WGBH Forum Network; Putting a Price Tag on Life / How to Measure Pleasure; WGBH Station

Run this program is provided by. Additional funding. I did mine. Last time. We argued. About the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens. The lifeboat case the case of cannibalism at sea. And. With the arguments about. The lifeboat in mind the arguments for and against were deadly and Stevens did in mind. Let's turn back to the. Philosophy of the utilitarian philosophy. Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was born in England in 1740 at the age of 12. He went to Oxford and at 15 he went to law school. He was admitted to the bar at age

19 but he never practiced. Law. Instead he devoted his life. To jurisprudence and Moral Philosophy. Last time we began to consider Bentham's version of utilitarianism. The main idea is simply stated and it's this. The highest principle of morality. Whether personal or political morality. Is to maximize. The general welfare or the collective happiness. Or the overall balance of pleasure over pain. In a phrase. Maximize utility. Bentham arrives at his principle by the following line of reasoning. We are all governed by pain and pleasure. They are our sovereign masters and so any moral system has to take account of them. How best to take account by maximizing. And this leads to the

principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. What exactly should we maximize. Bentham tells us happiness more and more precisely utility. Maximizing utility as a principle not only for individuals but also for communities and for legislators. What after all is a community Brentham asks. It's the sum of the individuals who comprise it. And that's why in deciding the best policy in deciding what the law should be in deciding what just. Citizens and legislators should ask themselves the question. If we add up. All of the benefits of this policy. And subtract. All of the costs. The right thing to do. Is the one. That maximizes the balance of happiness over suffering.

That's what it means to maximize utility. Now today I want to see. Whether you agree or disagree with it. And it often goes this utilitarian logic under the name of cost benefit analysis which is used by companies. And by governments all the time. And what it involves is placing a value usually a dollar value to stand for utility on the costs and benefits of various proposals. Recently in the Czech Republic there was a proposal to increase the excise tax on smoking. Philip Morris. The tobacco company. Does huge business in the Czech Republic. They commissioned a study a cost benefit analysis. Of smoking. In the Czech Republic and what their cost benefit

analysis found was that government gains. By having Czech citizens smoke. Now. How do they gain. It's true that there are negative effects to the public finance of the Czech government because there are increased health care costs for people who develop smoking related diseases. On the other hand there were positive effects and those were added up. On the other side of the ledger the positive effects included for the most part various tax revenues that the government. Derives from the sale of cigarette product. But it also included health care savings to the government when people die early. Pension savings you don't have to pay pensions for it long. And also savings in housing costs for the elderly. And when all of the

costs and benefits were added up. The Philip Morris study found that there is a net public finance gain in the Czech republic of 147 million dollars. And given the savings in housing and health care and pension costs the government enjoys the saving of savings of over twelve hundred dollars for each person who dies prematurely due to smoking. Cost benefit analysis. Now. Those among you who are defenders of utilitarianism may think that this is an unfair test. Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and they issued an apology for this heartless calculation. You may say. That what's missing here is something that the utilitarian can easily incorporate namely. The value to the person

and to the families of those who die from lung cancer. What about the value of life. Some cost benefit analyses incorporate a measure. For the value of life. One of the most famous of these involved the Ford Pinto case. Did any of you read about that this was back in the 1970s. Do you remember what the Ford Pinto was a kind of car. Anybody. It was a small car subcommand compact car very popular but it had one problem which is the fuel tank was at the back of the car and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded. And some people were killed. And some severely injured victims of these injuries took forward to court to sue. And in the court case it turned out. That Ford had long

since known about the vulnerable fuel tank and had done a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it would be worth it. To put in a special shield. That would protect the fuel tank and prevented from exploding. They did a cost benefit analysis. That cost per part. To increase the safety of the Pinto. They calculated at 11 dollars per part. And here's is this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged in the trial. 11 dollars per part. At twelve point five million cars and trucks. Came to a total cost of one hundred and thirty seven million dollars to improve the safety. But then they calculated. The benefits of spending all this money on a safer car. And they counted 180

deaths. And they assigned a dollar value $200000 per death. 180 injuries. 67000. And then the cost to repair the replacement cost for 2000 vehicles that would be destroyed without the safety device. Seventy seven hundred dollars per vehicle. So the benefits. Turned out to be only forty nine point five million. And so they. Didn't install the device. Needless to say when this memo. Of the Ford Motor Company is cost benefit analysis came out in the trial. It polled the jurors who awarded a huge settlement. Is this a counter example to the utilitarian idea of calculating because. Ford included a measure of the value of life.

Now who here wants to defend cost benefit analysis from. This apparent counter example who has a defect. Or do you think this completely destroys the whole utilitarian calculus. Yes. You are. I think that once again they've made the same mistake the previous case did that they assigned a dollar value to human life and once again they failed to take account things like suffering and emotional losses by the families and the families lost earnings. But they also lost a loved one and that. Is more value than $200000. Right. And very very very. That's good. What's your name. Julie rotan. So two hundred thousand. Julie is too. Too low a figure because it doesn't include the loss of a loved one and the loss of those years of life. What would be. What do you think would be a more accurate number. I don't believe I could give a number. I think that this sort of analysis shouldn't be applied to issues of human

life. It can't be used monetary. So. They didn't just put too low number. Surely says they were wrong to try to put any number at all. All right let's hear someone who. You have to adjust for inflation. All right fair enough. So what would that number be now. This was 30 35 years ago. Two million dollars. You would put two million. And what's your name. Wojciech says we have to allow for inflation. We should be more generous. Then would you be satisfied that this is the right way of thinking about the question. I guess unfortunately that is where there needs to be a number put somewhere. Like. I'm not sure what that number would be but I do

agree that it could possibly be a number put on the line. All right. So Virtex says. And here he disagrees with truly truly says we can't put a number on human life for the purpose of a cost benefit analysis vertexes. We have to. Because we have to make decisions somehow. What do other people think about this. Is there anyone prepared to defend cost benefit analysis here. As accurate as desirable. Yes I think that is for another car companies didn't use cost benefit analysis. They eventually go out of business because they wouldn't be able to be profitable and millions of people wouldn't be able to use their cars to get the jobs to put food on the table to feed their children. So I think that if Kwasman announces isn't employed the greater good is sacrificed. In this case. All right let me get your name Raul. Raul.

There was recently a study done about cell phone use by drivers. When people are driving a car and there's a debate whether that should be banned. And the figure was that some. 2000 people. Die. As a result of accidents each year. Using cell phones. And yet the cost benefit analysis which was done by the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard. Found that if you look at the benefits. Of the cell phone use. And you put some. Value on the life it comes out about the same. Because of the enormous economic benefit of enabling people to take advantage of their time not waste time be able to make deals and talk to friends and so on while they're driving. Doesn't that suggest that it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures on questions of human life.

Well I think that if the great majority of people. Try to derive maximum utility out of the service like using cell phones and the convenience that cell phones provide that sacrifice is necessary for. Satisfaction to your ear and outright utilitarian. Yes. OK. All right then one last question. OK. And I put this to avoid tech. What what dollar figure should be put on human life to decide whether to ban the use of cell phones. Well I don't want to arbitrarily calculate a figure. I mean right now I think that. You want to take it under advisement. Yeah. But what roughly speaking would it be. You got 23 300 deaths you've got to assign a dollar value to know whether you want to prevent those jets by banning the use of cell phones in cars. So. What would your hunch be. How much a million two million two million was Virtex

figure. Is that about right. Maybe a million a million a year. You know the that's good. Thank you. So these are some of the controversies that arise these days from cost benefit analysis especially those that involve placing a dollar value on everything to be added up. Well now I want to turn to your objections to your objections not necessarily to cost benefit analysis specifically because that's just one version of the utilitarian logic in practice today. But to the theory as a whole to the idea. That the right thing to do. The just basis for policy in law. Is to maximize utility. How many disagree with the utilitarian approach.

To law. And to the common good. How many agree with it. So more agree than disagree. So let's hear from the critics. Yes. My main issue with it is that I feel like you can't say that but just because someone's in the minority what they want and need is less valuable than someone who is in the majority. So I guess I have an issue with the idea that. The greatest good for the greatest number is OK because there are still about people who are in the last number like it's not fair to them they didn't have any say in where they wanted to be. All right that's an interesting objection. You're worried about the effect on the minority. Yes. What's your name. By the way Anna. Who has an answer to Ana's worry about the effect on the minority. What do you say to Ana. She said that the minority is valueless. I don't think that's the case because individually

the minorities values just the same as the individual of the majority is just that the numbers outweigh the minority. And I mean at a certain point you have to make a decision and I'm sorry for the minority but sometimes. It's for the general for the greater good for the greater good. Ana what do you say. What's your name. Younger. What do you say to young the young that says you just have to add up people's preferences and those in the minority do have their preferences. Can you give an example of the kind of thing you're worried about when you say you're worried about utilitarianism violating the concern or respect to the minority. Can you give an example. So would any of the cases that we've talked about like this shipwreck one. I think that boy who is eaten still had. As much of a right to live as the other people. And just because he was the. Minority in that case the

one who maybe had less of a chance to keep living that doesn't mean that the others automatically have a right to eat him just because it would give a greater amount of people a chance to live. So there may be certain rights that the minority. Members have that the individual has that shouldn't be traded off. For the sake of utility. Yes Ana. You know this would be a test free for you. Back in ancient Rome. They threw Christians to the lions in the Colosseum for sport. If you read think how the utilitarian calculus would go. Yes the Christian thrown to the lions suffers enormous excruciating pain. But look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans. Yonder. Well. In that time. I don't. If.

I in modern day of time to value the two given numbers to the happiness given to the people watching. I don't think. Any policy maker would say the pain of one person suffering one person is much much and in comparison to the happiness gain. It's no but you have to admit that if there were enough Romans delirious enough with happiness it would outweigh even the most excruciating pain of a handful of Christians thrown to the line. So we really have here two different objections to utilitarianism. One has to do with whether utilitarianism adequately respects individual rights or minority rights and the other has to do with the whole idea of aggregating utility or preferences or values. Is it possible to aggregate all values. To

translate them into dollar terms. There was in the eight in the 1930s and psychologist who tried to address the second question he tried to prove. What utilitarianism assumes that it is possible. To translate all goods all values all human concerns into a single uniform measure and he did this by conducting a survey. Of young recipients of relief. This was in the 1930s and he asked them who gave them a list of unpleasant experiences. And he asked them how much would you have to be paid to undergo the following experiences. And he kept track. For example how much would you have to pay to have one upper front tooth pulled out.

Or how much would you have to be paid to have one little one little toll cut off. Or to eat a live earthworms sectors six inches long. Or to live the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas. Or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands. Now what do you suppose. What do you suppose was the most expensive item on that list. Kansas. You're right it was Kansas for her. For Kansas. People said they'd have to pay them. They have to be paid $300000. What do you think. What do you think was the next most expensive.

Not the cat. Not the two not the TOE. The worm. People said you'd have to pay them a hundred thousand dollars. To eat the worm. What do you think was the least expensive item. Not a cat. That too is. During the Depression people were willing to have their tooth pulled. For only $4500. Now here's what here's what Thorndyke. Concluded from his study. And he wants a satisfaction which exists exists in some amount and is therefore measurable. The life of a dog or a cat or a chicken consists of appetites cravings desires and their

gratifications. So does the life. Of human beings though the appetites and desires are more complicated. But what about Thorndyke's study. Does it support bantams idea. That all goods all values can be captured according to a single uniform measure of value. Or does the preposterous character of those different items on the list. Suggest the opposite conclusion. That may be whether we're talking about life. Or Kansas or the worm. Maybe. The things we value. And cherish. Can't be captured. According to a single uniform measure of value. And if they can't what are the consequences for the utilitarian theory. Of morality. That's a question we'll continue with next time.

Now let's take the other part of the poll. Which is the the highest. Experience or pleasure. How many say. Shakespeare. How many say. Fear Factor. No you can't be serious. Really. Last time. Last time we began to consider some objections. To Jeremy Bentham version. Of utilitarianism. People raised two objections in the discussion we had.

The first. Was the objection the claim. That utilitarianism. By concerning itself with the greatest good for the greatest number fails adequately to respect individual rights. Today we have debates. About torture and terrorism. Suppose. A suspected terrorist was apprehended on September 10th. And you had reason to believe. That the suspect. Had crucial information about an impending terrorist attack that would kill over 3000 people and you couldn't extract the information. Would it be just. To torture. The suspect to get information. Or. Do you say no. There is a categorical moral duty of respect for

individual rights. In a way we're back to the questions we started with. About trolley cars and organ transplant. So that's the first issue. And you remember we considered some examples of cost benefit analysis but a lot of people were unhappy with cost benefit analysis. When it came to placing a dollar value on human life. And so that led us to the second objection. It questioned whether it's possible to translate all values into a single uniform measure of value. It asks in other words whether all values are commensurable. Let me give you one other example. Of an experience this actually is a true story it comes from personal experience. That raises a question at least about whether all values can be translated without loss. Into

utilitarian terms. Some years ago. When I was a graduate student I was at Oxford in England and the men they had men's and women's colleges they weren't yet mixed. And the women's colleges had rules against. Overnight male guests. By the 1970s. These rules were rarely enforced and easily violated. Or so I was told. By the late 1970s when I was there. Pressure grew to relax these rules and it became the subject of debate among the faculty at St. Ann's college which was one of these all women's colleges. The older women on the faculty. Were traditionalists they were opposed to change. Unconventional moral grounds. But times have changed and they were embarrassed

to give the true grounds for their objection. And so they translated their arguments into utilitarian terms. If men stay overnight they argued the costs to the college will increase. How you might wonder well they'll want to take baths and that'll use up hot water. They said. Furthermore they argued we'll have to replace the mattresses more often. The reformers met these arguments by adopting the following compromise. Each woman could have a maximum of three overnight male guests each week. They didn't say whether it had to be the same one or three different. Provider. And this was the compromise provided the guest paid 50 pence to defray the cost of the college. The next day.

The national headline in the national newspaper read say Danz girls 50 pence a night. Another illustration of the difficulty of translating all values in this case a certain idea of virtue into utilitarian terms. So. That's. All to illustrate. The second objection. To utilitarianism at least the part of that objection that questions whether. Utilitarianism is right to assume that we can. Assume uniformity of value of the commensal ability of our values and translate on moral considerations into dollars or money. But there is a second. Aspect to this worry about aggregating values and preferences. Why should we.

Weigh all preferences. That people have. Without assessing whether their good preferences or bad preferences. Shouldn't we distinguish. Between higher. Pleasures and lower pleasures. Now. Part of the appeal of. Not making any qualitative distinctions about the worst of people's preferences. Part of the appeal is that it is non-judgmental and egalitarian. The Benthamite utilitarian says everybody's preferences count and. They count regardless of what people want regardless of what makes different people happy. For Bentham all that matters you'll remember. Are the intensity and the duration of a pleasure or pain. The so-called higher pleasures are nobler virtues are simply those according to

Bentham that produce stronger. Longer. Pleasure you had a famous phrase to express this idea. The quantity of pleasure being equal. Pushpin is as good as poetry. What was pushpin. It was some kind of a child's day like tiddlywinks winks pushpin is as good as poetry. Benton says. In line behind this idea I think is the claim the intuition. That it's a presumption. To judge. Whose pleasures are intrinsically higher or worthier or better. And there is something attractive in this refusal to judge after all. Some people like Mozart others Madonna. Some people like ballet others. BOLLING who's to say Benthamite might argue. Who's to say which of these pleasures. Whose

place are higher worthier nobler. Than others. But is that right. This refusal to make qualitative distinctions. Can we altogether dispense with the idea. That certain things we take pleasure in are. Better or worthier. Than others. Think back to the case of the Romans in the Colosseum. One thing that troubled people about that practice is that it seemed to violate the rights. Of the Christian. Another way of objecting to what's going on there is that the pleasure that the Romans take in this bloody spectacle. Should that pleasure which is a base kind of corrupt. Degrading pleasure should that even. Be valorized or weighed in deciding whether

what the general welfare is. So here are the objections to Bentham's utilitarianism. And now we turn to someone who tried to. Respond to those objections. A later day utilitarian. John Stuart Mill. So what we need to. Examine now. Is whether John Stuart Mill had a convincing reply. To these objections to utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill. Was born in 1896. His father James M.. Was a disciple of Bentham's. And James male said about giving his son. John Stuart Mill a model education. He was a child prodigy. John Stuart Mill he knew Latin at the age of sorry Greek at the age of three Latin at eight and aged 10. He wrote a history of

Roman law. At age 20. He had a nervous breakdown. This left him in a depression for five years. But at age 25 what helped lift him out of this depression is that he met Harriet Taylor. She and M. got married they lived happily ever after and it was under her. Influence. That John Stuart Mill tried to humanize utilitarianism what Mel tried to do was to see whether. The utilitarian calculus could be in large and modified. To accommodate humanitarian concerns like. The concern to respect individual rights and also to address the distinction between higher and lower. Pleasures. In 1859 mil wrote a famous book on liberty. The main point of which was the importance

of defending individual rights and minority rights. And in 1861 toward the end of his life. He wrote the book we read as part of this course. Utilitarianism. Makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality in his view. So he's not challenging bantams premise he's affirming it. He says very explicitly the sole evidence. It is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desirée. So he stays with the idea that our de facto actual empirical desires are the only basis of moral judgment. But then. Page 8. Also in Chapter 2 he argues that it is possible for a utilitarian to distinguish higher from lower pleasures. Now those of you who have read M. already. How according to him is it possible to draw that distinction. How can a utilitarian.

Distinguish qualitatively higher pleasures from lesser ones based ones unworthy ones. Yes. If you've tried both of them and you prefer the higher one naturally always that's that's great. That's right. What's your name. John. So as John points out Neal says here's the test. Since we can't step outside. Actual desires actual preferences that would violate utilitarian premises the only test. Of whether a pleasure is higher. Or lower is whether someone who has experienced both. Would. Prefer it. And here. In chapter two. We see the passage where it makes the point that John just described.

Of two pleasures if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience. Of both give a decided preference irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it. In other words no outside no independent standard. Then that is the more desirable place for. What do people think about that argument. Does that. Does it succeed. How many thinks that it does succeed. Of arguing within utilitarian terms for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. How many think it doesn't succeed. I want to hear your reasons. But before. We give the reasons. Let's do an experiment. Of milles. Claim. In order to do this experiment. We're going to look at three. Short

excerpts of popular entertainment. The first one is a Hamlet's soliloquy. It will be followed by two other. Experiences. See what you think. What a piece of work is a man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculties in form and moving how Express and admirable. In Action how like an angel and apprehension. I like a god in the beauty of the world the Pentagon of animals. And yet to me. Is this good decent honest. Man delights not me. The you speaking. With.

Each show six contestants from around the country and battle each other in stones. The stones are designed to challenge the contestants both physically. And mentally. Six contestants three stones one. When. You factor. The pedal to the metal files glanders do you like anything cool. Well I don't care for the speed but I can't get an F for that safety gear. Helmets roll bars caution flags. I like the fresh air and looking at the poor people in the infield. The. Claim. Is. That you have to park by my pants now 90 days my parents day. I don't even have to ask which one you like. The

Simpsons. How many like the Simpsons knows how many Shakespeare. What about fear factor. How many preferred fear factor. Really. People overwhelmingly. Like the Simpsons better. Than. Shakespeare. Now let's take the other part of the poll. Which is the the highest experience or pleasure. How many say. Shakespeare. How many say fear factor. Now you can't be serious. Really. What. Guy.

Are you going to say. I found that one of the most entertaining I know but which do you think was the worthiest. The Nobelist experience. I know you find the most entertaining. If something is good just because it is pleasurable What does it matter whether you have sort of an abstract idea of whether it is good by someone else absence. All right. So you come down in the straight Benthamite side. Who is to judge. And why should we judge. Apart from just registering and aggregating de facto preference. All right that's fair enough. What's your name. Nate. Okay fair enough. All right. So how many think the Simpsons is actually apart from liking it. It's actually a higher experience higher than Shakespeare. All right let's see the vote for Shakespeare again. I mean I think Shakespeare is higher. All right. So why is it. Ideally I'd like to hear from someone. Is there someone. Who thinks Shakespeare is highest. But who preferred watching the Simpsons.

Yes. Like I guess just sitting watching the Simpsons. It's entertaining because they make jokes and they make us laugh. By the way. Someone has to tell us that Shakespeare was his great writer we had to be taught how to read and how to understand and we had to be taught how to kind of take in Rembrandt how to analyze a painting. Well let me get your name Anita. And issue. When you say someone told you that Shakespeare is better. Are you accepting it on blind faith. You voted the Shakespear's higher only because the culture. Tells you that or a teachers tell you that. Or do you. Actually agree with that yourself. Well in the center that the Shakespeare. No but early meta. For example Rembrandt I feel like I would enjoy a reading a comic book more than I would enjoy kind of analyzing Ramban because someone told me it was great you know. Right. So some of this seems to be you suggesting a kind of. Cultural convention and pressure we're told. What books what works of art are great. Who else.

Yes. Although I enjoyed watching the Simpsons more in this particular moment injustice. If I were to spend the rest of my life considering the three different video clips shown I would not want to spend that remainder of my life considering the latter two clips. I think I would derive more pleasure from being able to branch out in my own mind. It's sort of considering more deep pleasures more deep thoughts. And tell me your name. Jo Jo. So if you had to spend the rest of your life on a farm in Kansas with only. With only Shakespeare. Or the collected episodes of The Simpsons. You would prefer. Shakespeare. What do you conclude from that.

About John Stuart Mills. Test. That the test of a higher pleasure. Is whether people who have experienced both prefer it. Can I cite another example briefly. Yeah. In biology biology neurobiology last year retold of a rat who has tested a particular center in the brain where the rat was able to stimulate his brain and cause itself intense pleasure repeatedly. The rat did not eat or drink until it died. So the rat was clearly experiencing intense pleasure. Now if you ask me right now if I'd rather experience intense pleasure. Or have a full lifetime of higher pleasure I would consider intense pleasure to be low low pleasure I would right now enjoy intense pleasure. But yes I would. Say. But. Over a lifetime. I think. I would think almost the complete majority here would agree that they would rather be human a human with higher pleasure than be that rat. With intense pleasure. For a moment momentary period of time. Now

an answer to your question right. I think this proves that. I won't say Bruce. I think the conclusion is that. M. Mill's theory is that when a majority of people are asked what they would rather do they will answer that they would rather engage in a higher pleasure. So you think that this supports you think Mila's on to something here. I do. All right. Is there anyone who disagrees with Joe and who thinks that our experiment disproves. Milles. Test. Shows that that's not an adequate way that you can't distinguish higher placers within the utilitarian framework. Yes. If whatever is good is truly just whatever people prefer it's truly relative and there's no objective definition then there would be some society where people prefer Simpsons more. Anyone can appreciate the Simpsons but I think it does take

education to appreciate Shakespeare. I'm just saying it takes education to appreciate higher. Two things. Mel's point is. That the higher pleasures do require cultivation and appreciation and education. He doesn't dispute that. But. Once having been cultivated. And educated. People will see not only see the difference between higher and lower pleasures but will actually. Prefer the higher to the lower. You find this famous passage from John Stuart Mill. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig. Are of a different opinion it is because they only know their side of the question.

So here you have an attempt to distinguish higher from lower. Pleasures. So going to an art museum or being a couch potato and swilling beer watching television at home. Sometimes Miller agrees. We might succumb to the temptation. To do the latter to be couch potatoes. But. Even when we do that. Out of indolence. And slothful we know. That the pleasure we get gazing at Rembrandt's in the museum is actually higher. Because we've experienced both. And it is a higher pleasure. Gazing at Rembrandt because it engages our higher human faculties. What about milles attempt to reply to the objection about individual rights.

In a way he uses the same. Kind of argument. And this comes out in Chapter 5. He says. I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility. But still he considers. Justice. Grounded on utility to be what he calls the chief part. And incomparably the most sacred and binding part. Of all morality. So justice is higher. Individual rights are privilege. But not for reasons that depart from utilitarian assumptions. Justice is a name for a certain moral requirements. Which are regarded collectively stand higher in the scale of social utility and are therefore. Of more paramount obligation than it than any

other is. So justice is sacred it's prior It's privileged. It isn't something that can easily be traded off against lesser things. But the reason is ultimately milk planes. A utilitarian reason. Once you consider the long run interests of human kind. Of all of us as progressive beings if we do justice and if we respect rights. Society as a whole will be better off in the long run. Well is that convincing. Or is M.. Actually without admitting it. Stepping outside. Utilitarian considerations in arguing for qualitatively higher. Pleasures. And for sacred. Or specially important. Individual Rights. We haven't fully answered that question because to answer that question in the

case of rights and justice will require that we explore other ways. Non-utilitarian ways. Of accounting for the basis of rights. And then asking. Whether they succeed. As for Jeremy Bentham. Who launched utilitarianism as a doctrine in moral and legal philosophy. Bentham died in 1832 at the age of 85. But if you go to London you can visit him today literally. He provided in his will. That his body be preserved embalmed and displayed in the University of London. Where he still presides in a glass case with a wax head dressed in his actual clothing. You see before he died. Bentham addressed himself to a question consistent with his philosophy. Of what use could a dead man be

delivering. One use he said would be to make one's corpse available to the study of anatomy. In the case of great philosophers however. Better yet to preserve one's physical presence in order to inspire future generations of thinkers. You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed. Here's what he looks like. There he is. Now. If you look closely you will notice. That the embalming of his actual head was not a success so they substituted a whacked. Head. And. At the bottom for verisimilitude. You can actually see his actual head on a plate. You see it. Right there. So what's the moral of the story. The moral of the story.

By the way they bring him out during meetings of the board at University College London and in the minutes required him at present but not voting. Here is a philosopher in a life and death. Who adhered to the principles of his philosophy will continue with right next time. Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers just to join the conversation. Take a pop quiz. Much like you seem to miss and learn a lot more. Is it just is Harvard-Yale it's the right thing. Planning for this program is provided by. Additional funding

provided by