Week 4, Reading Section 4.1: David Hume's Antecedents I.  David Hume’s Antecedents David Hume was a British Philosopher, in the tradition of the Empiricists, John Locke and George Berkeley. He is credited, among many contributions, with revisiting the question of whether Ethics/Morality should be based on Reason vs. Emotions/Passions. Unlike Aristotle and many other Western thinkers before him, Hume argued that Ethics could not be based on Reason, since Reason provides only alternative choices, based on analyses of issues and situations. Thus, Hume answered the question, by concluding that Ethical Thought must be based on Emotion, in general, and Compassion for one’s fellows, in particular. Reason provided a moral decision-maker with facts and choices, along with positions for each choice. But many Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting values and choices. Reason, alone, could not lead a decision-maker to choose one alternative as “the best.” As we shall see in Week 5, Immanuel Kant, the creator of Deontology, disagreed with Hume.                 Resource: Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics As the Eighteenth Century gave way to the Nineteenth and to the Industrial Revolution, with its concentration of productive activities into factories and the squalid conditions under which workers labored and they and their families existed, reformers arose, seeking solutions to those conditions and problems. Three such reformers were Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor, who came to be called Utilitarians, after the Principle of Utility that Bentham and Mill promulgated.  Resource: David Hume Week 4, Reading Section 4.2: General Theory of Utilitarianism II. General Theory of Utilitarianism First Bentham, then Mill and Taylor, analyzed the World in terms of Pain and Pleasure/ Happiness. The predominant condition, especially in Industrial societies in Europe, and later in North America, for the vast majority of people, was Pain and Displeasure. For these three writers, Happiness and Pleasure were characterized by the removal or abatement of Pain, whether of a physical or an emotional nature. Given the conditions our modern media show us, as existing in many parts of the World, it is not difficult, even now, to imagine such conditions existing in the predecessors of our own societies. Disease, war, famine, civil strife, violence, among other factors, were the primary causes of Pain.  Resource: Notes on Utilitarianism The Utilitarians argued that moral/ethical actions were those, which, on balance, reduced Pain and increased, thereby, Pleasure/Happiness. By positing the definition of Happiness/ Pleasure, as the Removal of Pain, they provided a measure by which to gauge such ameliorative efforts. One weakness is that those definitions are circular: (1) Happiness is the absence of Pain; (2) Pain is the absence of Happiness. Nevertheless, it was a more concrete, starting point, than more esoteric concepts of “the Good,” as suggested by Aristotle and h.

1. Week 4, Reading Section 4.1: David Hume's Antecedents
I. David Hume’s Antecedents
David Hume was a British Philosopher, in the tradition of the
Empiricists, John Locke and George Berkeley. He is credited,
among many contributions, with revisiting the question of
whether Ethics/Morality should be based on Reason vs.
Emotions/Passions. Unlike Aristotle and many other Western
thinkers before him, Hume argued that Ethics could not be
based on Reason, since Reason provides only alternative
choices, based on analyses of issues and situations.
Thus, Hume answered the question, by concluding that Ethical
Thought must be based on Emotion, in general, and Compassion
for one’s fellows, in particular. Reason provided a moral
decision-maker with facts and choices, along with positions for
each choice. But many Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting
values and choices. Reason, alone, could not lead a decision-
maker to choose one alternative as “the best.” As we shall see in
Week 5, Immanuel Kant, the creator of Deontology, disagreed
with Hume.
Resource: Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics
As the Eighteenth Century gave way to the Nineteenth and to
the Industrial Revolution, with its concentration of productive
activities into factories and the squalid conditions under which
workers labored and they and their families existed, reformers
arose, seeking solutions to those conditions and problems.
Three such reformers were Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,
and Harriet Taylor, who came to be called Utilitarians, after the
Principle of Utility that Bentham and Mill promulgated.
Resource: David Hume
Week 4, Reading Section 4.2: General Theory of Utilitarianism
II. General Theory of Utilitarianism
First Bentham, then Mill and Taylor, analyzed the World in
terms of Pain and Pleasure/ Happiness. The predominant

2. condition, especially in Industrial societies in Europe, and later
in North America, for the vast majority of people, was Pain and
Displeasure. For these three writers, Happiness and Pleasure
were characterized by the removal or abatement of Pain,
whether of a physical or an emotional nature. Given the
conditions our modern media show us, as existing in many parts
of the World, it is not difficult, even now, to imagine such
conditions existing in the predecessors of our own societies.
Disease, war, famine, civil strife, violence, among other factors,
were the primary causes of Pain.
Resource: Notes on Utilitarianism
The Utilitarians argued that moral/ethical actions were those,
which, on balance, reduced Pain and increased, thereby,
Pleasure/Happiness. By positing the definition of Happiness/
Pleasure, as the Removal of Pain, they provided a measure by
which to gauge such ameliorative efforts. One weakness is that
those definitions are circular: (1) Happiness is the absence of
Pain; (2) Pain is the absence of Happiness. Nevertheless, it was
a more concrete, starting point, than more esoteric concepts of
“the Good,” as suggested by Aristotle and his successors.
Therefore, to be moral, an action had to produce Happiness, by
reducing Pain in the World, for the majority of those human
beings, affected by that action. As we’ve seen, a moral theory
that depends on effects, results, or consequences, is called
a Consequentialist theory. Utilitarianism, thus, is squarely
within the School of Ethical Consequentialism.
Due to more sophisticated analyses over the past two hundred
years and gradually improving living conditions for certain
segments of human populations, the term “Happiness” has
become more complex to define. More recent theories have
refined Utilitarianism into the following formulation: creating
the greatest good for the greatest number of people affected by
the decision/action. These later views have also conceded that
the rights and/or good of a few might have to be sacrificed, for
the benefit of the many. One critic of this sacrifice has been
John Rawls, whose work in the 20th Century revitalized Social

3. Contract Theories (Week 6).
Resource: Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Resource: Utilitarianism
Week 4, Reading Section 4.3: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart
Mill, and Harriet Taylor
III. Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor
Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer and Member of Parliament
in the Early Nineteenth Century, was very interested in the
reform of what we call the Criminal Justice System and of
prisons. Building on Hume’s work, as well as on Adam Smith’s,
he formulated the Principle of Utility, as noted, above. In later
commentaries on his work, successor theorists have identified
two forms of Utilitarianism: Rule and Act Utilitarianism. (We
shall see them, below.) John Stuart Mill, a student and
colleague of Bentham, and Harriet Taylor were life-long
friends, soul-mates, and collaborators. They wrote on subjects
of Utility/Utilitarianism, Social Reform, Women’s Rights, and
Human Liberty.
Resource: Life and Writing of Jeremy Bentham
Resource: John Stuart Mill
Resource: Harriet Taylor Mill
A. Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism
As subsets of Utilitarianism, these two variants start from the
perspective that it is result or consequence, which determines
the morality of an action. What distinguishes these approaches
is a slightly more sophisticated focus in each case. In Rule
Utilitarianism, a proper set of rules and/or of procedures has to
contribute to that outcome and be followed . Put another way,
the rightness of an action is not totally dependent upon
happenstance, chance, or fortunate/good luck.
Resource: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill [PDF]
In Act Utilitarianism, the spotlight is on the Act, alone. As this
was Bentham’s view and he was the originator of Utilitarianism,
we can conclude his intention was to focus on effect, only. This
means that, while “right intention” by the Actor was laudable, it

4. was not a requirement for an action to be the right one. One can
see Bentham’s intellectual lineage, back to Adam Smith, whose
work posited that people, while pursuing their Enlightened Self-
Interest (which actually includes operating within a set of moral
parameters), will, by engaging in Mutually Advantageous
(market) transactions or exchanges, create the by-products of
moral actions.
During everyday life, we behave in similar ways. Sometimes we
are thinking through possible results or consequences,
sometimes we are not, and usually we cannot foresee even
certain major consequences. This is what is known as the Law
of Unforeseen and Unintended Consequences.
Week 4, Reading Section 4.4: Immigration
IV. Immigration
In the Discussion to follow, you will be required to address and
argue various aspects of Immigration and related concerns. One
consideration to include in your deliberations is that, under
most circumstances, people do not migrate, on a semi-
permanent, or permanent, basis, because they are happy,
content, and safe in their existing circumstances. While the
motivations might vary, by the person, seeking safety from
threats and a better, often material, life for themselves and their
families is often a baseline.
Resource: Immigration
Latino Immigration and Social Change in the United States:
Toward an Ethical Immigration Policy. (UMUC Library One
Search)
Authors: Davies, Ian. Foreign Language Department,
Edgewood College, Madison, WI, US
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 88(Suppl 2), Sep,
2009. pp. 377-391.
The Great Conversation and the Ethics of Inclusion. (UMUC
Library One Search)
Authors: Wagner, Paul and Lopez, Graciela
Source: Global Virtue Ethics Review. 2016, Vol. 7 Issue 2,

5. p4-33. 30p.
Environmental and Ethical Aspects of International
Migration(UMUC Library One Search)
By: Abernethy, Virginia. International Migration Review, v30
n1 p132-50 Spr 1996. (EJ528779), Database: ERIC
The border crossed us: Education, hospitality politics, and the
social construction of the "illegal Immigrant" (UMUC Library
One Search)
By: Carlson, Dennis. Educational Theory, v59 n3 p259-277 Aug
2009. (EJ857970), Database: ERIC
ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL READING
Resource: The History of Utilitarianism
Resource: Strong Moral Theories and the Major Players in
Moral Philosophy [PDF]