An anonymous reader writes in:

I'm wondering if you're willing to do posts on teaching specific philosophical topics. I ask because I have real difficulty teaching utilitarianism. This isn't merely because I think it's false. I can motivate and defend views I think are false, and do it well. Rather, it seems to be something about utilitarianism itself which I just can't motivate for students. I can get them to understand it. I can get them to feel the force of major objections to it. I can even get them to understand and appreciate the responses that utilitarians have made (or could make) to those objections. But I just can't motivate the view itself. I've tried using real world examples that are supposed to prime our intuitions, I've tried using more fanciful examples to do the same, I've tried abstract motivations along the lines of Mill or Sidgwick. But alas. It always comes across as merely academic, as an entirely unconvincing attempt to defend a view that seems silly. And this is despite the fact that many of my students are sympathetic to consequentialist considerations. At this point I'm honestly thinking of giving up on teaching utilitarianism. So, my question: how do your readers teach utilitarianism well?

Great query. For my part, I think a series on how to teach particular topics would be a really good idea. While I don't have a ton of difficulty with utilitarianism, there are other issues I do trouble with: compatibilism about free will perhaps being the one I struggle with the most (for the life of me, I can't seem to get students to take it very seriously).

So, let me pose two questions to you all:

  1. What topic(s) do you have trouble teaching, and might like to see covered in this series?
  2. How would you address this reader's specific query about teaching utilitarianism?

I'm not sure that I have any particular tips for teaching utilitarianism. However, I happened upon an old Star Trek episode last night that seemed to me to offer perhaps one of the best examples to motivate utilitarianism that I can imagine. The episode was "The City on the Edge of Forever."

In the episode (spoilers follow), Doctor McCoy becomes delirious due to an accidental injection with a drug and runs through a time portal to New York City in the year 1930. Captain Kirk and Spock follow him but get there a few weeks earlier than McCoy does. During their time there, Kirk falls in love with an idealistic woman, Edith Keeler, who runs a soup kitchen and house for the homeless. Keiler, it just so happens, is also a pacifist–and after constructing a mechanical device, Spock learns that McCoy's traveling to the past changed the future in a surprising and devastating way. Spock learns that McCoy saves Keiler from being killed in an accident and goes on to help Keiler found an influential pacifist movement. Although this might seem to be a wonderful thing, it just happens that the pacifist movement leads the Nazis to win World War II–as the movement leads to an extreme form of appeasement that enables Germany to develop the atomic bomb and win the war. This not only results in millions of deaths and the Nazis taking over the world. It prevents the future that Kirk and Spock came from: a future where famine and human conflict have been eliminated (the future where the events of Star Trek take place).

The tragedy then is this: although Kirk falls in love with Keiler, Spock convinces him that she must die for the sake of the millions of others who would die and suffer were she to live. At the end of the episode, Kirk runs across the street to stop McCoy from saving her life, and Kirk breaks down wit grief. Although Kirk is emotionally devastated by his actions, the message (which the viewer is presumably supposed to empathize with) is that he did the right thing, choosing the (far) lesser of two evils on the basis of social consequences. Of course, other theories might be able to explain this too (and do so better)…but it seems to me a great example for at least motivating intuitive sympathy for utilitarianism.

Anyway, do you all have any other or better advice for our reader?

Posted in

6 responses to “Reader query on teaching utilitarianism”

  1. Derek Bowman

    I wonder if the original questioner can say more about what the difficulty is. They say “And this is despite the fact that many of my students are sympathetic to consequentialist considerations.”
    So is the problem getting students take seriously the consequentialist element in utilitarianism, or the (classical) utilitarian view of pleasure or happiness as the relevant good to be produced?
    I’ve had a number of students who find utilitarianism so initially obvious that they’re surprised that there could be any objections. I remember having a similar reaction in my first undergraduate ethics class. Isn’t morality about doing good in the world? So doesn’t it make sense that the moral thing to do is whatever produces the most good?
    What kind of resistances do students raise? Are they already strongly committed a competing moral theory?
    I also wonder how longstanding this problem is. Different classes have different personalities (or group-level personality dynamics), which means that what works sometimes doesn’t work others.

  2. recent grad

    Hi Derek,
    OP here. My central observations are as follows.
    1) They’ll often (though not always) have the intuitions about specific cases that the utilitarian wants them to have.
    2) But when it comes to building a general theory out of those intuitions, there is no support among them. This isn’t necessary because they’re against general theories. On the contrary, they can be quite enthusiastic about some general theories.
    3) They seem to be entirely unmoved by any version of utilitarianism which maximizes happiness on a morally-neutral conception of happiness. That is, they seem to think that the happiness of the immoral shouldn’t get included in the calculus.
    In sum, insofar as they are attracted to a general consequentialist normative theory, it’s either some kind of consequentialism concerned with producing morally good consequences or some kind of threshold utilitarianism.

  3. Amanda

    Recent grad – I am curious if you teach at a school that has a fairly low acceptance rate? It sounds like that to me. And your students seem to have completely reasonable reactions. Not many philosophers are sympathetic to classic utilitarianism -if they are sympathetic it is only with the qualifications that you noted, which are reasonable. I am curious why you think something is going wrong? I don’t think you need to motivate your students to accept every view – just to understand it and the objections. And it seems to me your students are doing this just fine.

  4. Sam Duncan

    Start Trek is very good with utilitarianism. There’s of course the famous bit in Wrath of Khan about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. And the DS9 episode “In the Pale Moon Light” is all about the conflict between integrity and utilitarian considerations.

  5. Recent grad

    Hi Amanda,
    My school doesn’t have a particularly low acceptance rate. But I take your point. If they’re being reasonable, however, why am I teaching a view that isn’t really a live option for anyone in the room? Just as a foil? I feel like there’s got to be something better to teach in the place of utilitarianism but which still captures a plausible version of consequentialism. Suggestions are welcome.

  6. Amanda

    I teach it not because it is reasonable, but because:
    1. It is simple. And hence a great introduction to just what a philosophical theory amounts to. In intro classes ,many students do not understand this.
    2. Similar to one, it is great to introduce students to examples, counter-examples, etc.
    3. Peter Singer is a great writer, clarity wise, and I like my students reading his writing for that purpose. Also, I can show videos of Singer to get debates started.
    4.It is a big part of the history of philosophy, and many “reasonable” views can be derived from the extreme (unreasonable) classical form.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading