What is Utilitarianism?

Welcome to Philosophy is not boring by Kadopoly.com. I'm Mira! And I'm Finn! If you haven't already, tap follow wherever you're listening so you never miss an episode.

Hey Mira, if we had a giant chocolate cake right now, how would we divide it up?

Well, usually you'd cut it into equal pieces, right? One for me, one for you, maybe some for our friends. That seems fair and makes everyone a little bit happy.

Or I could eat the whole thing myself. Think of how happy I would be. My happiness would be totally off the charts. I love chocolate.

But what about everyone else? We would all be absolutely miserable watching you eat the whole thing by yourself.

Yeah, but what if my giant burst of happiness is actually bigger than your small bits of sadness? Doesn't my happiness win because it's so big?

Wow, Finn, you just stumbled right into one of the biggest arguments in philosophy. I did! I was just thinking about cake. Today we are asking a huge question. Is the right thing to do whatever makes the most people happy? Or is there more to being good than just adding up the points? Let's find out.

So wait, who actually tried to make a math formula out of being good?

His name was Jeremy Bentham. He lived in London way back in 1789.

1789? That is a very long time ago. People were wearing those funny wigs and coats, right?

Yep. And Jeremy Bentham was looking around at all the complicated rules, traditions, and laws in the world. And he thought they were a total mess. He wanted one simple, scientific rule to solve every single problem.

One rule for absolutely everything, like what to eat for breakfast, how to treat your friends, and how to run a whole country.

Exactly. He called it the principle of utility. We know it today as utilitarianism.

That is a very long word.

It is, but the idea is actually super simple. Bentham said that every decision you make should do one thing. Add to the world's happiness and subtract from the world's pain. Oh, like a video game score. Exactly like a score. Bentham said you should literally add up the pleasure an action causes, subtract the pain it causes, and whatever action gives you the biggest total score is the right thing to do.

Period. So if I share my toys, my friends get a lot of happiness points. I might lose a little happiness because I'm not playing with them right that second, but the total happiness in the room goes up.

Yes, according to Jeremy Bentham, you've done the math, and sharing is mathematically the right thing to do.

Okay, I like this. It makes being good really clear. If the happiness points go up, you did good. If the pain points go up, you did bad.

It does sound great at first, but when you only care about the total number of points, things can get really weird really fast. Weird how? Imagine a group of five kids are deciding what to play during recess. Four of them really, really want to play tag. They love running around. But one kid hates tag and just wants to play hide and seek quietly.

Well, four kids playing tag generates a lot of happiness points. One kid being sad is only a few negative points. The total score says they should absolutely play tag.

Right, but what if they do this every single day of the year? The four kids always get to do exactly what they want, and the one kid always gets ignored, just because they are outnumbered. The math still says it's the right choice, because the total happiness is higher for the group.

Wait, but that doesn't seem fair. That one kid is just going to be sad all the time. Exactly.

This is the big problem with utilitarianism. Sometimes, adding up the happiness means somebody gets left out completely.

I don't like that. A high score isn't always fair.

Or take a harder example. What if a whole crowd of people are making fun of one person? The crowd might be getting a huge amount of pleasure from laughing. Does their combined happiness outweigh the pain of the one person getting teased? No way!

That's just bullying! It doesn't matter how many people are laughing, it's still wrong.

That's where Bentham's simple math runs into trouble. If you only look at the total amount of pleasure, you might end up doing things that feel deeply wrong.

So, did anyone fix this? Did they figure out a way to keep the happiness idea without it turning into a bullying excuse?

Yes. A philosopher named John Stuart Mill came along a bit later to sharpen the idea. He was a follower of Bentham, but he saw the problems. What did he change? Well, Bentham thought all pleasure was exactly the same. Whether you got pleasure from eating a donut or reading a brilliant book, a point was a point.

I do really like donuts.

Me too. But John Stuart Mill said no, all pleasures are not equal. He said there are lower pleasures, like just being full and comfy, and higher pleasures, like learning, helping others, and making art.

Oh, so he changed the point system. A higher pleasure is worth more.

Exactly. Mill famously wrote in his book Utilitarianism: it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. And it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Wait, what? Socrates the philosopher? Yes. Mill meant it's better to use your brain, ask hard questions, and care about fairness, even if it makes you a little stressed, than to just sit in the mud like a happy pig with no worries at all.

So bullying someone might be a lower pleasure, but caring about everyone's feelings is a higher pleasure.

That is the idea. Mill thought higher pleasures count for way more, which helps protect people from just being outnumbered by a mob looking for cheap thrills. It stops utilitarianism from just being a math game.

But wait, I still see a problem. Who decides what is a higher pleasure and what is a lower one? What if I truly think watching cartoons all day is a higher pleasure, and you think reading philosophy is?

That is a brilliant question, Finn. And honestly, people have argued about that for over 150 years. There is no simple, perfect answer to it. It is an open question that you just have to think about yourself. So, why does all this matter to us right now, in our real lives?

Yeah, I don't usually sit around doing happiness math with a calculator on the playground.

You'd be surprised. Next time you are hanging out with your family and everyone wants to watch a different movie, listen to how you argue. Someone will probably say, well, three of us want to watch the comedy, so majority rules.

Oh wow! That is utilitarianism. They are saying the total happiness will be highest if the majority gets their way. Exactly.

But you can also remember the other side of the coin. You can say, wait, but my little sister has been outvoted three nights in a row. Is it actually fair to just leave her out again, even if the math says the rest of us will be happier? That's cool.

We actually do use this stuff all the time.

And now, are you ready for a mind-bending fact about Jeremy Bentham? Always. Bentham believed so strongly that everything should be useful, even after you die, that he didn't want to just be buried in the ground. What did he do? He had his skeleton dressed in his actual clothes, stuffed with hay, and put inside a wooden cabinet with a glass front.

He called it an auto icon.

Wait, you mean his actual skeleton is just sitting in a box somewhere?

Yes. You can actually go see him right now at University College London. He sits there in a glass case.

That is the weirdest, coolest thing I have ever heard. He really practiced what he preached about being useful.

Alright, Finn, time for the quiz. Are you ready? Okay, I'm ready. First question. Who was the philosopher from London in 1789 who invented the math of happiness? Next one. What is this philosophy of adding up happiness and subtracting pain called? Question 3. Which later philosopher said some pleasures are higher and some are lower?

Here's number four. John Stuart Mill said it was better to be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied what animal. Great job! Let's see how you did. The first answer is Jeremy Bentham. For question two, it's called utilitarianism. The answer to question three is John Stuart Mill. For question four, he said it's better to be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig.

And the last answer is University College London.

You know, I really like the idea of trying to make the most happiness. But I think Mill was right. You have to care about the quality, not just the points.

I agree. It's not a perfect math formula, but wondering about how our choices affect everyone is a pretty great place to start.

If you liked exploring this with us, please leave us a five-star review. Just scroll down and tap the stars. It really helps other kids find the show.

Oh, and we have sister shows too. History and science is not boring, and maths is not boring. Go give those a listen and a follow as well.

And if you want a shout out on the show, or just want to say hi, email us at hello at kidopoly.com.

See you next time on Philosophy is not boring. Bye.

What is Utilitarianism?

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin