If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3

Julia Markovits (Cornell University) gives an introduction to the moral theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the view that the right moral action is the one that maximizes happiness for all.

Speaker: Dr. Julia Markovits, Associate Professor, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell Universtiy.

Want to join the conversation?

  • leaf green style avatar for user David León
    According to the video and particularly the sentence "The more resources we have, the less impact resources have on us" is it possible to maximize the happiness of a single person by having roughly the exact amount of money?

    Depending on whether this is true, is the middle class the happier among the other social classes, because the poor does not have the necessary to live and the upper classes have to much that every gain seems nothing to them?
    (6 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • ohnoes default style avatar for user Tejas
      Economic thought claims that you can't maximize a person's happiness in this way. The reasoning is that an increase in money will always result in an increase in happiness. With larger amounts of money, the same increase will lead to smaller and smaller gains in happiness, but the contribution will always be positive. There will never be a point at which an increase in your wealth will make you less happy.
      (6 votes)
  • male robot donald style avatar for user Eli
    The utility monster seems to ignore the concept of well being. Certainly, it may be able to theoretically maximize on resources, but to deplete resources from everyone else would have a dramatic effect on their well-being.
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Hannah Atkinson
    Wednesday Night Ethics Class

    1. What are the two types of Utilitarianism?
    2. In the video, they said that the value of happiness could be expanded into the value of well-being. Is there anything else that you would add to that?
    3. Do we have a right to not have our interests sacrificed for the greater good?
    4. How has utilitarianism lead the way to freedom of speech?
    (1 vote)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Nasi2304
    Where does utilitarianism work and where doesn’t it work?
    (1 vote)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

Video transcript

Hi, I'm and I'm an Associate Professor of philosophy at MIT. Today, I'm going to talk about utilitarianism. 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 could 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. 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 utility monster since that is what would make for the most happiness on the whole. Utilitarian 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 $100 might have on your well-being than on the well-being of Bill Gates, and how much bigger an impact still a $100 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, $100 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. Subtitles by the Amara.org community