Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36

Summary

This episode introduces utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory that judges actions by their outcomes rather than intentions. Using Batman and the Joker, it contrasts utilitarian thinking with Kantian ethics, then explains the principle of utility: act to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The video traces utilitarian roots through Bentham, Mill, and Epicurus, highlights happiness and pleasure as the moral good, and emphasizes that utilitarianism is impartial and other-regarding rather than selfish. It also explores Bernard Williams’ Jim example to show why utilitarianism can feel morally harsh, especially when innocent lives are at stake. Finally, it distinguishes act utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism, using the transplant-neighbor thought experiment to show why many utilitarians prefer rules that maximize long-term overall well-being.

Highlights

• Batman is basically the perfect ethics headache for utilitarians 🦇
• Happiness and pleasure are treated as the core of moral value here 😄
• Utilitarianism asks you to think like a fair-minded spectator, not a biased participant 👀
• Bernard Williams’ Jim example shows why the theory can demand uncomfortable sacrifices ⚖️
• The transplant doctor scenario is a classic challenge to act utilitarianism 🏥
• Rule utilitarianism tries to save the theory from chaos by focusing on better rules over time 🛠️

Key Takeaways

• Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences, not by intentions or rigid rules 😎
• The principle of utility says we should aim for the greatest good for the greatest number ✨
• Utilitarianism is not egoism: your happiness matters, but not more than anyone else’s 🌍
• Act utilitarianism looks at each situation individually, even if the result feels brutal 😬
• Rule utilitarianism favors rules that usually lead to the best long-term outcomes 📘
• Thought experiments like Batman, Jim, and the transplant case make the theory feel real fast 🧠

Overview

The episode kicks off with a classic moral dilemma: should Batman kill the Joker? Batman’s no-killing rule makes him feel Kantian, since Kantian ethics says moral rules should never be broken. But utilitarianism takes a very different approach. Instead of asking whether an action follows a rule, it asks what consequences the action will have. That means the moral focus shifts from intent to outcomes, especially happiness and suffering.

The video then explains utilitarianism as a hedonistic and other-regarding philosophy. It traces the idea to thinkers like Bentham, Mill, and Epicurus, and presents the principle of utility: always act to create the greatest good for the greatest number. The episode stresses that utilitarianism is impartial, so your own interests do not count more than anyone else’s. That’s why it asks us to reason like a benevolent but disinterested observer.

Finally, the episode shows why utilitarianism is both powerful and uncomfortable. Bernard Williams’ Jim thought experiment and the transplant-neighbor case reveal how the theory can seem to justify harming one innocent person to help many others. To deal with this, the episode introduces rule utilitarianism, which says we should follow rules that generally maximize well-being over time. In the end, utilitarianism comes across as practical, demanding, and a little ruthless — which is why Batman and the Joker fit it so well.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:30: Batman, Joker, and the Moral Problem The chapter introduces the moral question of whether Batman should kill the Joker, framing Batman’s strict no-killing rule as a Kantian commitment to absolute moral rules. It contrasts this with the practical concern that Joker will keep escaping and killing, raising the problem of whether refusing to kill makes Batman morally responsible for future harm.
• 01:30 - 03:00: What Utilitarianism Tries to Solve Utilitarianism is introduced as an ethical theory that shifts focus from intentions to consequences. Unlike Batman’s Kantian-style commitment to absolute rules like never killing, utilitarianism asks whether an action produces the best overall results. It defines moral goodness in terms of happiness, pleasure, and the avoidance of pain, tracing its roots to thinkers like Epicurus, Bentham, and Mill.
• 03:00 - 04:30: The Principle of Utility and Happiness Utilitarianism is grounded in the shared human aim of happiness: we all want what seems likely to make us happy, and utilitarians turn that fact into a moral principle. Unlike egoism, which says each person should pursue only their own good, utilitarianism is other-regarding and holds that we should aim to produce happiness and reduce pain for all sentient beings. This is captured by the principle of utility: act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
• 04:30 - 06:00: Impartiality and the Good of Everyone Utilitarianism is presented as a moral theory based on pleasure and happiness: what people ultimately want is happiness, and morality should aim to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Unlike egoism, it is not about maximizing one person’s good, but the well-being of all sentient beings, even when that requires sacrificing one’s own preferences for the group.
• 06:00 - 08:00: The Trolley Problem and Act Utilitarianism The episode begins by framing utilitarianism as a spectator-style moral approach that asks us to judge actions impartially, then introduces Bernard Williams’ Jim dilemma to show how demanding the theory can be when it seems to require harming one innocent person to save many others. The point is that utilitarianism focuses on the overall outcome, even if that means getting one’s hands dirty to prevent greater harm.
• 08:00 - 09:30: Rule Utilitarianism and Real-World Tradeoffs The chapter explains why act utilitarianism can lead to troubling conclusions through a transplant thought experiment: one innocent person could be killed and his organs used to save five others, seemingly maximizing overall good. This motivates rule utilitarianism, which argues that we should follow rules that generally produce the greatest good over time, rather than judging each act solely by its immediate consequences. By emphasizing long-term social trust and safety, rule utilitarianism rejects practices like harvesting innocent people for organs because such a society would create fear and reduce overall utility. The chapter closes by contrasting act and rule utilitarianism, briefly recapping the principle of utility and noting that the next topic will be contractarianism.
• 09:30 - 10:00: Wrap-Up: Applying Utilitarianism to Batman The chapter explains how act utilitarianism can lead to extreme conclusions by using a transplant thought experiment: if killing one innocent but isolated person could save five patients, an act utilitarian might say it is justified because it produces the greatest overall good. This raises the problem that short-term utility can conflict with moral intuitions about individual rights and harm.

Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36 Transcription

• Segment 1: 00:00 - 02:30 Should Batman kill the Joker? If you were to ask the Dark Knight himself, with his hard-and-fast no-killing rule, he’d say absolutely not. Actually, in fact, he would say: [Batman voice] “Absolutely not.” When you think about it, dude is pretty Kantian in his ethics. Regardless of what Joker does, there are some lines that good people do not cross, and for Batman, killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line. But, let’s be real here: Joker is never gonna stop killing. Sure, Batman will have him thrown back in Arkham, but we all know that he’s gonna get out – he always gets out – and once he’s free, he will kill again. And maim and terrorize. And when he does won’t a little bit of that be Batman’s fault? Batman has been in a position to kill Joker hundreds of times. He has had the power to save anyone from ever being a victim of the Joker again. If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done? [Theme Music] So, why do I describe Batman as Kantian? Well, the school of thought laid out by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant – now known as Kantianism – is pretty straightforward. More precisely: It’s absolute. Kantianism is all about sticking to the moral rulebook. There are never any exceptions, or any excuses, for violating moral rules. And our man Batman tries his hardest to stick to his code, no matter what. But there are other ways of looking at ethics. Like, instead of focusing on the intent behind our behavior, what if we paid more attention to the consequences? One moral theory that does this is utilitarianism. It focuses on the results, or consequences, of our actions, and treats intentions as irrelevant. Good consequences equal good actions, in this view. So, what’s a good consequence? Modern utilitarianism was founded in the 18th century by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. But the theory has philosophical ancestors in ancient Greek thinkers such as Epicurus.
• Segment 2: 00:00 - 02:30 All of these guys agreed that actions should be measured in terms of the happiness, or pleasure, that they produce. After all, they argued, happiness is our final end – it’s what we do everything else for. Think about it like this: many things that you do, you do for the sake of something else. You study to get a good grade. You work to get money. But why do you want good grades, or money? There are different answers we could give – like maybe we’re seeking affirmation for our intelligence, or the approval of our parents, or a degree that will give us a career we want.
• Segment 3: 02:30 - 05:00 But why do we want that particular career? Why do we want approval? We can keep asking questions, but ultimately our answer will bottom out in, “I want what I want because I think it will make me happy.” That’s what we all want – it’s one of the few things everyone has in common. And utilitarians believe that’s what should drive our morality. Like Kant, utilitarians agree that a moral theory should apply equally to everyone. But they thought the way to do that was to ground it in something that’s really intuitive. And there’s really nothing more basic than the primal desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. So, it’s often said that utilitarianism is a hedonistic moral theory – this means the good is equal to the pleasant, and we ought, morally, to pursue pleasure and happiness, and work to avoid pain. But, utilitarianism is not what you’d call an egoistic theory. Egoism says that everyone ought, morally, to pursue their own good. In contrast to that, utilitarianism is other-regarding. It says we should pursue pleasure or happiness – not just for ourselves, but for as many sentient beings as possible. To put it formally: “we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.” This is known as the principle of utility. OK, no one’s gonna argue with a philosophy that tells them to seek pleasure. But, sometimes doing what provides the most pleasure to the most people can mean that you have to take one for the team. It can mean sacrificing your pleasure, in order to produce more good overall. Like when it’s your birthday and your family says you can choose any restaurant you want. The thing that would make you happiest is Thai food, but you know that that would make the rest of your family miserable. So when you choose Chinese – which is nobody’s favorite, but everybody can make do – then you’ve thought like a utilitarian. You’ve chosen the action that would produce the most overall happiness for the group, even though it produced less happiness for you than other alternatives would have.
• Segment 4: 02:30 - 05:00 The problem is, for the most part, we’re all our own biggest fans. We each come pre-loaded with a bias in favor of our own interests. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – caring about yourself is a good way to promote survival. But where morality is concerned, utilitarians argue, as special as you are, you’re no more special than anybody else. So your interests count, but no more than anyone else’s. Now, you might say that you agree with that. I mean, we all like to think of ourselves as being generous and selfless. But, even though I’m sure you are a totally nice person – you have to admit that things seem way more important – weightier, higher-stakes – when they apply to you, rather than to some stranger. So, utilitarians suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator.
• Segment 5: 05:00 - 07:30 Rather than thinking about what I should do, they suggest that I consider what I would think if I were advising a group of strangers about what they should do. That way, I have a disposition of good will, but I’m not emotionally invested. And I’m a spectator, rather than a participant. This approach is far more likely to yield a fair and unbiased judgment about what’s really best for the group. Now, to see utilitarianism put to the test, let’s pop over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy. 20th century British philosopher Bernard Williams offered this thought experiment. Jim is on a botanical expedition in South America when he happens upon a group of 20 indigenous people, and a group of soldiers. The whole group of indigenous people is about to be executed for protesting their oppressive regime. For some reason, the leader of the soldiers offers Jim the chance to shoot one of the prisoners, since he’s a guest in their land. He says that if Jim shoots one of the prisoners, he’ll let the other 19 go. But if Jim refuses, then the soldiers will shoot all 20 protesters. What should Jim do? More importantly, what would you do? Williams actually presents this case as a critique of utilitarianism. The theory clearly demands that Jim shoot one man so that 19 will be saved. But, Williams argues, no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life. Thinking like a Kantian, Williams argues that it’s not Jim’s fault that the head soldier is a total dirt bag, and Jim shouldn’t have to get literal blood on his hands to try and rectify the situation. So, although it sounds pretty simple, utilitarianism is a really demanding moral theory. It says, we live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty. And if I sit by and watch something bad happen when I could have prevented it, my hands are dirty anyway. So, Jim shouldn’t think about it as killing one man.
• Segment 6: 05:00 - 07:30 That man was dead already, because they were all about to be killed. Instead, Jim should think of his decision as doing what it takes to save 19. And Batman needs to kill the Joker already. Thanks, Thought Bubble! Now, if you decide you want to follow utilitarian moral theory, you have options. Specifically, two of them. When Bentham and Mill first posed their moral theory, it was in a form now known as Act Utilitarianism, sometimes called classical utilitarianism. And it says that, in any given situation, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Period. But sometimes, the act that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number can seem just wrong.
• Segment 7: 07:30 - 10:00 For instance, suppose a surgeon has five patients, all waiting for transplants. One needs a heart, another a lung. Two are waiting for kidneys and the last needs a liver. The doctor is pretty sure that these patients will all die before their names come up on the transplant list. And he just so happens to have a neighbor who has no family. Total recluse. Not even a very nice guy. The doctor knows that no one would miss this guy if he were to disappear. And by some miracle, the neighbor is a match for all five of the transplant patients. So, it seems like, even though this would be a bad day for the neighbor, an act-utilitarian should kill the neighbor and give his organs to the five patients. It’s the greatest good for the greatest number. Yes, one innocent person dies, but five innocent people are saved. This might seem harsh, but remember that pain is pain, regardless of who’s experiencing it. So the death of the neighbor would be no worse than the death of any of those patients dying on the transplant list. In fact, it’s five times less bad than all five of their deaths. So thought experiments like this led some utilitarians to come up with another framework for their theory. This one is called Rule Utilitarianism. This version of the theory says that we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. So, yes, there are going to be situations where killing an innocent person will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. But, rule utilitarians want us to think long-term, and on a larger scale. And overall, a whole society where innocent people are taken off the streets to be harvested for their organs is gonna have a lot less utility than one where you don’t have to live in constant fear of that happening to you. So, rule utilitarianism allows us to refrain from acts that might maximize utility in the short run, and instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time. As an owner of human organs, this approach might make sense to you.
• Segment 8: 07:30 - 10:00 But I still gotta say: If Batman were a utilitarian of either kind, it wouldn’t look very good for the Joker. Today we learned about utilitarianism. We studied the principle of utility, and learned about the difference between act and rule utilitarianism. Next time, we’ll take a look at another moral theory – contractarianism. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like The Good Stuff, Gross Science, and PBS Idea Channel. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.