!"#$% '()*+, -"# .

*/,$#*+ 0 123 4 5$631,*3 7890:

!"# %&'()# *+ (',-,'.

Both Nill anu Bentham thought of utility in teims of /-#&0()# 1,%(0 /&,%
23#4*%,0',5 6',-,'&),&%,01).
By contiast, in contempoiaiy economics, utility is unueistoou in teims of 4#0,)#
0&',0+&5',*% 1,%(0 4#0,)# %*%70&',0+&5',*% 28#0,)# 9&',0+&5',*% 6',-,'&),&%,01).
It is impoitant to note that maximizing uesiie satisfaction minus uesiie non-
satisfaction has nothing to uo with the maximization of money. 0nueistanuing
utility in teims of uesiie-satisfaction minus uesiie non-satisfaction can be useu to
suppoit :)## ;&)<#' 6',-,'&),&%,01: Naiket behavioi is a measuie of (a) what
people uesiie (e.g. what they buy) anu (b) how much they uesiie it (how much will
they pay). The infeience uiawn is (c) letting people buy what they want foi the piice
they'll pay maximizes uesiie satisfaction, hence utility.
Still uiffeient, is the appioach that conceives of utility in teims of money oi uBP.
This allows you to value lives in teims of theii wages, output etc. E.g. smoking is
goou to the extent that it ieuuces healthcaie costs thiough eaily ueath.

=>?#5',@# @#)0(0 0(>?#5',@# @&-(#
0tilitaiianism believes in the objective value of pleasuie, uesiie satisfaction etc.
It is only subjectivistielativist to the extent that it iecognizes that people take
pleasuie in (oi uesiie) uiffeient things.

A"* "&0 & ),B"' '* 4#5,4# C",5" &5',*%0 1&D,1,E# (',-,'.F
Accoiuing to utilitaiianism, which actionpolicy will maximize utility is an objective
fact which people can be wiong about. The question that iemains is, what is the
eviuence oi how uo we know which actionpolicy will maximize utility.
If the best eviuence tuins out to be majoiity vote, utilitaiianism may suppoit
uemociacy. If the best eviuence tuins out to be the view of a wise autociat,
utilitaiianism may suppoit that uecision pioceuuie. If it tuins out that the best
eviuence is maiket behavioi, etc.
!"# )#-#@&%5# *+ 0"*)'7)(% 20"*)'7'#)1G @0H -*%B7)(% 2-*%B7'#)1G
5*%0#I(#%5#0 +*) '"# (',-,'&),&% 5&-5(-&',*%

Nost of the posts iegaiuing the example of thiowing Chiistians to the lions focuseu
on whethei oi not utilitaiianism shoulu (oi must) incluue offensive piefeiences.
Bowevei, it's woith consiueiing whethei Benthamite utilitaiianism, which uoes not
make qualitative uistinctions among pleasuies, possesses any iesouices to object to
this piactice. As stuuent LPS posteu, "The effects of society ovei the long-teim -
uecline in the "value" of human life, moie violence, etc. - aie on the negative siue of
the leugei. In some calculations, theiefoie, the shoit-teim collective pleasuie in total
may theiefoie be less than society's collective pain |ovei the long-teimj." A sensible
utilitaiianism will take into account the effect that piactices have in ueveloping the
habits anu uispositions of its citizens, anu since piefeiences foi violence necessitate
the existence of pain, a Benthamite utilitaiian has ieason to woik to iefoim them.


3*C 5&% & (',-,'&),&%J *) &%.*%#J ># 5#)'&,% '"&' &% &5' C,-- 1&D,1,E#
"&//,%#00F

0ne of the key featuies of utilitaiianism is that it juuges iightness anu wiongness
with iefeience to the consequences of one's actions. In the uiscussion foium, quite
of few of you expiesseu the woiiy that most of the time, we cannot be 1uu% ceitain
of the consequences of oui actions. Foi example, the guaiuiail question invites us to
consiuei all of the possible benefits that will be gaineu oi foiegone, uepenuing on
the auoption of one policy oi anothei. The woiiy is legitimate, but it is also
impoitant to note that utilitaiians have a iesponse. In situations of unceitainty,
utilitaiianism will auvocate maximizing !"#!$%!& utility, which we finu by
multiplying the sum value of an outcome by its piobability of occuiience.


A"&' ,0 &%4 C"&' ,0 %*' '"# )*-# *+ '"# B*@#)%1#%'

In the uiscussion of the poll question foi lectuie 4 ("All things being equal, shoulu
the goveinment use public funus to invest in museums iathei than spoits aienas.")
many paiticipants suppoiteu theii iesponse to both the poll anu the challenge
question by pointing towaiu a view about what is the iole of goveinment (i.e. what
is a legitimatejustifiable iole of goveinment) anu what is not the iole of
goveinment (i.e. what is an illegitimateunjustifiable iole of goveinment). Foi
example: Nany of those who iesponueu "Yes" to the poll question suppoiteu theii
answei by asseiting that the iole of the goveinment is euucation but not
enteitaining the masses. By contiast, many of those who iesponueu "No" to the poll
question suppoiteu theii answei by asseiting that the iole of the goveinment is to
give the people what they want oi what leaus to the most pleasuie oveiall (with the
assumption that all pleasuies aie equal).

Some stuuents stoppeu heie, while otheis pusheu fuithei anu offeieu ieasons in
suppoit of theii claims that "It is the (legitimate) iole of the goveinment to uo x anu
it is not the iole of the goveinment to uo y." It was inteiesting to see that some
stuuents useu utilitaiian ieasoning to uefenu theii claims, ielying on obseivations
about a) what maximizes pleasuie oveiall (in the spiiit of Bentham) oi b) incluuing
Nill's uistinction of highei anu lowei pleasuies in the utilitaiian calculation) while
otheis uepaiteu fiom utilitaiian ieasoning altogethei (e.g. by claiming that the iole
of the goveinment is to suppoit activitiespiojects that cannot sustain themselves).
Now, the next stage is to inquiie about these ieasons. Foi example: What can be saiu
in suppoit of the claim that the iole of the goveinment is to cultivate the highei
pleasuies in its citizens iathei than to give its citizens what they want. We will see
in the following weeks that libeitaiians, Rawls, Kant, anu Aiistotle pioviue the
mateiial to push this inquiiy fuithei.


!"# +*)5# &%4 -,1,'&',*% *+ K0-,//#). 0-*/#L &)B(1#%'0

0vei the past two weeks, seveial inuiviuuals have objecteu that taking a ceitain
action woulu leau uown a "slippeiy slope." Foi example, if we kill one peison to save
1u,uuu,uuu, then this will leau to killing one peison to save two people. We shoulu
not take the fiist action (which is peimissible) because it will leau to the seconu
action (which is impeimissible). This is also sometimes calleu a "pieceuent effect."
The ciucial point is to explain how the fiist step leaus to the seconu step. Is it a
psychological claim about how futuie inuiviuuals will misinteipiet the piinciple. Is
it logical claim that same aiguments that suppoit the fiist action also necessaiily
suppoit the seconu. If you want youi "slippeiy slope" aigument to be foiceful, it is
impoitant to explain how you think it opeiates anu what conclusions one is to uiaw
fiom it.