0:14 [Music] last
0:15 last
0:18 time we
0:21 argued about the case of the queen
0:23 versus Dudley and
0:26 Stevens the Lifeboat case the case of
0:30 cannibalism at Sea and
0:34 with the arguments about the Lifeboat in
0:36 mind the arguments for and against what
0:38 Dudley and Stevens did in mind let's
0:40 turn back to the
0:42 the
0:44 philosophy the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy
0:45 Jeremy
0:49 benam benam was born in England in 1748
0:53 at the age of 12 he went to Oxford at 15
0:55 he went to law school he was admitted to
0:58 the bar at age 19 but he never practiced
1:02 law in instead he devoted his life to
1:06 jurist prudence and moral
1:08 philosophy last time we began to
1:11 consider bentham's version of
1:14 utilitarianism the main idea is simply
1:16 stated and it's
1:19 this the highest principle of
1:23 morality whether personal or political
1:26 morality is to
1:29 maximize the general welfare or the
1:32 collect of happiness or the overall
1:35 balance of pleasure over pain in a
1:43 utility benam arrives at this principle
1:45 by the following line of reasoning we're
1:48 all governed by pain and pleasure they
1:50 are our Sovereign Masters and so any
1:54 moral system has to take account of them
1:57 how best to take account by
2:00 maximizing and this leads to the
2:02 principle of the greatest good for the greatest
2:03 greatest
2:06 number what exactly should we
2:10 maximize benam tells us happiness or
2:12 more precisely
2:15 utility maximizing utility is a
2:17 principle not only for individuals but
2:20 also for communities and for
2:22 legislators what after all is a
2:25 community benam
2:28 asks it's the sum of the individuals who
2:31 comprise it and that's why in deciding
2:34 the best policy in deciding what the law
2:36 should be in deciding what's
2:40 just citizens and legislators should ask
2:44 themselves the question if we add up all
2:56 costs the right thing to do is the one
3:00 that maximizes the balance of of
3:06 suffering that's what it means to
3:12 maximize utility now today I want to
3:15 see whether you agree or disagree with
3:18 it and it often goes this utilitarian
3:20 logic under the name of cost benefit
3:23 analysis which is used by
3:27 companies and by governments all the
3:31 time and what it involves is placing a
3:33 value usually a dollar value to stand for
3:34 for
3:38 utility on the costs and the benefits of various
3:40 various
3:42 proposals recently in the Czech
3:45 Republic there was a proposal to
3:48 increase the excise tax on smoking Philip
3:49 Philip
3:52 Morris the tobacco
3:55 company does huge business in the Czech
3:58 Republic they commissioned a study a
4:00 cost benefit analysis
4:03 of smoking in the Czech Republic and
4:07 what their cost benefit analysis found
4:13 was the government gains by having Czech
4:17 citizens smoke now how do they gain it's
4:21 true that there are negative effects to
4:23 the Public Finance of the Czech
4:26 government because there are increased
4:28 health care costs for people who develop
4:31 smoking related
4:33 diseases on the other hand there were
4:38 positive effects and those were added up
4:40 on the other side of the Ledger the
4:42 positive effects included for the most
4:45 part various tax revenues that the
4:47 government derives from the sale of
4:50 cigarette products but it also included
4:51 Health Care savings to the government
4:55 when people die early pension savings
4:57 you don't have to pay pensions for as
5:01 long and also savings in housing costs
5:03 for the
5:05 elderly and when all of the costs and
5:07 benefits were added
5:13 up the Philip Morris study found that
5:15 there is a net Public Finance gain in
5:18 the Czech Republic of $147
5:20 $147
5:23 million and given the Savings in housing
5:26 and health care and pension costs the
5:29 government enjoys the saving of savings
5:30 of over
5:33 $1,200 for each person who dies
5:36 prematurely due to
5:38 smoking cost benefit analysis
5:40 analysis
5:43 now those among you who are Defenders of
5:45 utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair
5:47 unfair
5:50 test Philip Morris was pillared in the
5:52 press and they issued an apology for
5:55 this heartless
5:57 calculation you may say that what's
5:59 missing here is something that the
6:03 utility itarian can easily incorporate
6:06 namely the value to the person and to
6:09 the families of those who die from lung
6:13 cancer what about the value of
6:17 Life some cost benefit analyses
6:20 incorporate a measure for the value of
6:23 life one of the most famous of these
6:26 involved the Ford Pinto case did any of
6:28 you read about that this was back in the
6:31 1970s you remember what the Ford Pinto
6:38 anybody it was a small car a subon
6:42 compact car very popular but it had one
6:44 problem which is the fuel tank was at
6:47 the back of the car and in rear
6:55 exploded and some people were killed and
6:58 some severely
7:01 injured victims of these injuries took
7:02 Ford to court to
7:06 Sue and in the court case it turned out
7:10 that Ford had long since known about the
7:14 vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost
7:16 benefit analysis to determine whether it
7:17 would be worth
7:21 it to put in a special Shield that would
7:24 protect the fuel tank and prevented from
7:27 exploding they did a cost benefit
7:31 analysis the cost per part
7:34 to increase the safety of the
7:43 part and here's this was the cost
7:46 benefit analysis that emerged in the
7:49 trial $11 per
7:55 part at 12.5 million cars in trucks came
7:58 to a total cost of
8:00 137 million
8:02 to improve the safety but then they
8:06 calculated the benefits of spending all
8:08 this money on a safer car and they
8:10 counted 180
8:14 deaths and they assigned a dollar value
8:16 $200,000 per
8:19 death 180 injuries
8:21 injuries
8:24 67,000 and then the cost to repair the
8:26 replacement cost for 2,000 vehicles that
8:28 would be destroyed without the safety
8:34 device 7 $700 per vehicle so the
8:38 benefits turned out to be only 49.5
8:41 million and so they didn't install the
8:46 device needless to say when this memo of
8:49 the Ford Motor Company's cost benefit
8:57 trial it appalled the jurors who awarded
9:02 is this a counter example to the
9:06 utilitarian idea of calculating because
9:09 Ford included a a measure of the value of
9:10 of
9:14 life now who here wants to
9:18 defend cause benefit analysis from this
9:22 apparent counter example who has a
9:25 defense or do you think this completely
9:34 yes okay well I think that once again
9:35 they've made the same mistake the
9:37 previous case did that they assigned a
9:39 dollar value to human life and once
9:40 again they failed to take account things
9:42 like suffering and emotional losses by
9:44 the families I mean families lost
9:46 earnings but they also lost a loved one
9:50 and that uh is more valued than
9:53 $200,000 right and wait wait wait that's
9:55 good what's your name uh Julia Roto so
9:58 if 200,000 Julie is
10:01 to too low a figure because it doesn't
10:03 include the loss of a loved one and the
10:05 loss of those years of
10:08 life what would be what do you think
10:11 would be a more accurate
10:13 number I don't believe I could give a
10:14 number I think that this sort of
10:16 analysis is shouldn't be applied to
10:18 issues of human life I think can't be
10:22 used monetarily so they didn't just put
10:25 too low a number Julie says they were
10:29 wrong to try to put any number at all
10:32 all right let's hear someone
10:36 who inflation you have to adjust for [Laughter]
10:45 inflation all right fair enough so what
10:48 would the number be now this was 30 this
10:51 was 35 years
10:54 ago $2
10:57 million you would put 2 million and
11:00 what's your name vo vo Tech says we have
11:03 to allow for inflation we should be more
11:05 generous then would you be satisfied
11:07 that this is the right way of thinking
11:09 about the
11:13 question I guess unfortunately it is
11:16 for there needs to be a number put
11:18 somewhere like I'm not sure what that
11:20 number would be but I do agree that
11:24 there could possibly be a number put on
11:29 uh human life all right so VCH says and
11:32 here he disagrees with Julie Julie says
11:34 we can't put a number on human life for
11:36 the purpose of a cost benefit analysis
11:39 Vortex says we have to because we have
11:46 somehow what do other people think about
11:48 this is there anyone prepared to defend
11:52 cost benefit analysis here as accurate as
11:53 as
11:56 desirable yes go ahead I think that if
11:58 Ford and other car companies didn't use
12:00 cause benefit analysis
12:01 they'd eventually go out of business
12:02 because they wouldn't be able to be
12:04 profitable and millions of people
12:06 wouldn't be able to use their cars to
12:08 get to jobs to put food on the table to
12:10 feed their children so I think that if
12:13 cost benefit analysis isn't employed the
12:15 greater good is
12:18 sacrificed in this case all right let me
12:21 add what's your name Raul
12:23 Raul there was recently a study done
12:26 about cell phone use by driver when
12:28 people are driving a car and there's a
12:31 debate whether that should be banned yeah
12:32 yeah
12:37 and the figure was that some 2,000
12:42 people die as a result of accidents each
12:47 year using cell phones and yet the cost
12:49 benefit analysis which was done by the
12:52 center for risk analysis at Harvard
12:55 found that if you look at the benefits
12:57 of the cell phone
13:01 use and you put some value on the live
13:03 it comes out about the
13:06 same because of the enormous economic
13:07 benefit of enabling people to take
13:09 advantage of their time not waste time
13:11 be able to make deals and talk to
13:14 friends and so on while they're
13:17 driving doesn't that suggest that it's a
13:19 mistake to try to put monetary figures
13:23 on questions of human life well I think
13:26 that if the great majority of people try
13:28 to derive maximum utility out of a
13:30 service service like using cell phones
13:32 and the convenience that cell phones
13:36 provide that sacrifice is necessary for
13:38 satisfaction to occur you're you're an outright
13:39 outright
13:43 utilitarian in yes
13:45 okay all right then when last question rul
13:47 rul
13:50 okay um and I put this to voidtech what
13:53 what dollar figure should be put on
13:55 human life to decide whether to ban the
13:56 use of cell
13:59 phones well I I don't want to
14:02 arbitrarily calculate a figure I mean
14:05 right now I think
14:07 that you want to take it under
14:09 advisement yeah I'll take it under Adis
14:11 but what roughly speaking would it be
14:13 you've got 2,300 deaths okay you've got
14:15 to assign a dollar value to know whether
14:17 you want to prevent those deaths by
14:19 Banning the use of cell phones in cars okay
14:21 okay
14:25 so what would your hunch be how much a
14:28 million 2 million 2 million was voyex
14:30 figure yeah is that about right maybe a
14:36 yeah you know the uh that's good thank you
14:38 you
14:41 okay so these are some of the
14:43 controversies that arise these days from
14:45 cost benefit analysis especially those
14:48 that involve placing a dollar value on
14:50 everything to be added
14:54 up well now I want to turn to your
14:56 objections to your objections not
14:58 necessarily to cost benefit analysis
15:00 specific specifically because that's
15:03 just one version of the utilitarian
15:06 logic in practice
15:09 today but to the theory as a whole to the
15:10 the
15:14 idea that the right thing to
15:17 do the just basis for policy and
15:27 utility how many disagree with the
15:30 utilitarian approach to
15:33 law and to the common good how many
15:36 agree with
15:39 it so more agree than
15:42 disagree so let's hear from the
15:46 critics yes my main issue with it is
15:49 that I feel like you can't say that just
15:51 because someone's in the minority what
15:54 they want and need is less valuable than
15:57 someone who's in the majority um so I
15:59 guess I have an issue with the idea that
16:00 the greatest good for the greatest
16:03 number is okay because there's still
16:05 what about the people who are in the
16:07 Lesser number like it's not fair to them
16:09 they didn't have any say in in where
16:11 they wanted to be all right that's an
16:13 interesting objection you're worried
16:17 about the effect on the minority yes
16:20 what's your name by the way Anna uh who
16:23 has an answer to Anna's worry about the
16:25 effect on the minority what do you say
16:28 to Anna um she said that the minorities
16:30 value less I don't think that's the case
16:32 because individually the minority's
16:34 value is just the same as the individual
16:36 of the majority it's just that the
16:40 numbers outweigh the um minority and I
16:42 mean at a certain point you have to make
16:45 a decision and I'm sorry for the
16:48 minority but sometimes it's for the
16:49 general for the greater good for the
16:51 greater good Anna what do you say what's
16:54 your name younga what do you say to
16:57 yanga yanga says you just have to add up
16:59 people's preferences and those in the
17:01 minority do have their preferences
17:04 weighed can you give an example of the
17:05 kind of thing you're worried about when
17:07 you say you're worried about
17:10 utilitarianism violating the concern or
17:12 respect do the
17:15 minority can you give an example so well
17:16 with any of the cases that we've talked
17:20 about like for the Shipwreck one um I
17:24 think the boy who was eaten still had as
17:26 much of a right to live as the other
17:32 people and um just because he was the
17:35 minority in that case the one who maybe
17:38 had less of a chance to keep living that
17:40 doesn't mean that the others
17:43 automatically have a right to eat him
17:45 just because it would give a greater
17:48 amount of people the chance to live so
17:51 there may be certain rights that the
17:53 minority members have that the
17:56 individual has that shouldn't be traded
17:59 off for the sake of
18:03 utility yes do I yes Anna yand this
18:05 would be a test for for
18:08 you back in ancient
18:11 Rome they threw Christians to the lions
18:13 in the Coliseum for
18:15 sport if you ran think how the
18:19 utilitarian calculus would go yes the
18:21 Christian thrown to the lion suffers
18:24 enormous excruciating pain but look at
18:34 yand well
18:40 um in that time I don't if um I in
18:43 modern day of time to Value the um to
18:44 give a number to the happiness given to
18:45 the people
18:50 watching I don't think any like policy
18:54 maker will say the pain of one person of
18:56 the suffering of one person is much much
18:59 is in comparison to the happiness gain
19:01 it's no but you have to admit that if
19:03 there were enough Romans Delirious
19:06 enough with happiness it would outweigh
19:08 even the most excruciating pain of a
19:12 handful of Christians thrown to the
19:15 lion so we really have here two
19:17 different objections to
19:20 utilitarianism one has to do with whether
19:21 whether
19:24 utilitarianism adequately respects
19:27 individual rights or minority rights and
19:29 the other has to do
19:33 with the whole idea of aggregating
19:38 utility or preferences or values is it
19:41 possible to aggregate all values to
19:44 translate them into dollar
19:46 terms there
19:53 1930s an an
19:57 psychologist who tried to address this
20:01 second question tried to prove what
20:06 utilitarianism assumes that it is
20:09 possible to translate all Goods all
20:12 values all human concerns into a single
20:15 uniform measure and he did this by
20:18 conducting a survey of young recipients
20:21 of relief this was in the
20:24 1930s and he asked them he gave them a
20:26 list of unpleasant
20:28 experiences and he asked them how much
20:30 would you have to be paid to undergo the
20:33 following experiences and he kept
20:36 track for example how much would you
20:38 have to be paid to have one upper front
20:41 tooth pulled
20:43 out or how much would you have to be
20:46 paid to have one little one little toe cut
20:52 off or to eat a live earthworm six six in
20:54 in
20:58 long or to live the rest of your life on
21:06 Kansas or to choke a straight cat to
21:08 death with your bare
21:11 hands now what do you suppose what do
21:13 you suppose was the most expensive item
21:31 Kansas for for Kansas people said they'd
21:43 $300,000 what do you
21:45 think what do you think was the next most
21:47 most
21:49 expensive not the
21:52 cat not the
21:55 tooth not the
22:04 people said you'd have to pay them
22:07 $100,000 to eat the
22:09 worm what do you think was the least expensive
22:11 expensive
22:14 item not the
22:17 cat the tooth during the Depression
22:18 people were willing to have their tooth
22:27 $4500 now here's what Thor here's what Thorndike
22:29 Thorndike
22:32 concluded from his
22:35 study any want or satisfaction which
22:37 exists exists in some amount and is
22:40 therefore measurable the life of a dog
22:44 or a cat or a chicken consists of
22:48 appetites Cravings desires and their
22:51 gratifications so does the life of human
22:54 beings though the appetites and desires
22:56 are more
22:59 complicated but what about thorndike's
23:01 study does it
23:04 support bentham's
23:08 idea that all Goods all values can be
23:11 captured according to a single uniform
23:14 measure of value or does the
23:15 Preposterous character of those
23:17 different items on the
23:21 list suggests the opposite
23:23 conclusion that maybe whether we're
23:26 talking about life or
23:29 Kansas or the worm
23:34 maybe the things we value and cherish
23:37 can't be captured according to a single
23:40 uniform measure of value and if they
23:43 can't what are the consequences for the
23:47 utilitarian theory of morality that's a
23:50 question we'll continue with next time [Applause]
