Political Philosophy
Last week we talked about how Marx does not offer a social contract theory in contrast to three earlier. He thinks talking about a social contract is playing into the hands of the powerful. Interestingly this is also true for Bentham. You don’t need to know the history of what happened before and how legitimate society came about.
What Locke says, and other contemporary libertarians, is that if I own my things in a correct manner, that is legitimately, then we can start trading etc. This is a tradition in which how things came about matters. The timeline ending with today is relevant.
Bentham really offers a current-time-slice theory. The best action is always what is best for the most. If we start talking about historical injustice like minority groups, like african americans in the US, what follows from this today? Should we correct for historical injustice today?
A utilitarian would say that we don’t look at history but at current needs. If a group that has been unjustly treated need something to be happier, then we should probably give them that, but not at all because they were treated injustly.
He thinks about the panopticon, which he came up with in order to treat prisoners in a easy manner.
He tried sending beggars to workhouses. On a libertarian understanding it is difficult to see why we should help beggars.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialism of utility.
Consequentialism: an act is morally right if the consequences are good.
Deontology: An act is morally right if it corresponds with a moral rule that is valid in itself, irrespective of the consequences of the act.
In the trolley problem, don’t ask would you. The correct question is should you. Deontologists would say you should not. Consequentialists would say you should. The question is not about what the law is, but what the law should be.
People answer differently based on different trolley problems.
Morality in utilitarianism involves calculating.
Philippe van Parijs says that we need to think about what I need to do to make people happy. If I have some banknotes in my wallet, and I am a professor, I am likely to have more money than my students. It will bring me some happiness to keep it in my wallet; but the happiness levels of my students would be higher if I gave that money to them.
Intention plays no role for utilitarians, and there are no taboos. Whatever will make the community the happiest is what should happen. We just have to calculate.
There can be utilitarian taboos, but not because they are wrong in and of themselves, but because they lead to bad consequences. We can violate them if they lead to more happiness, but if there is an action that always lead to badness it is basically a taboo.
Mill expounds on the difference between quality and quanitity of pleasure.
Liberal utilitarian. Mill didn’t like the simplistic consequences that utilitarianism might give rise to. So he tried to make it more in line with qualitative pleasures.
Bentham wants to say that high culture by itself is stupid. Mill wants to say that there are deeper pleasures in life which are more valuable and desirable than others. This is how Mill saves opera from Netflix. You have to be competent and then you can judge.
Total versus average utilitarianism.
If you have a big population that is kinda happy, and a small population that is really happy, the first one is better.
Hedonistic vs. Preference utilitarianism.
Hedonistic is bentham. Preference utilitarianism doesn’t look at utility of pleasure but of preference. Its about preferences being realised. We ask what the most want and wish. Nozick talks about the experience machine. You crawl into it and you have perfect happiness levels. Conclusion: if you really think utilitarianism is right, then all should step into the machine. No one would want that though. People want real happiness. Instead we should satisfy as many preferences as possible.
Act utilitarian vs rule utilitarian.
Certain rules must always be obeyed irrespective of individual calculations. A medical doctor should never damage a healthy patient. Individually they may sometimes do that, but as a rule they cannot. Following the rule makes people happy. Respecting human rights and never torturing anyone anywhere is going to lead to more happiness overall.