Utilitarian Monster

1. How is the lottery an example of the utilitarian monster?

I’m not sure that the lottery is a utilitarian monster. A utilitarian monster is an individual, or perhaps a group of individuals, who have the ability to have measurably more happiness than a standard individual. So much so that the monsters own net happiness is greater than the net happiness of a group of standard individuals (Brusseau, 2012, p.118). As a result, a utilitarian would argue focusing on creating even a modicum of happiness for the monster is more important than any happiness generated by the standard group or anyone else.

Were I to argue that the lottery is such a monster, I would do it on the grounds that the net happiness of the individual that wins is greater than

any others. As a result, we should focus on trying to supply that happiness. However, I don’t think this is the case for two reasons. The first is that the lottery itself, not being able to inherently feel happiness, isn’t such a monster and if the effect was the case than it has nothing to do with the capability to feel greater happiness. Secondly, if anyone can participate and can win, thus feeling that level of happiness, there is not anything unique about their capacity for happiness. It is just the effect that’s causing it, not the ability to feel greater happiness.
2.

How can you set yourself up to argue in favor of or against the ethical existence of the lottery in terms of monetized utilitarianism?

To argue in favor of the lottery based on monetized utilitarianism, I would discuss how funds gathered and focused on a singular goal would likely result in even more funds, especially if invested. The money brought in selling lottery tickets could potentially generate more revenue as a lump sum than broken up into the hands of individuals, and possibly spent on items that don’t generate any type of greater return in those hands. Additionally, if it is spent on things like improving schools it could pay out long term by having a populace that could make more money.

To argue against the lottery via monetized utilitarianism, I’d need to find information indicating that if the lottery didn’t exist that there would be a greater monetary benefit. The first target would be the infrastructure that it takes to have a lottery. The money spent on the staff to run it could be saved. Additionally, if the funds spent on buying lottery tickets, kept by the individuals, could have a greater monetary gain than in the hands of the government it might be more ethical to not have a

lottery.
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?

A case can definitely be made for the lottery based upon hedonistic utilitarianism. Many people find pleasure in gambling and the endorphin rush that comes along not only with winning but even with playing and perceiving the prospect of winning. While the lottery is often thought of as the buy a ticket for the big pay out, many state lotteries also function with scratch off type tickets for smaller payouts. Each one of those scratch offs is a chance to feel that rush, which feeds into a hedonistic ethic, even with a loss.

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?
There is a potential that through the lens of utilitarianism this could be unethical. In soft utilitarianism, we would need to try and gauge if the net benefit of money going to the rich results in an overall greater good. If taking a sum of funds coming from the poor ends up resulting in a better society by having better education for the rich. In fact, it could even be a self-fulfilling ethical benefit despite appearing to initially be unethical. Perhaps the initial unethical taking of funds through the lottery result in better education of the rich that have greater influence on laws going forward providing in social benefits including the removal of the lottery that allowed their education to occur.
In hard utilitarianism, the redistribution of such wealth is even more likely to be unethical. Unless there is no other action that could result in the same greater good it would be unethical. In the hypothetical above, hard utilitarianism would necessitate just changing the laws for social benefit now, without having to go through the process of educating the rich benefiting from the redistribution.

References
Brusseau, J. (2012) Business Ethics. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20161220043941/http:/2012books.lardbucket.org/books/busi
ness-ethics/