PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money? PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE Sandel introduces JS Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.
25 Comments
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see…
@Bobstew68 I agree. It’s great to see schools like MIT and Harvard put their material out for everyone to absorb. I hope this trend continues. The Khan Academy completely blew my mind when I first saw it.
I love these videos, and finally, the philosophy class im currently in is allowing me to do a research paper on utilitarianism… one question… how do you (APA) cite a youtube video ?
That having said- isn’t there a moral obligation at work when we choose Shakespeare over the Simpsons? Without the intellectual value attached by society to Shakespeare, would be still prefer him over the Simpsons?
The section pertaining to the higher and lower pleasures were particularly interesting. However there is yet another alternative. A lot of us choose Shakespeare over the Simpsons with or without experiencing both because we have been told or believe that Shakespeare is something more intellectual than the Simpsons which caters only to the comical requirements of man. So higher pleasure is motivated by an obligation to be intellectual, a somewhat moral obligation.
“Who wants to be a millionaire” is history now. ez-casino(dot)com is a practical approach to becoming rich.
Ford Pinto. Just like in Fight Club! lol
What a homo
Is an actual example of the higher/lower pleasure section of the lecture us because we are watching this instead of watching lady gaga or clips from Spartacus blood and sand. them being the lower especially spartacus base pleasure
@tobyhawk828 because you dont like what you’re studying at school
@tobyhawk828 that’s because he’s just brilliant! we’ve watched the first part of this in school and it was the best lesson we’ve ever had!
Milton Friedman has a good answer to this
milton friedman has a good answer to this
@animemachinex3 Utilitarianism isn’t related to quality/quantity. What it argues is that utility should always be maximized. Utility means happiness, pleasure, or simply “good”. This is why according to utilitarianism, five lives are more valuable than one, because those five lives comprise a higher utility than the one.
“What’s the moral of the story?”
Don’t lose your head obviously.
10:19 — Is that older guy to the right of July Norman Finkelstein or am I seeing things?
Indeed.
That dollar figure on human life [$200,000] is arrived at the average cost won by people in accidents of similar kind, gas-tank explosion. Ford did not make that figure up, they researched it. These are kids, the framework of this world has been for centuries when people VS money; people loose and they can sound great now but they will submit to this world business order at graduation!
Wonderful lecture, from what I thought would be a stuffy Harvard professor. Hmmm, maybe I should be a little less judgmental.
Behind every Categorical moral was a Utilitarian. The problem with Utilitarianism is: what if the assessments were wrong and shortsighted; Romans became coliseum potatoes. The problem with Categorical morals: you’re being served some Utilitarian’s category. Nihil Ab Nihilo.
Can someone explain to me? So is utilitarianism actually based on quality or quantity first?
45:25 Look up rat park. Rats who are happy hanging out with each other with toys and plenty of space, they weren’t interested in the drugs. It’s only socially deprived rats that will become drug addicts.
Brilliant.
What a commendable move by Harvard, putting these up online where people can find them!
@tobyhawk828 Sounds like you might want to check out Khan Academy if you want to learn math.
I just recently found it myself. Good luck!