//****************************************************************************//
//****************** Utilitarianism - September 11th, 2019 ******************//
//**************************************************************************//

- Okay, your first pop reading check was today! Make sure you're doing your readings!
    - Make sure you know your section number! It's okay if you don't know it this time, but you WILL lose points if you don't remember it from here on out
    - These are NOT to check that you completely understood the reading, but just to make sure you got the gist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Okay, UTILITARIANISM is a HUGE deal in ethics; it's arguably one of the 2 big ethical theories in Western thought
    - The main principal of utilitarianism is that we should "maximize overall well-being"
        - Mill certainly didn't invent this, but he was one of its biggest proponents
    - This might sound a little mathy, and it is - it's the classic "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
    - Now, you might hear this as the first system we're talking about and think "what other moral systems are there?" Well, lots!
        - Many other systems are based on rules, or different ways of judging moral actions, or the value of human life, etc.

- So, if Mill didn't invent utilitarianism, what does the history look like?
    - Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) had his body stuffed and preserved at his university - more importantly, though, he was a social reformer and philosopher, arguing for animal rights and prison reform and whatnot
        - More importantly, though, he argued for a moral system of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain
    - John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), though, was a HUGE philosopher in a bunch of stuff, and his book "Utilitarianism" tried to argue for this kind of moral system
        - He spent much of our reading defending it, not because it was a particularly detested theory, but because it was an oft-discussed one with many points raised on both sides
        - Mill refined the system as trying to maximize happiness, and he tries to argue that happiness isn't always a shallow emotion, but can involve dignity and beauty and art and etc. (basically, all the good stuff in human society)
            - He specifically says it's "better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"
    - Another one is Peter Singer, who's probably the world's most influential living utilitarian
        - Cornel West is another important current philosopher who's more pragmatic, and because he's a really cool dude we're gonna watch a video with him and Singer in it
            - In the video, Singer gives a classic example of a utilitarian "intuition pump:" if you had a nice $300 pair of shoes on, but needed to walk into a shallow pond to save a child, you'd do that even if your shoes got ruined, right? So why don't we donate $300 to the Red Cross to save a child?
                - Whether that holds water with you or not, it's something to think about, and a classic utilitarian example
        - Singer also tried to argue for animal rights on utilitarian grounds, saying that we should minimize the pain that animals go through
            - Again, some people argue that animal pain doesn't count at all, but Singer tries to say that even if it counts for a little bit, we should ban things like factory farming

- So, what're some philosophical ideas that utilitarianism raises for us?
    - First off, utilitarianism is a CONSEQUENTIALIST moral theory: the thing that makes something right or wrong is its effects, rather than its intents
        - In utilitarianism, it doesn't matter if you killed someone accidentally or deliberately; it's immoral either way
    - There's also a distinction between the "act" and "rule" variants of utilitarianism
        - Suppose it's the middle of the night at a stop sign - in Kansas - and there's no other cars or people for miles. Ignoring the law for a second, is it immoral to blow through the stop sign?
            - A RULE utilitarian would say that you shouldn't, and should still stop, since you need to abide by the rules and principles to increase overall safety
            - ACT utilitarianism, though, would say go ahead! You're not hurting anyone!
    - What're some counter-arguments for this system?
        - A BIG one is the tyranny of the majority, and that this system seems to allow for discriminating against small groups for the benefit of the society
            - There are TONS of nuanced versions of utilitarianism that try to address this
    - Also, just a heads-up about a common confusion: utilitarianism is NOT the same thing as cost-benefit analysis
        - It's occasionally used that way ("Should we buy out this business? What will it do to our brand? Let's do the math"), but it's NOT meant in an ethical sense; they're measuring economic utility, not whether something is actually right or wrong
            - ...our textbook occasionally mixes this up, and it's a big-sad for philosophers

- Alright; on FRIDAY, you have your first recitation, and make sure to read the Ford Pinto case (and make sure you know you're section number!)!
    - For next week, there'll be a reading by Immanuel Kant; it is by FAR the hardest thing we'll read this semester, so it's okay if you're confused! Just read it; I'll break it down in lecture
- And with that: goodbye!