office and take out all his vital organs.   Also know one would know about this, only the fact that the professor stopped showing up for classes anymore.  What would Kant and Mills have to say about the morality and justness of the action and the outcome?
   I think that if you based your decision on utilitarianism then you would have to kill the professor.  I dont know about y'all but that just doesn't seem right to kill a man merely for the fact that he isn't pleasant to be around.
    Say that there is an epidemic of people smoking cigarettes around campus.  You would say that these people are infringing on the free will of other Rhodes students who want clean air.  Could you be a do-gooder just trying to do your duty who brings great sadness to people as well?  So for example,  you start going around stealing everyone's cigarettes and making them very mad with you. However, you are just trying to do good and keep people from being sick.  Is this goodwill even if all of the cigarette smokers hate you now?  Does that seem ethical?
     I know that these scenarios are outlandish, but it just goes to show for me, that you can not strictly rely on one philosophy for everything because there will always be situations that seem wrong.  I enjoy the symposiums a lot more now that I see how intriguing it can be to come up with situations that stump the opposing philosopher because it can always be done.

Happiness, Justice, and Morality

            Thus far this semester, we have mainly focused on justice, but is justice the most important thing for us to study? There seem to me to be only two alternatives close to the same importance, which are happiness and morality. While these three are most certainly related in the various theories of justice we have studied thus far, there are many disagreements about the precise relation. John Stuart Mills, for example, emphasizes happiness as the determining factor of what is a moral and just action, whereas Socrates and Aristotle place more emphasis on living virtuously ( albeit each in slightly different ways), which leads to living happily and justly. This line of thought leads to a few more questions, such as which is more valuable, in both a personal and interpersonal sense, and also to what degree are they dependent on each other and on the individual in question.

            Before examining these questions, I want to spend a few moments defining these terms a little. Morality is the ethical system whereby one determines what one should or should not do; essentially it is the guiding principles of our lives. Happiness is the positive feeling of elation or contented satisfaction. Justice then is the guiding principles of interaction between people; I am using it in a sense where an individual cannot be innately just or unjust others.

            Back to the first question, most would agree with Aristotle in that the highest personal good that one individual can strive for is happiness, but would also say that morality is more important for interpersonal relations than justice, because justice is, in  a way, dependent on morality. This is because justice is inseparably intertwined with morality, as an imagined society of  perfectly moral people would necessarily be perfectly just as well, but an imagined society of perfectly just people would not necessarily be perfectly moral. Thus, morality would seem to be a more worthy topic for our examination.

            However, the second question throws that conclusion in some doubt because morality is not necessarily consistent between different people. Even people using the same basis for their morality can reach differing opinions, such as in various religious texts and their interpretations. Morality, therefore, does depend on the individual in question, but does justice? By the definition of justice as being an interpersonal concept, its existence is predicated on facilitating people’s interactions. Thus, justice must be predominantly an accepted thing in order for it to fulfill that purpose, very much in the same way that language must be accepted by at least two people for it to have any meaning. What do you all think?

To torture, or not to torture...

        Today in class, the topic of torture was briefly touched on by Dr. Johnson.  She explained that using Utilitarianism, there can be arguments made both for and against using torture as a method of interrogation.

        Since Utilitarianism is defined as striving to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people and the least amount of pain for the least amount of people, one could argue that the government torturing its detainees coincides with this philosophy.  For example, say there is a bomb somewhere on Rhodes campus and Campus Safety detains a student thought to have information about the whereabouts of this bomb. One could argue that it would serve the greatest amount of happiness to do whatever was in Campus Safety's power to extract the information out of this student to find out where this bomb is and disable it.  If the student refuses to tell where the bomb is, Mill's philosophy could argue that it is imperative that Campus Safety use some type of torture to coerce the student to divulge this information.  If the torture is effective, and the pain of the one student preserves the happiness of the entire campus, then torture would be an acceptable form of interrogation.

        But Mill's philosophy of Utilitarianism also stresses that every individual has certain "rights" cannot be infringed upon in a system of justice.  These rights are valid claims an individual has on society for protection of said rights.  In a society where everyone has a right to physical protection, this right should also apply to physical protection from the government itself.  By performing torturous acts that inflict bodily harm on the individual, the government would be violating the rights of the detainee.

        But what about forms of torture that do not cause bodily harm?  Forms such as water boarding.  Water boarding is the act of strapping a person down so they can't move, covering his face, and pouring water on him.  This makes the individual feel like they are drowning.  Is this method of torture acceptable on the grounds that it does not inflict bodily harm?  Or are all types of torture acceptable according to Mill's philosophy?  What rights from the government itself are citizens and non-citizens entitled to?

Utilitarianism and Injustice

At the beginning of the course we were asked to think about the greatest injustice that was done unto us. I shared my story about my dad losing his job after being diagnosed and treated for a malignant brain tumor and struggling between finding a job that didn’t view him as a liability issue and not being able to qualify for disability because he wasn’t “sick enough”. That brought on the debate about whether it’s more unjust for someone to abuse the welfare and disability system or for someone who needs it to not be able to receive it. So when we began discussing Mill’s Utilitarianism and his views on injustice, one of his six points stood out to me the most. Specifically, his point about it being unjust to not give someone what they rightly deserve. I agree with Mill on this aspect of his philosophy, because I believe it is more unjust for those who need and deserve welfare and disability to not receive it.

             I understand and agree with the counter argument that people who don’t work and don’t assume responsibility for themselves shouldn’t be able to abuse the welfare and disability system, but it is so much more important to consider the people who do work hard their whole lives, most often at more than one job, to be able to provide opportunities for themselves and their family and sometimes just need a little help to get by. Who are we to deny them that help? My dad worked hard his whole life; Why should he, and others like him, be denied disability just because of that small percentage who abuse it? 

            The other day I was leaving Target and was approached by a woman in her thirties with a stroller, 9 month old baby included, and she proceeded to share her story about her recent struggles with escaping a bad marriage and moving her and her four children from Mississippi to Memphis. She apologized profusely for bothering me and was clearly embarrassed to be in the situation that she was in, but she had started a job at Sports Authority and did not have enough food, gas, and diapers to last her until her first paycheck. I offered to get her what she needed, namely baby formula, diapers, and food for the time being. As I was coming back out she was talking to a middle aged woman in her Mercedes convertible who, instead of just giving her a couple dollars that she could clearly spare, was giving her advice as to where the nearest homeless shelter was. I understand where this woman is coming from, but it’s people like her that encourage this unequal system of redistribution that denies people like the mother needing a little help to last her until her paycheck what they rightly deserve. If Mill was approached by this same woman, do you think he’d help her out or tell her to take responsibility for herself? 

Utilitarianism and the Iran Nuclear Crisis

I was reading an article today in the New York Times which was titled, “Nod to Obama by Netanyahu on Iran Bomb”. This article spoke on how Netanyahu displayed to his constituents the “red line” by which it is nesacciry to attack Iran before they reach the desired amount of Uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu, last month, blamed the Obama administration of not drawing their own “red line” and how this was an impending problem for Israel.

While reading this, the thought popped into my head, can we use Utilitarianism to explain a preemptive strike on Iran? It seems to me that the utility for the Israelis is that destroying the bomb before it is made, may save the country. However, we don’t look at the consequences in making that decision to bomb now. The consequences could be, however, that the whole of the Middle East breaks out in war against Israel. If America is truly an ally to Israel, then we would help to defend them in this war.

A few questions arise though. We have bombs, so why shouldn’t Iran? Do we know that they are using the Uranium for bomb making? Why not nuclear power? If they make the bomb, does that guarantee they will use it?

I feel that the Israelis have a right to life. They are human as much as the Iranians are human. The PM of Israel obviously believes that his country is in harm, and the possibility of the strike happening in October should be attracting our awareness.  

What do you think? Can we use Utilitarinism to support the actions of Israel? Would the greater number of people be happy by the strike against Iran, or by the nuclear attack on Israel?

Here is the article if you feel interested enough to read it http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/middleeast/netanyahu-warns-that-iran-bombmaking-ability-is-nearer.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all .

Trolley Problem: Blowing up the Levee

          In class we have discussed the trolley problem numerous times and with various situations, but we have yet to talk about a real life situation. A similar situation that happened in real life was the Mississippi River flood in 1927. In 1927, there was a lot of rain in a short amount of time in New Orleans and a lot of flooding going on already in the city. People feared that the city would flood and that the levees would break so they decided to blow the levees further down so that it would flood other smaller Parishes, the idea was risk the few to save the many (or greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people). They ended up blowing the levees with the idea to save New Orleans while flooding the other Parishes, but it turns out that there was no need to blow up the levees; there were other levees that broke so New Orleans was in no danger.

            This is obviously not exactly like the trolley problem but it is about as close as anyone can come to in real life. The main question with this problem is: was blowing the levee the right thing to do? Obviously if the people had known the outcome, they wouldn’t have made the decision they did, but in the situation not knowing what would happen was this the right decision to make? New Orleans is obviously more populated and contains more business but that doesn’t mean that the people in the other Parishes are any less important. According to Utilitarianism, blowing the levee would be the only option, but is that the case? Would you blow the levee or not? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927 

Some thoughts on utilitarianism

After participating in Wednesday's symposium, I have developed a few objections to the morality of utilitarianism.  The main principle of utilitarianism, that morality is that which provides the greatest amount of pleasure (or the least amount of pain) for the greatest amount of people, seems pretty logical at first glance.  After considering it for a while, though, I've come up with a few objections to the morality of this philosophy.

There is an inherent problem in the consequentialist nature of utilitarian calculus.  As many of the Kantians argued during the symposium on Wednesday, the consequences of an action are never possible to ascertain absolutely.  A utilitarian might argue that the direct results of most actions are foreseeable.  For those actions that do not have clearly foreseeable consequences, though, what does the utilitarian prescribe?  This problem is further complicated if we take into account the logic of chaos theory, and the echoing effects of our actions on our environment and our co-rational actors.  (A common example of chaos theory: a butterfly fluttering its wings in Mexico will, through an extensive chain of cause and effect, cause a natural disaster on the other side of the globe.  This 'domino effect' is the basis of chaos theory.)  So how does utilitarianism take into account the 'domino effect' consequences of our actions?  Is the immediate result the only determinant of an action's morality?  Further, if an action breeds unintended consequences that detract from the general utility, does that make the action inherently immoral?

Another problem I have come upon while using utilitarian logic is the absence of a standardized measurement of one's happiness.  For utilitarians, if you'll recall, the preferable action is the one that yields the most happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of individuals.  Despite this, there is no quantifiable measurement for happiness, pleasure, or pain.  This further complicates the absence of an objective utilization of utilitarian calculus.  Every utilitarian calculation has an inherent bias on the part of the calculator, even though the general idea of utilitarianism is an unbiased, calculatory morality.  While normally an absence of quantifiable measurement would not detract from a moral philosophy (in my opinion, anyway), utilitarianism is based upon such calculations.  It's much like trying to define and use algebra in a world without numbers.

What is your opinion on utilitarianism?  Do you think my objections are justified, or are they totally missing the mark?

The Trolley Problem in "I Robot"

In Wednesday’s symposium we further discussed the many complex facets of the trolley problem. In our conversation we attempted to differentiate between the beliefs of Kant and Mill. While, they both are seeking for the best possible solution for the trolley problem, they differ in their reasoning to pull the lever or not.

Under Kant’s deontology, we could argue on both sides of the trolley problem. Kant states that in this scenario a moral decision cannot be claimed and that decisions can only be based off of rationality, while in accordance with the universal law. Kant could argue that the most rational decision would be to act on principles of necessity, which would allow him to kill one individual in order to save ten. Or Kant could make the rational decision to not pull the lever, because by pulling it he would be conflicting against the will of another human.

 Conversely, under the Mill’s utilitarian beliefs we concluded that the Mill would have no choice but to pull the lever or push the fat man in order to save the ten people. Based on Mill’s understanding of morals, his leading point is that the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people should be the most important rule in all decision making. So under this felicific (happiness) calculus the possible happiness of the ten people would always trump the one individual’s desires.

Nevertheless, when considering these ideologies we have to ask ourselves which decision you would make. To put the trolley problem in a different perspective, I would like to use an example from the movie “I Robot”. In one particular scene Will Smith illustrates why he has a hatred for robots. In this scene he states that one day while he was driving alone in the rain he lost control of his car and crashed into another vehicle, with a young girl and her father, sending them both into the river. As their cars began to sink a robot jumped into the water to save them. The father died on impact so the only two left were Will and the girl. So while in the water the robot made the decision to save Will Smith instead of the girl because he had a greater probability of surviving. Will’s hatred is stemmed from this incident because the robot chose the best rational decision instead of the best moral decision.

So my question to you all is whether or not in this instance you, Kant, or Mill would choose to save Will or the young girl?  

Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the American Prison System

One issue in today’s society that we have brought up in class previously, but that I feel is suitable for the argument of Utilitarianism versus Deontology, is the prison system in the U.S. In both the Deontologist’s and Utilitarian perspective, it would be unjust.

This is firstly due to the Kantian belief that people should not be treated as simply means, but as ends. In using the prisoners as a work force for large corporations, the American prison system is effectively treating the inmates as means. Also, while the prisoners are being presented with “strict justice,” as they have broken the law (due to their breaking of the law they are thus hindering the freedom of the general population, and in Kant’s view coercion is acceptable), they are not simply doing time, but are also being coerced into manufacturing products for companies (Kant 152).

In the Utilitarian view, while Mill explains the human desire to punish a person who has done wrong, our current system does not abide by his six aspects included in justice. In his essay “On the Connexion between Justice and Utility,” one of the six aspects in particular directly interferes with our penal system. The fifth portion of justice, for example, states roughly that ‘favoritism or preference in inappropriate circumstances is unjust.’ If we apply this to the racial stereotyping that occurs in our American system, it is proved to be unjust.

Why Not the Fat Man?

            To explore John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian ideas on justice, we explored a few variations of an interesting psychoanalysis known as the Trolley Problem. In the first scenario there was a trolley approaching that was either going to kill ten people unless the trolley track was switched to a track that would kill one. The switch was left in the hand of each classmate individually. At first the class was hesitant to let anyone die, but with the definition of utilitarianism set in front of us the answer started to become very clear for a majority of the class. In order to create the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people, it was imperative to pull the switch.

            After moving through many of the ins and outs of the switch scenario, we had moved to the example known as the “Fat Man”. In this scenario you could either let the ten people die, or you could push a fat man off the bridge blocking the trolley and killing the man. Like the last problem either ten people are dying or one is, yet the new scenario blurred the path to decision for most of the class. Under the umbrella of utilitarian philosophy, the decision should be easy. If you push the fat man off of the bridge, you will create the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people. So my question is, “Why not push the fat man?”

            My initial assumption is that the people who will not the fat man do not want to be responsible for the man’s death, but what makes that one fat man’s life any different from the five lives that lie in the way of the trolley? I believe that the conscience act backed by the sensory experience creates a wall that blocks the will to push the man. This reveals the difference in the personal disconnect between you and the five hundreds of feet away on the track and the one between you and the fat man. I believe that the reason most people will not push the fat man is because the physical contact now creates a much larger personal responsibility for the death of a human, which is something that most cannot handle. This responsibility allows the mind to justify the fact that pushing a fat man that you knew briefly or for an extended period of time, although the utility is lower, the better option would be to let the anonymous five die. Maybe the utilitarian approach is the most just, but human nature believes, in the fat man’s case, that it is not the most practical.

http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/trolley_problem/

Trolley of Slavery

In Mill's work he states that law is not necessarily the direct criterion of justice. He believes in a far more natural reasoning of justice which can be defined by his belief of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is used to describe justice that is far more moral based than law based. This is because what is lawful is not always just. Mill states that law is not the ultimate criterion of justice, but may give to one person a benefit, or impose on another an evil, which justice condemns. In his work of “On the Connexion between Justice and Utility” Mill brings up the scenario of a slave and its master. The idea that the rights of the slave should be sacred as those of the master is discussed heavily in the fact that if a master were to give the slave very few rights, they would not be considered impractical. However, the belief of that slavery is just can be used in a case such as the trolley problem and the question of is slavery just considering it makes a greater amount of the population happy or is it more just to abolish slavery in order to save the rights of the few people enslaved and cause greater unhappiness amongst the population. This situation brings up Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Many act utilitarians view slavery more for how it could benefit society cost wise rather than a rule utilitarian contemplating whether slavery causes a greater good in society and eventually resulting in better consequences.

While this situation is considered completely unjust in our society, there are some societies who do, in fact, view slavery as a beneficial act. I, personally, believe that based upon the belief of moral rights over lawfulness, slavery could in no way be considered a justifiable act considering it revokes the natural rights of people. However, in the case of the trolley problem, could is be seen as more cost effective to revoke the rights of few in order to gain the benefits of their labor?

Blurring the lines of justice

(First I apologize for the late post, football kept me past 5 so i was unable to post it on time)

In class we discussed the philospher John Mills. He is a utilitarian and believes that justice is an action (or inaction) that results in the greatest happinss in the greatest number of people. Basically saying in some instances that something that is traditionally bad (i.e. lying, killing...etc.) can be considered just. We talked about the trolley problem, which is a problem in which someone is on a trolley and they are headed straight for 10 people. If the pull a switch they will not hit the 10 but they will hit 1 person. The problem is what to do? Most people say they would pull the switch and kill the 1 to save 10. But this becomes more complex in some other examples. Like when you are one a bridge and you can either push someone in fron of the trolley or let it kill 10 people. Again man say they would kill the one but would they really be able to push someone to their death? The issue with human nature in problems like this is that it we truly cannot know what we would do. In the first example, yes most people would be able to pull the switch, because no matter what you do your action will kill people and in this case you can seperate yourself out and make the best objective decision. But in the bridge example, it iss much harder to justify pushing someone to their death and then you would also have to face the fact that you physically killed them yourself.

The problem i suggest is another trolley problem, but in this instance you are on the tracks yourself and on the other side of the tracks is your family and on the trolley there are friends and some important people, such as the president). you can let the trolley hit you, but this would result in your death and the deaths of everyone on the trolley or you can let the trolley hit your family, saving yourself and everyone on the trolley. what do you do?

The Weight of Death?

In today's class, we brought up the Trolley problem, where there is a trolley heading toward 10 people who will be killed by the trolley unless you pull a switch which will save there life, but cause the trolley to kill 1 person. The question is whether you would pull the switch. For me, this was an especially confusing moral dilemma, because of the way my religion and thoughts on human life connect with my reason and logic.

I think there are two aspects of human life, that need to be consider in the case of Trolley problem. The first is the value of human life. If all human life of equal value, then 10 human lives would be worth more than 1 human life. But that is not the only have to view life. You could say that 10 humans lives are not worth more than one. If such is the case then, you should pull the lever, saving the most people. If human life was worth infinite amount, and it was the most important thing in the universe, therefore whether one or ten, you cannot sacrifice another human life. This means you cannot pull the lever regardless of who the train is initially going to kill.

The other aspect is your own responsibility to human life. How far does your responsibility to human life go? Is your responsibility to preserve human life, or is it to save human life? Is there a difference? I think the difference between saving human life and preserving human life is amount of action you should take. So if you are to save human life you should pull the lever because you are saving 10 human lives. But I think preserving does not require action. You cannot preserve human life if you are putting another set of human lives in danger. So inaction is the choose in that case. Correct me if I am wrong on that, it was just a quick thought that may be me trying to make both sides equal.

I am not really sure, what choice would be the correct choice. I do not think I can say that any choice is more moral than the other. It may be that one choice is more right than the other, but I am not sure if can really say that, if I am saying the morality of both choices are equal. I Would like some feed back, so that I can start getting a stronger grip on what I think morality is. Thanks in Advance. 

The Melting Pot of Justice

The on goings of police officers and their arguably unjust actions when associating stereotypes has been a greatly debated topic in class this last week. When the question, whether or not it was just to impose prejudice based on past experience was first posed, I automatically believed any prejudice in any manner was a great injustice. However, as the class divulged into what were seemingly exceptions. I became torn.

As one abiding by Kant’s ethical theory, it is a straightforward choice between right and wrong, when considering formulation of a biased action. The Universal Law of Justice to which Kant adheres states that one should “act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone according to universal law.” In this sense, it appears that one may develop a prejudice opinion but is not committing an injustice until he or she wills said prejudice. In that case, the freedom of the one in which the discrimination is directed is violated.

Contrastingly, after reading the excerpt from John Stuart Mills, “On the Connexion between Justice and Utility,” the idea that “the feeling of justice might be a peculiar instinct,” rang a certain truth. In proving his point, Mills argued the fact that as human beings we distinctly believe harm or retribution should come to those who do harm to, not only ourselves, but to others as well. Security, therefore, is the most protected human rights. With that being said, it would make sense to create a negative attitude towards those similar to a person who poses harm to humankind and their rights in general.

It seems to me that there are always shades of grey when a group of people from varying backgrounds come together and attempt to place a distinct definition on a term as encompassing as justice. When I ponder the true meaning of justice, I find that a mixture of the “great thinkers” ideas should be considered. In comparison to the nickname given to America, the melting pot, the closest to perfection one can become is a combination of many critical ideas. On the other hand, taking the concepts and theories from philosophers out of context could be detrimental to their true meaning.

As students of so many varying opinions are we inclined to choose a single point of view to adhere by? Or is it that we should take each argument as equally important and applicable and use them all in the society we have built today?