Ethics: Utilitarianism part 3

25문장 0% 일본어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
0 영상보기
영어 to
일본어
2단 보기 1단 보기

Ethics: Utilitarianism part 3

(intro music) Hi, I'm Julia Markovitz and I'm an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

One feature of utilitarianism that the Jones example brings out is that utilitarianism is interested only in the total amount of good our actions produce, not in how that good is distributed across different people.

That's why the brief frustration of billions of soccer fans can together add up to more disvalue than the intense pain of one person.

According to utilitarianism, the distribution of value across different people matters only to the extent that it affects the total amount of value our actions produce.

But might that not result in some terribly unjust distributions of goods?

Here's another example to think about, this one due to the philosopher Robert Nozick.

Nozick asked us to imagine a creature he called a "utility monster": someone who is extremely good, much better than the rest of us, at converting resources into happiness.

The more money and food and other stuff we give him, the happier and happier he gets.

And however happy some resources could make a normal person, those same resources would make him, the utility monster, much happier still.

Utilitarianism seems to imply that all the ordinary people should be sacrificed for the sake of the utility monster, since that is what would make for the most happiness on the whole.

Utilitarians sometimes respond to this that in the real world, this won't happen.

In the real world, in fact, they say, the opposite is true.

The more resources we already have, the less impact some additional resource will have on our happiness.

Think of how much bigger an impact one hundred dollars might have on your well-being than on the well-being of Bill Gates, and how much bigger an impact still a hundred dollars might have on the well-being of a child in a developing nation, whose life it could save, than it has on yours.

This pattern is called "the diminishing marginal utility of wealth."

But we might wonder whether this pattern always holds true.

Even if each of us exhibits diminishing marginal utility of wealth, if in other words one hundred dollars would benefit me more when I'm poor than when I'm rich, might some of us be utility monsters with respect to others?

Some of us, after all, might be much better at converting resources into well-being than others, even if we have more well-being to begin with.

For example, the elderly, the disabled, or those suffering from expensive-to-treat diseases might require a lot of resources to produce a small increase in their well-being, even though they are already comparatively badly off.

Would utilitarianism tell us not to help such people?

So I've been talking about ways in which utilitarianism seems to allow too much.

It may say it's okay to do things, like leaving Jones to suffer or sacrificing people to the utility monster, that we feel intuitively it's morally wrong to do.

But utilitarianism is also subject to the worry that it demands too much of us.

That will be the subject of another video.

번역 0%

Ethics: Utilitarianism part 3발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) Hi, I'm Julia Markovitz and I'm an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

One feature of utilitarianism that the Jones example brings out is that utilitarianism is interested only in the total amount of good our actions produce, not in how that good is distributed across different people.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That's why the brief frustration of billions of soccer fans can together add up to more disvalue than the intense pain of one person.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

According to utilitarianism, the distribution of value across different people matters only to the extent that it affects the total amount of value our actions produce.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But might that not result in some terribly unjust distributions of goods?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Here's another example to think about, this one due to the philosopher Robert Nozick.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Nozick asked us to imagine a creature he called a "utility monster": someone who is extremely good, much better than the rest of us, at converting resources into happiness.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The more money and food and other stuff we give him, the happier and happier he gets.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And however happy some resources could make a normal person, those same resources would make him, the utility monster, much happier still.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Utilitarianism seems to imply that all the ordinary people should be sacrificed for the sake of the utility monster, since that is what would make for the most happiness on the whole.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Utilitarians sometimes respond to this that in the real world, this won't happen.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In the real world, in fact, they say, the opposite is true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The more resources we already have, the less impact some additional resource will have on our happiness.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Think of how much bigger an impact one hundred dollars might have on your well-being than on the well-being of Bill Gates, and how much bigger an impact still a hundred dollars might have on the well-being of a child in a developing nation, whose life it could save, than it has on yours.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This pattern is called "the diminishing marginal utility of wealth."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But we might wonder whether this pattern always holds true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Even if each of us exhibits diminishing marginal utility of wealth, if in other words one hundred dollars would benefit me more when I'm poor than when I'm rich, might some of us be utility monsters with respect to others?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Some of us, after all, might be much better at converting resources into well-being than others, even if we have more well-being to begin with.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, the elderly, the disabled, or those suffering from expensive-to-treat diseases might require a lot of resources to produce a small increase in their well-being, even though they are already comparatively badly off.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Would utilitarianism tell us not to help such people?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So I've been talking about ways in which utilitarianism seems to allow too much.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It may say it's okay to do things, like leaving Jones to suffer or sacrificing people to the utility monster, that we feel intuitively it's morally wrong to do.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But utilitarianism is also subject to the worry that it demands too much of us.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That will be the subject of another video.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top