Utilitarianism

In the words of John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is explained as follows.

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

From Mill's Utilitarianism, Chapter 2 (http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm)

If you keep this principle in mind you should have little problem understanding all the implications of Utilitarianism. According to the theory, anytime you are in a situation where you need to determine what the proper moral actions is, you simply apply the Principle of Utility.

Utilitarianism is sometimes called Consequentialism. While the name is awkward, it does highlight a key feature of the theory. Utilitarianism is concerned with the consequences of action. To determine whether an act is a moral one or an immoral one, you simply need to analyze the consequences it will likely produce. Actions that produce good consequences, that promote happiness and minimize pain and suffering, are moral actions. Actions that produce bad consequences, that bring more pain than happiness are immoral actions.

Since it is based on consequences, Utilitarianism requires us to make predictions about the future. We need to analyze a proposed action and determine what sorts of results are likely to occur. Of course, human knowledge about the future is limited and even the most intelligent and thoughtful predictions can turn out to be wrong. This problem with predictions is an acknowledged flaw with the theory, but one its proponents accept.

Since the consequences of an action are what determine whether it is moral or immoral, a person's motivations for performing the action are largely irrelevant. Certainly a good Utilitarian will be motivated to follow the Principle of Utility, but ultimately it is not the motives of the person but the results of their behaviors that are important. Keep this in mind as you study Utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) is considered the founder of modern Utilitarianism though he did not invent the ideas of Utilitarianism. The core assumptions of his theory go back more than 2000 years to the Greeks. Bentham also borrowed ideas from more contemporary philosophers such as David Hume.

To understand Bentham's theory it is instructive to consider the historical context it was conceived in. Bentham's work was done during the time we now call The Enlightenment; a time of intellectual and scientific advancement accompanied by great faith in the ability of humans to understand nature and solve humanity's problems. Philosophers like Bentham were working hard to apply the rules of the scientific method to important issues of their time.

The Calculus of Felicity

Bentham's understanding of Utilitarianism began with these two ideas.

1. All people naturally seek happiness and avoid pain.

2. All people have the ability to reason.

So, Bentham thought, if we apply our reasoning abilities to our desire for happiness in a careful, systematic way, we can achieve our goal. Bentham outlined this careful, systematic reasoning process in what he called the Calculus of Felicity (http://utilitarianism.com/hedcalc.htm). Suppose you are trying to decide between two or more possible actions. You want to know which is the moral choice. The basic idea of Utilitarianism tells you that you should do the thing that will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham's Calculus of Felicity breaks down this general consideration into a more detailed process.

The Calculus of Felicity

Intensity How intense will the pleasure or pain produced by the action be?

Duration How long will the pleasure and pain last?

Certainty How sure are you that the action will produce the pleasure or pain you predict it will?

How Soon How long a delay will there be between the action and the resulting pleasure or pain?

Fecundity A fecund pleasure is one that can be enjoyed over and over again. A fecund pleasure is also the sort of thing that leads the person to the ability to experience other desired pleasures.

Purity A pure pleasure is not tinged with pain.

Extent How many people are affected?

To analyze which of several possible actions is the moral one, you 'simply' run each through the calculus, giving positive points for pleasure produced and negative points for pain produced. Whichever action scores the highest over-all is the moral one.

Equality and Impartiality

According to Utilitarianism, all people are to be considered equal. All people have interests and a Utilitarian must consider each person's interests equally. So, the last criterion on the Calculus of Felicity is very important. Each action must be weighed for the happiness and pain it will produce in all people. A person can't consider her own happiness as any more important than that of any other person. So, Utilitarianism requires impartiality.

One Person One Vote

Bentham felt that each person was uniquely qualified to determine the things that made him or her happy. Different people like different things. Some people find attending an opera pleasurable and some people find drinking a bottle of gin to be pleasurable. They are both right. Since Utilitarianism is a social theory, we need to keep in mind the fact that different people like different things. When making public decisions, we should let people vote for what they like and go with the majority opinion since that opinion will promote the most happiness. When we are making personal decisions we will just have to make the best predictions we can about the diverse reactions that will be produced and do the thing we think (based on careful reason) will make most people happy.

The Good of the Many

It is worth reinforcing the basic principle of Utilitarianism. Moral actions are those that maximize happiness and minimize pain in everyone involved. Utilitarianism, then, makes cost-benefit analyses about things and will sacrifice the happiness of one person or a few people if that sacrifice will be outweighed by the happiness of many more people. You can easily see how this sort of reasoning is adopted by our society on many levels. We sometimes draft some of our citizens and send them to war knowing that many of them will suffer and die. But, we reason, the pain and deaths of the few will be outweighed by the happiness of the many millions of us here at home. We decide to make highway lanes nine feet wide instead of ten feet wide, even though we know from research that 10-foot lanes are safer. We balance the pain and deaths of a few drivers against the money saved when we build narrower lanes (paying taxes is painful).

It will be instructive to consider how the theory of utilitarianism solves the three dilemmas from the beginning of the semester. If the captain of the overcrowded lifeboat were to follow the rules of utilitarianism, his moral duty would have been clear. Since no SOS was sent and the ship had not been on normal shipping lanes, a rescue was very unlikely. So, for anyone to live, the survivors would have to row across 1200 miles of open ocean to the coast of Africa with little food or water. Further, based on the captain's best prediction, an approaching storm would capsize the boat leaving everyone to drown. The principle of utility demands that the actions that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number morally justified. So, the captain must order some of the people off the lifeboat to their deaths. To promote the principle of utility, the captain would keep as many people on board as possible, but sacrifice as many as needed. While the pain and suffering of those thrown over are certainly negative consequences, this amount of suffering is less bad than letting everyone die.

A utilitarian would most likely torture the mad bomber to get the information needed to save innocent lives. The pain and suffering caused by the torture is clearly balanced by the happiness of those saved from death. Of course, a strict utilitarian would also probably torture the bomber's innocent wife as well. If causing pain to one innocent person can save hundreds or thousands of lives, the principle of utility is served by torturing the innocent. I say "probably" and "most likely" here because some utilitarians would argue against torture. We'll address this wrinkle later -- can you imagine how a utilitarian could argue that the negative consequences of torture always outweigh the positive?

Finally, we turn to the case of the drowning boy. For the utilitarian this one is fairly simple. Unless the passerby fears his own death, he must jump in to save the boy. The pain of wet clothes or a missed meeting certainly don't compare to the pain and suffering of a drowning boy. The passerby's interests count, but here they are obviously outweighed by the interests of the boy.

John Stewart Mill

J.S. Mill is considered to be one of the most important modern philosophers. Mill's father and Jeremy Bentham were friends and so Mill was introduced to the ideas of Utilitarianism from a young age. While agreeing in principle with Bentham's theory, Mill saw one serious flaw in it. Mill is credited with recasting Utilitarianism into the more sophisticated version that is still famous today.

Quality Counts

Bentham, you'll recall, argued that each person was uniquely qualified to determine which things were pleasurable and which were painful. Bentham, then, was a subjectivist concerning the definition of happiness. The example used earlier about opera and gin was one Bentham used to make this point. A rich aristocratic couple walks down the sidewalk on their way to the opera and pass a working class woman walking home with a bottle of gin. "To each his own," Bentham's theory states, some people get pleasure from attending an opera and some from drinking gin.

High vs. Low Quality Happiness

Rank each set in terms of the quality of pleasure each item produces

1. Playing Chess

2. Playing Checkers

3. Playing Tic-Tac-Toe

1. Reading Steven King

2. Reading Shakespeare

3. Reading a Star Trek Novel

1. Listening to Classical Music

2. Listening to Country Music.

3. Listening to The Beatles

Mill agreed that different people report preferences for different sorts of pleasures. Some people would rather play checkers than chess. Some would rather spend time reading Star Trek novels than reading Shakespeare. Some love Country Music and hate The Beatles. But, Mill would have said, ultimately, these people are mistaken.

Mill was not a relativist concerning the concept of happiness. He believed in objective quality distinctions between types of pleasures. While people don't always prefer high quality pleasures, they would actually be happier if they did. The quality of happiness one can gain from watching World Wresting Federation: Smack down, for instance, is rather low. This is not to say that WWF Smack down has no entertainment value; Mill's point is only that intelligent adults would actually gain much more pleasure if the devoted their time to other, higher-quality pursuits.

J.S. Mill -- In His Own Words

Read this excerpt from Mill's Utilitarianism, chapter 2, (http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm) where he defends his position that human happiness is tied to the experience of quality pleasures.

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him. If they ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes. A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.

Fecundity

Recall Bentham's Calculus of Felicity and the concept of Fecundity. Mill believed that some types of pleasures were much more fecund than others in an objectively meaningful way. Consider the games of chess, checkers, and tic-tac-toe. Mill would argue that playing chess is a more fecund pleasure than playing checkers and that playing checkers is more fecund than playing tic-tac-toe. Fecundity had two aspects to its definition. First, a fecund pleasure is one that is repeatable. How many games of tic-tac-toe can you play with your young nephew before you get bored? Not too many. Checkers is more fecund in this respect and chess even more so. The tenth game of chess can be as pleasurable or even more pleasurable than the first, this is a mark of fecundity.

The other meaning of fecund has to do with the effect certain pleasures have on a person. A fecund pleasure leads a person to the ability to experience other kinds of pleasures that they otherwise would not have been able to enjoy. Again, consider the games. Tic-tac-toe is a dead end sort of pleasure in this respect. Now think about chess. To really enjoy the game at all you have to practice it, even study it. The rules are complex and the possible variations in game play are nearly infinite. Two skilled players are locked in an intense, competitive, strategy filled match. Each game played (win or lose) adds to one's ability to enjoy the next game even more. Chess players also reap other benefits. Chess strategy requires clear thinking, logical decision-making, and other intellectual skills. Good chess players are better able to understand mathematics, military strategy, and so forth. Chess is a fecund pleasure because it leads the devotee to the ability to experience other quality pleasures.

Mill would have argued in a similar fashion for choosing Shakespeare over Star Trek novels. While 'good' literature is difficult to understand (you have to read with a dictionary and a thesaurus, re-read sections over and over, discuss what you've read with others to investigate the subtleties of meaning, etc.) it is, in the end, able to produce a much richer, fecund, high-quality pleasure than 'lesser' sorts of reading material. The music of The Back Street Boys was catchy, flashy, and enjoyable (to some), but also uncomplicated, repetitive, and lyrically simplistic. Classical music on the other hand is very complicated. The reason there are classes on music appreciation focused on classical music is that one needs to be educated about classical music to really 'get' it. Of course I am generalizing in my descriptions of music and literature, but don't let Mill's point get lost. Mill argues that there are some objective quality distinctions to be made where types of pleasures are concerned.

Bentham vs. Mill

The bottom line difference between Bentham's utilitarianism and Mill's utilitarianism should be clear now. It is, really, an argument between subjectivism and objectivism. Who do you think has it right? As a closing argument from Mill, consider these two points.

First, on a personal level, Mill argues, you will ultimately be happier if you choose to seek higher quality pleasures. Attaining these sorts of pleasures is often difficult, but the long-term rewards make the effort worthwhile. If you aim low and spend your weekends watching television, you will certainly succeed in attaining pleasure. If you choose to study poetry, or practice playing the guitar, or learn a foreign language, your weekend will be more frustrating than pleasant, but in the end you'll be a happier person.

Next, on a societal level, Mill argues, there are significant costs to Bentham's version of utilitarianism. Since low quality pleasures are easy to obtain, people are naturally drawn to them. High quality pleasures take longer to cultivate and are more difficult to attain, so people are generally not drawn to them naturally. Consider Shakespeare for instance. How many high school students would choose to read Shakespeare if they were not forced to do so for a class? Some would, but most would not. So, if high schools adopted Bentham's utilitarianism and let each high school student choose what books to read in Literature Class, most would opt for low quality books. What would happen when these students went to college? How many would choose to become English Lit majors? Philosophy majors?

--- End of week 7 reading, we'll address the rest of the material next week; feel free to read ahead ---

Feeding The Hungry

As you read this there are millions of people who are starving to death. Certainly it is clear to everyone that starvation is a terrible, agonizing way to die. Do we have a moral obligation to minimize this suffering? From a utilitarian perspective the suffering and pain of starving people constitutes a significant moral problem. Starving people experience serious pain and are unable to experience much pleasure or happiness (low quality or high quality). The Principle of Utility states that the moral thing is that which maximizes happiness and minimizes pain. Thus, if we have the ability to do things, which minimize the suffering of these starving people, utilitarianism tells us we should do so. Do we have the ability to do things, which will minimize the suffering of these people? Peter Singer, in his recent article The Singer Solution to World Poverty, (www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html) certainly thinks we do. Everyone should read Singer's article.

What starving people need are food, clean water, and medical attention. Often they need more than these things (housing, education, and other longer term help) as well, but food, water, and medicine is what they need immediately to stop their suffering. There are many organizations working to provide these basic needs to starving people (The Red Cross, The United Nations, etc.). All that is needed to enable these organizations to feed the hungry is money. Could you give money to feed starving people? Even the poorest Americans are rich by the standards of the starving people.

Could You Feed The Hungry?

Many reputable aid organizations report that it costs only a few dollars per day to provide food, clean water, and basic medical services to a starving person. Couldn’t you give a few dollars a day to the Red Cross? It might mean giving up that gourmet coffee you drink, or buying fewer new music CDs, or eating out less often. How much would you really suffer by giving up a few luxuries?

In his article, Singer argues for the acceptance of the following claims. See if you agree with them.

1. Suffering is bad.

2. If a person can alleviate suffering without subjecting himself or herself to significant harm, they should do so.

Singer thinks that these claims are true and that most people will readily accept them as true. Consequently, Singer thinks that since people from affluent nations like ours could stop the suffering of all the starving people in the world without suffering any significant harm in the process, that we are morally obligated to do so. Clearly this is a basic utilitarian argument. Imagine that you are deciding whether to buy a $3 Starbucks' coffee or send the $3 to the Red Cross to feed the hungry. Which choice promotes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people? Try running each choice through the criteria of Bentham's Calculus of Felicity.

The Drowning Boy

Jack is walking to work down a deserted stretch of road when he sees a small boy drowning in a shallow pond. It is clear from the boy's weakening cries that he is only minutes from death. Jack is an excellent swimmer, in good health, and could easily wade into the water and pull the boy to safety. Is Jack morally obligated to help the boy? If he decides to keep walking because he doesn't want to be late for work, or to ruin his expensive suit, or just because he doesn't want to bother, should we condemn Jack as an immoral person?

Generally, when students are presented with this moral dilemma, there is nearly unanimous agreement that Jack should save the boy. What if Jack is wearing a borrowed Armani suit that is worth $5,000 and he can't afford to replace the suit that will surely be ruined by the dirty pond water? Or, what if Jack knows that if he is late for work he will lose his job. Generally people think that a small boy's life is worth more than a $5,000 suit or a job, and conclude that Jack is still obligated to save the boy. Even students who tend toward relativism and who consequently don't want to make universal moral proclamations about a duty to save the boy, almost always say things like, "Well, I can't decide for Jack, he has to do what he feels is the right thing, but I would save the boy."

This dilemma is instructive because it offers a clear insight into our moral intuition. Nearly all students agree with the basic utilitarian notion that Jack should alleviate the boy's suffering since he won't have to suffer any significant harm in the process. Clearly, most people don't think ruining a $5,000 suit or losing a job constitutes a significant harm in this case.

While the particulars are different, the case of the drowning boy is striking similar to the case of the starving people we are now considering. There are thousands of children starving to death right now and all of us have the ability to save these children; we wouldn't even have to give up anything comparable to a $5,000 suit. If you think Jack has a moral duty to save the boy, shouldn't you also agree that Jack (and all of us) have an equally compelling moral duty to save the starving people? A utilitarian's answer to this question is a resounding "yes!"

Does Distance Matter?

One difference people often point out is that the drowning boy is right in front of Jack while most of the people who are starving to death are thousands of miles away. Is distance a morally relevant criterion in such cases? Certainly if the boy is too far away for Jack to see, or so far away that Jack couldn't get to him in time, then distance might be relevant. But isn't distance only relevant when it interferes with a person's ability to help? It is very easy for us to be informed about what is happening in far off corners of the world, we can watch television, utilize the Internet, or take advantage of other such technologies. Similarly, it is very easy for us to give aid to people thousands of miles away. Money given today to the Red Cross can be used to supply food to a starving child in Africa tomorrow. In many ways it is easier to help a starving child thousands of miles away than it is to walk 100 feet to save a drowning boy.

Other Considerations

Are there other relevant considerations that might let us differentiate between the case of the drowning boy and the case of the starving African child? Does it matter whether or not we know the person needing help? If the boy was our next-door neighbor's child we might have an additional motivation to save him, but wouldn't we want to save the boy even if he were a total stranger? Wouldn't we want to save the boy even if he were not a U.S. citizen and couldn't speak English?

Are there any morally relevant differences between the case of the drowning boy and the starving African child? If not shouldn't we feel the same moral duty to feed the boy as we do to save the boy from drowning?

Positive and Negative Responsibility

One philosopher who disagrees with Singer is Jan Narveson. In an article he wrote responding to Singer, Narveson makes a distinction between two senses of the word "starve."

I see the boy on television and he is starving to death.

I have locked a boy in my basement and I am starving him to death.

Compare these two uses of the word. In the first case "starve" is something that is happening to a person that the viewer had no direct part in causing. In the second case, "starve" is something the person is doing to the boy. Let's consider the first case of the word the negative sense and the second case the positive sense. Narveson argues that we certainly have a moral duty not to starve people (in the positive sense), but that we don't have a moral duty to stop people from starving (in the negative sense). The issue of Positive vs. Negative responsibility is very important to a full understanding of utilitarianism. Recall that according to utilitarianism, what matters are consequences. Consequences that involve pleasure and happiness are good while those that involve pain and suffering are bad. The Principle of Utility instructs us that the moral thing to do is the thing that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.

Utilitarianism makes no distinction between Positive and Negative Responsibility

In the two cases of starvation presented above, the consequences are the same. In each case the boy dies from starvation. If a person has the ability to stop the starvation, that person is morally obligated to do so. The Principle of Utility demands that we perform the action that will promote happiness and minimize pain. From the utilitarian perspective, a person who stands by and lets a person starve (in the negative sense) is just as immoral as a person who actively starves a person to death (in the positive sense). Critics of utilitarianism like Narveson argue that this failure to differentiate between these two types of responsibility is a sign that the theory itself is flawed. Any successful moral theory, they argue, must be able to account for the legitimate difference between actively starving a person and letting a person starve.

Williams and the Rebels

This criticism focusing on positive and negative responsibility is further illustrated in the following example.

Williams, an anthropologist, is walking through a jungle when she stumbles into the camp of a group of rebels fighting a civil war against their government. Williams is bound and gagged and presented to the rebel leader. After figuring out that Williams is not a spy, the leader is about to release her when he grabs her by the arm.

"You are lucky I was here when you arrived. See those twenty prisoners?" The leader motions to a line of men and women standing blindfolded in front of a rock wall.

"Those people are traitors to the Motherland and we were just about to execute them. Had I not been in camp, my men would have assumed you were also a traitor and shot you too. To make up for this nearly fatal error, I feel like doing something for you. I'll give you a chance to be a hero and save 19 of them from death."

"This gun has one bullet in it. If you take it and kill one of the prisoners, I'll let the other 19 go free. If you choose not to shoot one of them, I'll kill all 20. What do you want to do?"

Suppose the rebel leader is sincere with his offer. Should Williams accept? The utilitarian answer, of course, would be a resounding "yes." Assess the consequences of Williams agreeing -- 19 people live and 1 dies. Next, assess the consequences of Williams declining -- 20 people dead. You don't even need to use the Calculus of Felicity for this one. Clearly the greater good is served by Williams shooting one prisoner. Consider the concepts of Positive and Negative responsibility as they apply to this case. The utilitarian, seeing no distinction between these sorts of responsibility, would argue that if Williams opts to decline the rebel leader's offer, she is responsible for 20 deaths. She would be just as responsible for their deaths as she would be if she actually killed all 20 herself.

Utilitarian like Singer don't try to counter this criticism. They accept that their theory does seem to contradict some of our deeply held moral intuitions. What they argue is that our moral intuitions need to change to reflect the obvious facts that 20 deaths are, morally, much worse than 1 death. Again, when utilitarians consider the two cases of the word "starve" they would probably accept that there is a legal difference but not a moral one. Letting a person starve to death, when you could stop this terrible thing from happening, is the moral equivalent of starving the person to death by locking him in your basement.

Other Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a widely accepted ethical theory. It is easy to see how many of the basic tenets of this theory are incorporated into our public decision making processes. Still, utilitarianism has some significant problems associated with it. What follows are additional examples that highlight some of the most fundamental problems with utilitarianism. Before looking at the particulars, let's review the basics of the theory.

Utilitarianism

1. The moral thing is that which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people.

2. The consequences of an action are all that matter.

3. Each person's interests are equal to every other person's.

One of the most serious problems with utilitarianism is that it seems to clash, at times, with basic moral concepts like Justice and Rights. Consider these two examples.

The Sam Example: Sam is at the hospital visiting his aunt who is suffering from dementia. Though she doesn't recognize Sam, he enjoys visiting her since he has nobody else in his life that he cares about (no other family and no real friends). On his way to the cafeteria, a doctor asks Sam to step into his office. As he steps through the door, somebody jabs Sam with a syringe and, moments later, Sam passes out. Also in the hospital are four people, each dying from organ failure. Each of these people is an extremely important individual to society (a doctor working on a cure for cancer, a pop music singer who is adored by millions of teenagers, a politician working on a Middle-East peace plan, and a well-loved religious leader). Each of these people has a large family and extensive group of friends who are terribly saddened by their impending death. Fortunately (for society but not for Sam), Sam is a perfect genetic match for each of these people. The doctors take Sam to an operating room and remove his heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys and transplant these organs into the four patients. The principle of utility has been served!

Watch Where You Park: You arrive at the courthouse to fight a parking ticket you received last week. You were, in fact, parked in a fire lane but have heard that just showing up in court will often convince a judge to reduce a fine significantly. You approach the bench and the judge asks, "How do you plead?" "Guilty, your honor," you reply confidently. "Very well, you are sentenced to immediate execution by firing squad." The judge motions for the bailiff to bring you closer to her desk. "I realize that you are only guilty of a parking violation and don't deserve to die for that crime. But, there have been a rash of rapes and assaults in the city over the past few months. These sorts of crimes cause society significant suffering. We haven't been able to find any of the people who committed those crimes, but we do know that a public execution will reduce violent crime in our city by 20-45% over the next year." We'll just tell the public that we've caught the rapist and we'll make an example of you. People will feel safer and the real criminals will be deterred from further crimes." Again, the principle of utility has been served!

These examples make it clear that there are times when the dictates of utilitarianism contradict our intuitions about what is morally right. Our ideas of justice and basic rights inform us that intentionally killing an innocent person is wrong, regardless of the consequences. Utilitarianism, being based solely on consequences, tells us that there are times when killing an innocent person is morally required.

One rebuttal of these criticisms involves a revision of utilitarianism. These problems arise when we follow the principle of utility too narrowly and when we apply it to each unique situation. A better solution is to apply the principle of utility to general cases. For instance in the Sam Example, the greater good was served by killing an innocent person to save four other people. But, generally, killing an innocent person does not serve the greater good. So, rule utilitarianism (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/ruleutil.htm) is an update of Mill's utilitarianism that calls for applying the principle of utility to general rules as opposed to particular cases.