This content explores two major objections to Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism: the failure to respect individual rights and the difficulty of commensurating all values into a single measure. It then introduces John Stuart Mill's attempts to address these objections by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures and prioritizing justice based on social utility.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
[Applause] last
last
time last time we began to consider some
objections to Jeremy bentham's version of
utilitarianism people raised two
had the
first was the objection the claim that you
you
utilitarianism by concerning itself with
the greatest good for the greatest
number fails adequately to respect individual
individual
rights today we have
terrorism
suppose a suspected terrorist was
apprehended on September
10th and you had reason to believe
that the
suspect had crucial information about an
impending terrorist attack that would
kill over 3,000 people and you couldn't
extract the
information would it be just to
torture the suspect to get the information
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 about trolley cars and
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
life and so that led us to the second objection
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
terms some years
ago when I was a graduate student I was
at Oxford in England and the men they
had men's and women's colleges they
weren't yet mixed and the women's
colleges had rules against overnight male
guests by the 1970s these rules were
rarely enforced and easily violated
told by the late 1970s when I was there
pressure grew to relax these rules and
it became the subject of debate Among
The Faculty at St an's College which was
one of these all women's colleges the
older women on the faculty were
traditionalists they were opposed to
change on conventional moral grounds but
times had changed and they were
embarrassed to give the true grounds for
their objection and so they 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'll
use up hot water they
said furthermore they argued we'll have
often the reformers met these arguments
by adopting the following compromise
each woman could have a maximum of three
week they didn't say whether it had to
be the same one or three
different provided and this was the
Compromise provided the guest paid 50 P
to defray the cost to the
college the next day the national
headline in the National newspaper read
night another illustration of the
difficulty of translating all values in
this case a certain idea of virtue into utilitarian
utilitarian
terms so so that's all to
illustrate the second objection to
utilitarianism at least the part of that
objection that questions whether
utilitarianism is right to assume that
we can assume the uniformity of value
the commensurability of all 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
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 different
people happy for benam 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 he had a famous phrase to
express this idea the quantity of
pleasure being equal push pin is as good as
as
poetry what was
pushpin it was some kind of a child's
game like Tiddly Wings push pin is as
good as poetry benam says 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
than
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
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
is so here are the objections to bentham's
bentham's
utilitarianism and now we turn to
someone who tried to respond to those
objections a later day utilitarian John Stewart
Stewart
Mill so what we need
to examine now is whether John Stewart
Mill had a convincing reply to these
utilitarianism John Stewart Mill was
born in 1806 his father James
Mill was a disciple of
benams and James Mill said about giving
his son John Stewart Mill a model
education he was a child prodigy John
Stewart Mill he knew Latin at the age of
sorry Greek at the age of three Latin at
law at age 20 he had a nervous
breakdown this left him in a depression
for five years
but at age 25 what helped lift him out
of this depression is that he met Harriet
Harriet
Taylor she and Mill got married they
lived happily ever after and it was
under her
influence that John Stewart Mill tried to
to humanize
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 as part of this course
utilitarianism he 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 page8 also in Chapter 2 he argues
that it is possible for a utilitarian to
distinguish higher from lower
Pleasures now those of you who have read
Mill already how according to him is it
possible to draw that distinction how
can a
utilitarian distinguish qualitatively
higher pleasure
from lesser ones base ones unworthy
ones yes if you've tried both of them
and you'll prefer the Higher One naturally
naturally
always that's 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
experienced
both would prefer it and here in Chapter
2 we see the passage where Mill makes
the point that John just
described of two Pleasures if there be
one to which all or almost all who have experience
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
succeed how many think that it does
succeed of arguing within utilitarian
terms for a distinction between higher
and lower Pleasures how many
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 at
three short excerpts of popular
entertainment the first one is a hamlet
Soliloquy it'll be followed by two other
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
[Applause] [Music]
[Music]
me imagine a world where your greatest
fears become reality they're fighting me
each show six contestants from around
the country battle each other in three
extreme stunts these stunts are designed
to challenge the contestants both
physically and
mentally six contestants three stunts
I didly ho pedal to the metal of files
Landers 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 [Music]
[Music]
infield dang Cletus why' you have to
park by my parents now honey there my parents
parents too
too [Music]
[Music] [Applause]
[Applause]
I don't even have to ask which one you like
like
most The Simpsons how many like The Simpsons
Simpsons
Shakespeare what about Fear Factor how
many preferred Fear
you people
overwhelmingly like The Simpsons
better than Shakespeare all right now
let's take the other part of the
poll which is the the highest experience
really
what all right go ahead you can say I
found that one the most entertaining I
know but which do you think was the
worthiest the noblest experience I know
you found it the most entertaining if
something is good just because it is
pleasurable what does it matter whether
you have sort of an abstract idea of
whether it is good by someone else's
sense or not all right so you come down
in the straight benthamite side who's to
judge and why should we
judge apart from just registering and
aggregating de facto preferences all
right that's fair enough what's your
name Nate okay fair enough all right so
how many think the Simpsons is actually
apart from liking it is actually the higher
higher
experience higher than Shakespeare all
right let's see the vote for Shakespeare
again how many think Shakespeare is
higher all right so why is it ideally
I'd like to hear from someone is there
someone who thinks Shakespeare is
Simpsons yes like I guess just sitting
watching The Simpsons it's entertaining
because make jokes and they make us
laugh but like someone has to tell us
that Shakespeare was his great writer we
had to be taught how to read him how to
understand him we had to be taught how
to kind of take in ramber how to analyze
a painting well let me what's your name
Anisha Anisha when you say someone told
you that Shakespeare is better right are
you accepting it on Blind Faith you
voted that Shakespeare is higher only
because the culture tells you that or
teachers tell you that or do you act
actually agree with that yourself well
in the sense of in the sense of
Shakespeare no but earlier you made a a
example of rembrand I feel like I would
enjoy reading a comic book more than I
would enjoy kind of analyzing rembrand
because someone told me it was great you
know right so some of this seems to be
you're suggesting a kind of uh cultural
convention and pressure we're
told what books what works of art right
are great who else
yes although I enjoyed watching The
Simpsons more in this particular moment
Injustice if I were to spend the rest of
my life
considering the three different um 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 uh 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 a farm in Kansas with
only with only
Shakespeare or the collected episodes of The
The
Simpsons you would prefer
Shakespeare what do you conclude from
that about John Stewart Mills Tex T that
the test of a higher
pleasure is whether people who have
experienced both prefer
it can I cite another example briefly
yeah in bi biology neurobiology last
year we're told of a rat who is 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 um so the rat was clearly
experiencing intense pleasure now if you
ask 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 low low
pleasure I would right now enjoy intense
pleasure but yes I would I I certainly
would but over a lifetime I think I
would think almost a complete majority
here would agree that they would rather
be a h a human with higher pleasure than
be that rat
with intense pleasure for a moment
momentary period of time so now in
answer to your question right I think
this proves that or I won't say proof I
think the conclusion is that Mill Mill's
theory that when a majority people are
asked what they would rather do um they
will answer that they would rather
engage in a higher pleasure so you think
that this supports mil you think Mill is
on to something here I do all right is
there anyone who disagrees with Joe and
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 yes
um 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 um anyone can appreciate the
Simpsons but I think it does take
education to appreciate Shakespeare as
much all right you're saying it takes
education to appreciate
higher things 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
and
educated people will see not only see
the difference between higher and lower
Pleasures but will
actually prefer the higher to the
lower you find this famous passage from
John Stewart Mill it is better to be a
human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied better to be 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
lower
Pleasures so going to an art museum or
being a couch potato and 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 rembrand in
the museum is actually
higher because we've experienced
both and it is a higher pleasure gazing
at REM Brads because it engages our
higher human faculties
faculties
what about Mill's attempt to reply to
the objection about individual
argument and this comes out in chapter
five he says I I dispute the pretentions
of any Theory which sets up an imaginary
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 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 Mill
claims a utilitarian reason once you
consider the longrun interests of
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 of
Rights and then asking whether they
succeed as for Jeremy
Bentham who launched
utilitarianism as a Doctrine in moral
and legal philosophy benam Died In 1832
at the age of 85 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 benam
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 to 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 benam
looks like stuffed here's what he looks
like there he is now if you look closely
you will
notice that the embalming of his actual
head was not a success so they
substituted a waxed
head and at the bottom for ver
similitude you can actually see his
actual head on a
there so what's the moral of the
story by the way they bring him out
during meetings of the board at
University College London and the
voting here is a philosopher in life and in
in
death who adhered to the principles of
his philosophy we'll continue with
rights next [Applause]
[Applause] time
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
