As it is not defined, it is important to understand that utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
Right off the bat Sidgwick asks if our intuition could gain true clearness and certainty. Sidgwick mentions Philosophical Intuitionism as a possible answer to this question, but he doesn't go on to explain what it is. Using the Mac Dictionary, I discovered that Intuitionism is "theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are know directly by intuition."
Sidgwick says that a philosopher purpose is "to tell men what they ought to think, rather than what they do think." This of course is led by common senese but may deviate from common sense in the conclusions but always within limit as their work will be scrutinized.
It remains important to exercise caution with principles, as to not mistake principles that are not self-evident for ones that are self-evident (sham-axioms for genuine ones). Sidgwick attributes this to not correctly identifying the tautology of the principle and that all of us make mistakes, no matter how powerful the intellect. By changing the meaning of the words around they can be made to sound self-evident, even if they aren't.
Sidgwick also notices that "a self-evident principle cannot be so abstract that it fails to provided specific moral guidance." If you look closely at the Golden Rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, you can see why this is not a principle. The Golden Rule is extremely very vague, clearly not giving a specific moral guidance that can be applied. Due to its popularity, many people say that it is a sound principle that gives the guidance to always treat people justly. What these people forget is that the Golden Rule can be reversed to produce vice. A man may be willing to get a friend to commit a crime for him, and in turn be willing to commit one for his friend. Because the "Golden" Rule doesn't explicitly say how to treat people, with complete guidance it loses its value as a principle. Instead the principle of justice is better as it gives a more specific moral guidance.
Sidgwick defines prudence as that "of impartial concern for all parts of our conscious life." He continues to explain the self-evidence in prudence. By making sure that we define prudence more, we make sure to avoid tautology as the meaning can't be twisted into making a decision for the good of a single a moment in time instead of the greater good in the future, the principle's intended meaning.
Sidgwick then isolates the self-evident rational benevolence principle, what good is to people who realize they are an "integral parts of society." By comparing different good, we come to the notion that there is a Universal Good, where no one single good for an individual is better than a good for another individual, from the view of all existence. With this in mind, we should act for good in general not just a specific area of good. From this, we can deduce that everyone is morally bound to consider the good of any other individual as well as their own - benevolence.
Sidgwick believes that it is rational benevolence that sets utilitarianism apart and why John Stuart Mill's attempt to create a foundation for utilitarianism fails. Sidgwick believes that Mill's explanation of the "principle of Utility" and the proof he uses is not plain or easy enough to understand. (Funny, I thought that Sidgwick could be written more clearly about his argument here...) Mill argues for "the greatest amount of happiness altogether" as the ultimate "end of human action" and the "standard of morality." Mill says that desirable things are produced because people desire them. Happiness is desirable because people desire happiness. We know happiness is good because an individuals happiness adds to the general happiness, spreading happiness to the world in general.
Sidgwick's issue is that Mill says general happiness is desirable, instead of general happiness being something an individual ought to desire, something he feels Mill does not establish, even if happiness is "desirable".
Sidgwick also makes the point that pleasure is not just obtained by achieving an ideal, but by the going after that ideal.
Discussion Questions/Comments
I didn't really follow #7, where Sidwick tried to clarify what desirable consciousness is...at all.
Although Sidgwick stated he had an issue with Mill not having a strong enough proof, I didn't see how happiness "ought to be desirable" warranted Sidgwick to say Mill's case was completely flawed.
Key Terms/Definitions
Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
Intuitionism: theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are know directly by intuition.
Axioms: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, and self-evidently true
Tautology: a phase or expression that is said twice with different words; (logic) a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form
Prudence (Sidgwick): of impartial concern for all parts of our conscious life."
Onus probandi: the obligation to prove an assertion or allegation one makes; the burden of proof
Pro tanto: to such an extent; to that extent
Viz.: namely; in other words
Ulterior: existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden
Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_sidgwick.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment