You made me learn the entire Politics in a nutshell.. love it and the students of yours will be more great full to have a teacher like you to back them up
OMG... Thank you so much for this video! please continue laking such lovely videos, I absolutely understand everything! The images make it really easy to comprehend too..; Thank you again!
Too many people mistakenly believe that Utilitarianism equates to altruism; however, a person should never discount their own happiness when making decisions. There is also the benefit provided to an individual by being kind to others. It makes you feel good!
This is true, though for me at least, it comes down to a numbers game: I am one person. My happiness is as important as anybody else's - no more, no less. So, if Option A makes me and 5 others happy, yet Option B makes 25 others happy, it would be morally preferable that I support Option B, even at my own expense, ASSUMING of coarse that the qualities of happiness in victory are equivalent on all sides, as are the qualities of suffering in defeat.
Quality is important though, as, in a legal case regarding civil rights, the transitory happiness of a victorious bigoted majority does not compare to the multi-genetrationally celebrated victory of a victorious minority; nor does the civil angst of a defeated majority compare to the endless toil of many generations of second-class citizens if the minority is defeated. As such, both quality and quantity are important, as serious violations of justice can occur if only one is adhered to.
I hate ethics. This is the most annoying class I have ever taken. I have read dozens of chapters and all of these theories just spin round and round with no definitive answers. I hate it with a passion.
Exactly. I'm taking History of Philosophy, what a mistake!! Circular arguments, what is the point in talking about all these theories if there arent any solutions. More ever a group of sophmore undergrads are not gonna solve these damn arguments...
Ron Si plsss 😂😂 I was being sarcastic 😂 I can't file a report to a kid 😕 I mean, who else tells someone to 'go eat dog poop'? Best I could do is tell your mum on you 😂😂
Does utilitarianism take into account indirect consequences? Like a behavior that might directly save more people but the degradation of a moral code would in the long run do more damage? The other question i had is does it have to be more happiness? What about least suffering? or a more evolutionary oriented idea for surviving?
Fascinating that Bentham considered animal rights at the same time as all the other reforms and rights. Perhaps it’s been of importance for quite some time, but somehow we are generally ill-informed.
"Discover for yourselves the reality of things, and strive to assimilate the methods by which noble-mindedness and glory are attained among the nations and people of the world. No man should follow blindly his ancestors and forefathers. Nay, each must see with his own eyes, hear with his own ears and investigate independently in order that he may find the truth." - Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy
Hold up. hold up, hold up... What if life is suffering, then saving 5 lives as that doctor would result in more suffering and less happiness. The actual utilitarian answer is to give the medicine to nobody! Thank you Schopenhauer!
I must invoke the l. g. Christopher Hitchens on the Albanian crackpot nun. Being a sadomasochist herself, she worshipped 'human suffering' and was NOT an angel of mercy with her hideous death camps for people to go and suffer and die under pious ministrations...what a nauseating individual who brought no good to anyone, not even her own pathetic self. That's my rant for the day.
Well I believe it ultimately depends on the utils of happiness/sadness produced by the people. If the majority has more pleasant experiences over negative, (depending on factors of let's say, mindset) then yes, keep them alive. If they are inherently a combined group of frustrated people, then I could see your point.
We were born to work, struggle, and suffer, and if we don't, we'll go under. I like the idea but we need those tough times to become something better. They make the happy times more pleasurable.
Were we? Why I think them applying method word of church no work but maintain assurance. N some i heard of don't try, or lazy or victimise/martyrice N denies drugs don't work.? If I dont go berserk I don't survive.
Here is a spin on patient “needy”. What if you as the doctor saw “needy” as more valuable to society-say this person was an important leader in society and the other 5 were average citizens. Would utilitarianism guide you to save the VIP or still guide to save the five people?
I think the illness analogy only makes sense if needy was the default for some reason. Much like the train tracks question where by default the trains runs over 1 person. I think in order to make this analogy work needy would have to be the owner of the drugs so that there is actually a reason to give them to her. If she doesnt own them then I think that almost everyone would give the drugs to the 5 people since needy isn't really a special case
i've identified one main issue with U .. and its that, there is no specified time frame.. for example, if action A. produces unhappiness in the short term but ultimately leads to a longer more stable happiness in the long term, action A. would still be worse than Action B. which is that of greater happiness in the short term at the expensive of long term happiness of the individual or perhaps collectively. an example being, perhaps something like studying financial information and accounting for teenagers which in the short term may strain other exams they have and vex them but in the long term will help them stay out of debt etc.. so how does one decide?
I'm more familiar with John Stuart Mill than Bentham, and he argues that the pursuit of higher pleasures, those which would not be exchanged for others even though they may come with some discomfort, maximizes happiness. Therefore, the student could slough off his studies and feel short term relief or endure temporary displeasure of a base sort in order to bring him satisfaction with his own intellectual achievements, a respectable place in society, and so on.
Hi, how can one assess the strengths and limitations of both utilitarian and deontological approaches in biomedical ethics and explore the possibilities of a theoretical approach which transcends the alleged opposition between utilitarianism and deontology? I would really appreciate if prof could assist or perhaps refer me to a textbook ... I have read Rachels and Rachels book but would like to know what prof thinks.
It's sort of weird that she evaluates the actual merit of utilitarianism based on her own personal moral system. She says that utilitarianism gains merit because it lead Bentham to support a set of ideas that she agrees with. I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, I just think it's unprofessional for a university professor to teach that a moral system is good because SHE agrees with it.
Well, Bentham supported what made the most people happy, just as his theory proposed, not what just made rich white straight men who owned property happy. Deal with it.
I'm saying you are wrong. The "greatest good for the greatest number" can lead to many policies for the improvement of social justice, as evidenced by Bentham's support for policies that were "before their time" i.e., the abolition of slavery, racism, and other oppression, etc.. We in the dominant group can turn this theory into some arcane abstraction when in fact the social justice that it promotes is a product of treating minority groups as our equals and contributing to the sum total happiness of society.
I totally agree! It definitely is better than other moral systems in that sense. I'm not saying utilitarianism is wrong, I'm just saying that it seems like the professor is claiming to be strictly educational without any bias, but she basically says utilitarianism is good because she agrees with it. To say that about ANY ideology in an educational setting is unprofessional, even if she is right (which, again, I think she is).
I know that in the example she said its all i know about them but what if that needy person is the king of a country? Would he get saved cuz more people would be happy?
Doesn't Utilitarianism ignores the need to do things that don't bring about happiness in order for the greater good, though? I don't want to work. But I have to. But if I don't work and all I do is have fun, then I eventually stop being happy.
But if Bentham promoted Utilitarianism, he arguably should have supported capital punishment since by ending one life (loss of happiness), you are preventing the ending of other lives (a gain of happiness). It could be seen as the Trolley Problem, except that you don't know for certain if the trolley is going to run over the other people.
Thanks. Funny, science has found people became numb to happiness quickly, and pain only increases over time. They are working on model of consciensioness that theorized any conscienous organism precieves it environment, and can sense what is beneficial, or harmful, and memorizes this. The consciensous comes from an organism ability to act on what it senses, and what it momorizes.
00:05 Introduction to utilitarianism 00:41 Utilitarianism states actions are morally permissible if they produce more net happiness than other actions. 01:12 Utilitarianism provides a clear moral decision without exceptions. 01:47 Bentham recognized the moral importance of fundamental rights 02:18 Utilitarianism emphasizes happiness and absence of suffering as valuable. 02:53 Utilitarianism maximizes happiness and determines right action. 03:32 Utilitarianism prioritizes maximizing overall happiness and well-being. 04:05 Utilitarianism values actions based on their impact on wellbeing
THE difference is that Utilitarism is a Branch of Consequentialism: They are the same in the extent that both prioritize the Greater Good as a solution to the moral Dilemma.
Think about your question and the possibilities and variants that could come with it... do you really think your question can simply be answered with a yes or a no?
Every bit of happiness comes with suffering, so if you choose to prolong a life because of potential happiness which may or may not come, you are also subjecting it to more suffering, and you don't know if the rest of their life will be miserable or not, so you are creating more suffering and gambling with their future, and i'm not giving happiness any value because it does absolutely nothing other than keep you surviving, the purpose of suffering is also to keep you alive, but it is much more unpleasant. Since they both don't lead to anything other than death, it is much better not to suffer at all while alive, which is impossible, therefore it is better not to be born.
"Twinkle twinkle little hut "... Theres a code of my tinted. Lil prettier than the bitter mens. Flipside by some band N some lyrics some tune. There's a gloom, darco, emo N Dante... But,... Pharma against pain of intolerable incompatibilities that emerge ..As life does of them of so differ somewhat that separating them slightly from the same of no other variables reliable... Dark passenger is comfortable to themself.. Them head eureca splatter a matter of hatter...?
I like this example, but what if 5 of the 6 patients in the end were all critically ill patients in their 90's with terminal diseases, and the needy patient that needed more doses was a 12 year old child? How would these ethical theories of maximum gain work then? What is the bigger gain here? To sum the expected remaining lives of 5 individuals to be 1-2 years, over a child who has at least 60+ years of life, then to give the medicine to the child?
Quick summary: utilitarianism is an inherently subjective, collectivist ideology based on the idea that one has a moral obligation to "the greatest good for the greatest number." Implicit in this is the obviation of the individuals good or rights if it benefits the many. Most modern utilitarian philosopher's cough**Singer**cough, will argue that's not the case... but you shouldn't have kids or ever buy luxuries because the resources that would cost are better served aiding those in impoverished nations...
2:08 "bentham recognized the moral importance of these rights". i thought rights had nothing to do with utilitarianism? i thought they were firmly within the deontological camp...
CosmoShidan maximising happiness sounds like it would mean different things under different circumstances. but then this would mean that something which was a right for one circumstance might not be a right for another circumstance. i think "right" is not the correct term to use for such a concept, since rights imply a static moral principle.
Peter Miller Actually, the utility principle is quite simple really. It's broken up into 7 criteria when making utility calculations: Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? Duration: How long will the pleasure last? Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur? Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Extent: How many people will be affected? With that said, to have to quantify happiness/utility would render any moral deed meaningless if you have to quantify it. Like if I where to clean my room and my mother would be upset because I missed a spot. In utility calculus, it doesn't matter that I did the deed or had good intentions to do it on my own terms, the important thing is that I maximized pain and not happiness.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎶 *Introduction to Utilitarianism* - Utilitarianism defined as actions producing maximum net happiness. - Introduction to the moral theory's absolutist nature and historical background. 01:25 📜 *Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism* - Jeremy Bentham's advocacy for various social and political reforms. - Bentham's forward-thinking views aligning with utilitarian principles. 02:23 💡 *Components of Utilitarianism* - The two main components: theory of value (happiness and absence of suffering) and theory of right action (maximizing what's valuable). - Illustrative example demonstrating utilitarian decision-making in a medical scenario. 03:49 🧠 *Separation of Utilitarian Elements* - Utilitarian views on value and right action can be examined independently. - Acceptance of certain utilitarian principles without endorsing all aspects of the theory. Made with HARPA AI
I mean, this seems to open up a lot of dangerous doors. Sure, if I was a farmer and my farm could feed a town of 200 people for free, but I charge more money than I need too to run, it may cause more happiness for others to rob me of my food and distribute it out to the town, 200 people are now happy, and I am unhappy. This is an immoral act taken against me for the sake of increasing the happiness of random strangers I do not know. That is immoral.
In the case of patients that doesn't count who these folks are and how much can they do if they survive. So, if five of them are rapers from prison and the needy one is a mother of 5 kids, then what?
+Yuri Radavchuk save the mother of 5 kids of course. cuz the consequences of that would maximize the happiness of the community as a whole instead of saving the 5 rapers. right?
+Yuri Radavchuk +kurokochiii I'm going to twist the question a little bit, what if the 5 patients are actually poor peasants, and Needy is the president of XYZ country? If we view from the greater happiness sure let's kill the peasants, but viewing only from the citizen's happiness is not enough, we also need to weigh in for the long term prospective. There must be a replacement for the president, and the peasants might also be the future president.
+Brotard I think i that's quite simplistic. Why do we assume the solution utilitarianism offers is always one that is simple and immediate. Maximizing happiness should go beyond the feelings of immediate people and instead by shaped by historical, scientific, and other presidents.
the reason why maximize value is so hard to stay true as a value system is because morality is not black and white. in the example, say the patient who needed 5 doses was a world-class doctor and the others were merely ghetto citizens who surely would do little in benefiting society. -this is where the value system breaks. judgement is needed.
Timothy Densmore the example however defined more lives as more happiness, as if a obvious moral choice. when it really isn't to most people. so saying the answer is always the same is not correct, as the definition of happiness can only be agreed on by the basics of instincts (food, water, sex) and work its way from there (culture, surroundings, interests).
Timothy Densmore I can see your argument for the philosophy. Its got that happiness structure based on mathematical principles, simplistic principles. I just disagree with such easy methods of identifying solution. as in life we must judge rationally and yet emotionally. a gift and a curse
Oh? U pick N choose human values. U putting human rights N freedoms to an end. But,... I DO aswelL think... No. Your opinion and the supported idea is no contribution to a society that ideal but no actual idea over commonly convinced is good.
I'm guessing survivors guilt isnt a factor in that example? you might have just made 5 people miserable when it could have just been 1. actually, what does death count as? neutral? absolute negative happiness for the person who dies?
+beethovens666 The point of the 5 vs 1 thought experiments are situations in which to test one's moral intuitions to see if they are utilitarian or deontologist. The utilitarian would favor the many, while the deontologist tends to favor the one or few. In other words, it's the individual against the community.
No action can be objectively proven good or bad so why should you(or anyone else) even attempt to create a large scale (beyond the individuals moral)system where it can be "determined" what is right as I believe it is Solely up to the individual (and I am not saying I would agree or disagree with an others action based on what they thought ,just that I don't care ) (I hope that made sense it is rather late for me )
It was worth a try to assume consumption would bring a happier more sustainable humanity. For all the haves,have nots',and mediocrity all still suffer from more or rhe lack thereof.
Does utilitarianism consider time as valuable? As in the case of the doctor with 5 dosages of cure. The solution given, was disregarding time-dependent existential assurance. It's as if he won't be contracted with such disease, during administering the cure to the patient consecutively. What if he eventually got contracted thus bringing his own existence to end? Was that justifiable as the right action which maximizes value that utilitarians uphold?
Utilitarianism is flawed to me. Imagine there are 5 people who are going to die today unless they get organs, and they all need different organs. However, they are so far down the list that it’s impossible they will receive organs today. Now imagine there is someone in town who was a perfect match for all of them. From a utilitarian point of view, the moral thing to do would be to kill that person, harvest his organs, and give them to the dying people. This concept just seems insane to me, and I can’t imagine that anyone who isn’t a psychopath would feel perfectly fine and think it’s perfectly moral to kill that person and take his organs.
@Leo Tängermark So, you’re saying it’s moral to kill a person to give their organs? Then why don’t you just go out and start murdering as is your moral imperative? There are a lot of people on the list hours away from dying at this very moment.
This confuses Egoism with Act Utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism functions off of a sum across humanity, not a sum across individual actions: you can't compare skiing to office work in such a case -that's a grossly misrepresentative way to explain it; it makes room for easy critiques that miss the whole point.
+soshi melons the theory would weigh the advantages and the disadvantages. but it can also be personalized. if it makes you more happy than it does sad, then the theory would say to go for it.
+soshi melons the addiction cannot be an action, because it's a result of multiple actions and predisposition and upbringing combined. So if a person has an abusive behavior the choice would be to change it to less harmful, in this case a harm reduction strategy.
Yeah so to address this whole debate about who you would save 5 or 1. You're job as a doctor is to save as many lives as possible not be moral judge and jury. Just do your job. It's pretty simple. 1 life does not supersede the life of the many. I dont care if your the president if i have the opportunity to save 10 lives or 1 life im gonna save the ten. Unless were talking anout my family or friends then i will be selfish and amoral and choose them and you know what? I can live with that lmao
In the beginning of the video you had a picture of someone skiing and someone else who appears to be studying. You assumed that skiing is the utilitarian choice just because it's fun. J.S. Mill wrote about how pleasures of the mind and "higher pleasures" exist because we are not base born like pigs, and that if we deem something worth our while and would not give it up for all the "lower pleasures" then that particular thing is more valuable. Thus there are instances where people might prefer the thing that is more tasking because it might be more permanent, safe, or beneficial than the less tasking thing. Better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool.
I unliked your comment because she is making an example... don't drown in a small cup of water. In the other hand I could have liked your videos because the choice wasn't self explanatory but once again my first sentence is my definitive postition. Let the teacher Preach loll
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1 [HD]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
