iwtilitariaeth/utilitarianism - should you walk away? · pdf file04/04/2015 ·...

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Iwtilitariaeth/UtilitarianismShould You Walk Away?

Dr. Clea F. Rees

ReesC17@cardiff.ac.uk

Canolfan Addysg Gydol Oes Centre for Lifelong LearningPrifysgol Caerdydd Cardiff University

Yr Haf/Summer 2015

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Outline

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Outline

Connections

Le Guin’s ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’

Is Omelas an Objection?

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Connections

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ConnectionsThe Trolley Problem I

B

A

Destination??

5 innocent,trapped persons

1 innocent,trapped person

The Switch

You

Run Away Trolley?

?

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Connections

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ConnectionsThe Trolley Problem II

Patient — Friendless & Unloved

?

Friends

Family

Images: Human organs (www.allvectors.com); Paul Wotton, illustration for Which?, 2013 (www.graphicnet.co.uk)

The Ones Who Walk Away from OmelasUrsula K. Le Guin

• Is it permissible to:• walk away?• stay?

• Would you walk away?• Should you walk away?

Image:Michelle Santoso, 2013 (santososs.blogspot.co.uk)

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Le Guin’s ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

The Ones Who Walk Away from OmelasUrsula K. Le Guin

Questions 1 & 2:

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Is Omelas an Objection?

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Is Omelas an Objection?

On its own, Le Guin’s story is not an objection to utilitarianism.• An objection to a theory is an argument against that theory

and the story is not an argument.But, when combined with other premises, the story might providereasons to reject (act) utilitarianism.

• An argument against (act) utilitarianism might appeal toOmelas for support.

That is, Omelas might form part of an objection to (act)utilitarianism.

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Is Omelas an Objection?

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Is Omelas an Objection?

We should reject (act) utilitarianism if one of the following is true:• Omelas is morally unacceptable as a society.

• Maximising happiness depends on the child’s sufferingbut the people are still collectively wrong to allow it.

• Walking away is morally required even if nobody will behappier.

• Staying in Omelas maximises happinessbut it is morally wrong.

• Walking away is morally permitted even if doing sodecreases happiness.

• Maximising happiness requires staying in Omelasbut walking away is not morally wrong.

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Is Omelas an Objection?

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Example (An objection?)

1. According to act utilitarianism, an action is right iff itmaximises happiness.——

2. According to act utilitarianism, an action is wrong iff itproduces less happiness than another option. (1)

3. In Omelas, one has exactly two options: stay or walk away.4. Walking away will produce less happiness than staying.

——5. According to act utilitarianism, walking away is wrong. (2–4)6. It is not morally wrong to walk away.

——7. Act utilitarianism is mistaken. (5–6)

needs explanationneeds explanation

needs brief explanation or argumentneeds brief explanation or argument

needs lots ofargument

Iwtilitariaeth/Utilitarianism

Is Omelas an Objection?

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Is Omelas an Objection?

Omelas will not give us reason to reject (act) utilitarianism if:• Omelas is morally acceptable for utilitarian reasons.

• Both it would be wrong to end the child’s sufferingand it would be wrong because allowing that sufferingmaximises happiness.

• Individual actions are moral iff they maximise utility.• Staying is morally required iff it maximises happiness.• Walking away is morally permissible iff it maximises happiness.• Staying is morally permissible iff it maximises happiness.• Walking away is morally required iff it maximises happiness.

That is, if act utilitarianism is correct, then (obviously) we will notfind (good) reasons to reject it.