Answer to Question #234868 in Philosophy for Touzet PHILIPPE

Question

Please read the case study entitled Lottery that you find in the reading assignment.

Based on what you have learned in this unit, answer the following questions:

1. How is the lottery an example of the utilitarian monster?
2. How can you set yourself up to argue in favour of or against the ethical existence of the lottery in terms of monetized utilitarianism?
3. Lotteries are about money and about fun—that is, even for the losers, there’s a benefit in the thrill of watching the numbers turn up. Could the case be made that, from a hedonistic utilitarian standpoint, the lottery is ethically recommendable because it serves the welfare not only of the winner but also of the millions of losers?
4. One of Lindsay Beyerstein’s concerns is that the lottery tends to redistribute money from the poor toward the rich. Does a utilitarian necessarily consider this redistribution unethical?

Answer 1

Lottery

1

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that considers happiness to be the highest ideal for the greatest number of individuals. On the other hand, the Utilitarian monster is a fictional being who is a high-efficiency user of things "“Knows what it's like to be happy.” It means that, given the same resources, the helpful monster is happier than the average person. The first explanation for a lottery is that it is a utilitarian monster that extracts large amounts of utility from little amounts of a commodity (Alon, 2020). Money is the resource in this scenario. To achieve the best potential for enjoyment in a useful context, all other participants must also participate in the lottery.

2

Monetized utilitarianism evaluates pleasure in terms of monetary value. The monetized utilitarianism attributes on how much it would cost the firm and community to repair or not repair the automobile were estimated in the textbook's Pinto example. We could argue for the lottery's moral presence in the lottery scenario by stating that people are happy when they buy a ticket because they expect to win. We might also argue that the amount of money contributed to charity exceeds the amount collected from each individual who purchased a ticket if we had the exact data. On the other hand, we could argue that lotteries are unethical because the people who contribute the money are usually those who need it. It's also common knowledge that individuals who receive the monies are usually significantly wealthier than the majority of those who buy the tickets (Alon, 2020).

3

In hedonistic utilitarianism, it's all about having fun. The goal is to increase the amount of entertainment produced while reducing the amount of harm prevented. A lottery, you would argue, could satisfy the hedonistic, utilitarian viewpoint. This is due to the fact that many people purchase lottery tickets. It is, after all, gratifying for them. Perhaps they yearn for optimism, potential thrill, or the chance to win. The stimulus, whatever it is, is usually beneficial. I guess you might even argue that a lottery tries to reduce sorrow or regret by selling tickets at such low prices that losing has little impact on an individual. In many cases, even if you do not win the huge prize, one may still win a smaller prize.

4

There are various points of view about this. Suppose they thought it was unethical to take riches from the poor and give it to the wealthy. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that impoverished families will always outnumber wealthier households. Thus, according to utilitarianism, a lottery would only benefit a tiny percentage of people rather than the general public. Another reason you have this impression is because of the following quotation: "Consider that anyone or a group of people has been discovered to have a far higher chance of perceiving happiness than others." In that case, the strict utilitarian would force everyone to work to create luxury and other pleasures for these few people." (Alon, 2020).  The utilitarian in this quote is only concerned with the quantity of happiness produced. We can expect the wealthy to be less happy than the poor after receiving the money. As a result, a utilitarian will consider this immoral.

Reference

Alon E. Lehrer F (2020). Individual decisions in a social environment are referred to as subjective utilitarianism. 190, 105108, Journal of Economic Theory.