Utilitarian theory

Several writers have argued that a just social order is that which would be chosen by rational, self-interested individuals behind a hypothetical veil of ignorance. This basic idea can be spelled out in different ways, to support utilitarian theories no less than the theories... 

Gandj our, A. and Lauterbach, KW. Utilitarian theories reconsidered Common misconceptions, more recent developments, and health policy implications. Health Care Anal. 2003 Sep ll(3) 229-44. Pub Med PMID 14708935. 

Thinking back on humanity s 2000 years of lead pollution, Patterson often asked himself, What led us to poison the Earth s biosphere with lead He suggested that the brains of those involved in materialistic and utilitarian engineering might be different from those involved in aesthetic and scientific endeavors. Patterson s brain theory embarrassed many of his colleagues who regarded it as off the wall stuff. ... 

In the standard neoclassical economic theory, individuals are following a utilitarian ethical norm and are making decisions as if they are economically rational. 

The following passage describes the ethical theory of utilitarianism. 

If you have ever made a list of pros and cons to help you make a decision, you have used the utilitarian method of moral reasoning. One of the main ethical theories, utilitarianism posits that the key to deciding what makes an act morally right or wrong is its consequences. 

Although economists may think of their so-called economic welfare analysis as being rooted in individual preferences, in its appHcation the benefit-cost analysis based on that welfare theory is inherently coUectivist, evoking the image of a collective farm presided over by a benevolent dictator who seeks to practice the welfare calculus of Benthamite utilitarianism. In this connection, see Reinhardt (2001). 

Statement (d) exhibits in precise form a peculiar feature of the Rawls aggregation device which we already observed earlier (see the example at the end of the last section). The selection problem for the Rawls-device does not vanish, except, of course, for trivial bundles. Or, to put it in the language of Social or Public Choice, the Rawls device depends crucially on interpersonal comparison (trivial cases excepted). (In fact, statements (c) and (d) are strongly related to questions raised in the theory of Social or Public Choice. Thus (c) provides a precise answer to the question of a purely ordinal behaviour of the utilitarian device, which is discussed e.g. by Mueller 1979, p. 176.)... 

The demands of global justice are further explored by David Resnik. Resnik believes that international justice depends not on individuals, but primarily on nations because they stand to have the greatest impact. In view of international justice goals, global health inequalities need to be considered. Resnik looks at the implications of the main theories of justice and what our international obligations of justice are. He begins with Rawlsian egalitarianism and then considers the Implications of utilitarianism in relation to questions about international justice. 

To summarize, two different approaches to international justice, Rawls egalitarian theory and utilitarianism, would both recommend that the world s nations take steps to reduce global health inequalities, but for different reasons. A Rawlsian would hold that the world s nations should provide aid to the least advantaged nations so that these nations can have an opportunity to develop and participate in the community of nations. A utilitarian would hold that world s nations should help to reduce the disease burden of the least advantaged nations to prevent these countries from causing harm to other countries, and to help these countries participate in economic activities that can benefit other countries. 

Let me say a bit more about normative impartiality, which is the most important aspect of reason to be discussed below. Impartiality as such is not a conception of justice, but a necessary feature of any view that wants to be taken seriously as a conception of justice. It is a constraint on justice, not itself a conception of justice. Utilitarianism, for instance, is impartial in its insistence that in the calculus of welfare "each is to count for one and nobody for more than one." Rights-based theories are impartial to the extent that rights are assigned universally rather than selectively. Equal-distribution theories are impartial, as are theories advocating distribution according to need, merit, or contribution. John Rawls s theory of justice is impartial by construction, being presented as the theory that rational individuals would choose behind a veil of ignorance. 

Smart, J. J. C. 1995. "Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism." In S. M. Cahn 8i J. G. Haber, eds. Twentieth Century Ethical Theory, (pp. 307-315). Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, [first published in Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1956).]... 

Our approach to perturbation theory has been a little utilitarian so far it has been used as an aid to SCF convergence and in the self-consistent perturbation method. It is clear that the variation of a Hamiltonian with respect to any parameters that this Hamiltonian may depend on contains perturbation theory as a special (linear) case. 

Further lectures discuss the concept of norms, both social and technical, and the process of estabUshing norms through reference to values. The notions of good and evil are considered and the proper or inappropriate behavior in a given society -how they function in specific discourses. Systems such as concepts of laws of nature, theories of justice, utilitarianism, and more are presented. Patterns of behavior, their attributes and specific applications, are discussed. The course also deals with the concepts of lesser evil and necessary evil . 

On one rather technical point, the optimum theory does differ from classical calculus of variations. This is in regard to the Weierstrass- or end condition, which is not satisfied by the rigorous optimum control theory. The reason for this nicety in the sufficient conditions for an optimum (and the mathematics will not be pursued further) is that optimum control theory is based on the utilitarian search for a greatest or a least value of a functional rather than a maximum or a minimum. These latter terms have precise mathematical meaning in relation to their turning values, whereas all we may require in application is the least value of a cost functional. The example of a finite straight line may make this point clearer, for such a line has neither maximum nor minimum and yet will have, at its ends, greatest and least values. 

Criminology has greatly affected crime-control policies and practices. Theories of crime have implications for punishments and crime-prevention techniques. The adoption of utilitarian-based (Classical) approaches to punishment led to the creation of determinate sentencing structures in which sanctions— in particular, lengths of incarceration— are pre-established and based on the seriousness of the offense. The punishment fits the crime in terms of severity, while characteristics of the offender are given little weight in the sentencing decision. 

---