Mill's starts off by clarifying what Utilitarianism is not to defend it from misrepresentation and the lack of connection of utility to pleasure and pain. People either remove pleasure completely from the picture or they make utility all about pleasure, both ends of the spectrum misrepresent what philosophers have written about Utility.
"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill instead states that pleasure and freedom from pain (or unhappiness) are the only desirable ends. Everything that is desirable is desired because of the pleasure they provide or they promote pleasure or reduce pain.
Part of the misunderstanding of utility is caused by not recognizing that there are different kinds and intensities to pleasure. Epicurean theory of life assigns pleasure to intellect, feelings, imagination, and moral sentiments - much higher values of pleasure than the pleasures of sensation. Mental pleasures have taken priority of the physical, especially when they involve permanence, such as safety. There are kinds of pleasure that are more desirable and valuable than others, and quantity of pleasure is more important than quality.
Mill believes that the superiority of a pleasure is determined by a person who has experienced both - these people will also prefer pleasures of "higher faculties." A person with high faculties requires more to make them happy and can suffer more intense pain but they would never want to be a lower being. Mill says that those who chose lower over higher pleasures do so because they can not obtain the higher. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, as they have neither the time nor the opportunity to reach their higher faculties.
Mill adds quality and quantity to the "Greatest Happiness Principle", saying that we should seek the richest amount of enjoyment and seek to reduce pain - in the greatest extent possible as to include all of mankind and not just the individual.
One of the attacks on Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to obtain happiness, Mill agrees but only if you are arguing that a life of happiness is one of continuously high pleasure. Mill realistically says that happiness often only lasts for moments - with a few exceptions. Utilitarianism is focused on obtaining a life with few pains in-between many moments of various pleasure - a happy life, not an unobtainable perfect life.
Another attack is that Utilitarianism removes self sacrifice, valued by our christian culture, because of the focus on pleasure and the avoidance of pain, which could be caused by self sacrifice. Mill states that Utilitarianism recognizes the power sacrifice has to increase the good for all, but the sacrifice itself is good, which makes sense as the act is often painful or doesn't produce pleasure. Sacrifice must increase the good of all to not be a waste.
Mill says "to do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneslef, constitue the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." These morals call for aligning the happiness, or interest, of each individual with the interest of the whole group as much as possible.
Mill acknowledges that individuals do not always take the greatest social concern into mind because social concern (golden rule) isn't a motive, it is a measurement for judgement and sanctions. Most actions are done for individuals, but that happiness adds to the happiness of the world - as long as the rights of happiness of others isn't violated.
For Utilitarianism to work, people must adopt the morality of this principle. When people adopt utility, they do so because they feel an obligation to it. In turn, people derive obligation from the principles. The external sanctions enforce Utilitarianism but it is the internal sanctions provide the ultimate sanctions. External sanctions are often the hope of gaining favor from others or "fear of displeasure". The internal sanctions is duty - the essence of Conscience. The feelings in our own minds become the ultimate sanction.
It does not matter whether feelings for humanity are born with us or developed in the world, as both have the same result, powerful sentiment that gives way to general happiness as an ethical standard.
Discussion Questions/Comments
In my communication ethics course we were taught that Mill is all about doing the most good for the greatest group of people possible. Pleasure and good aren't the same thing, clearly not connecting to what we taught. Do you think that the reason we were taught this interpretation is because of the desire of Mill to avoid pain? Or because of the part where Mill wants to align the "interest" of each individual?
Was Epicurus one of the first philosophers for Utilitarianism, or was he just one of the strongest defenders?
How did Mill impact the world view of utility?
Why does Mill say that we should focus on quantity of pleasures rather than quality? Is he talking about length of pleasure being more important? Or did I get his meaning backwards and he actually approves of greater quality?
Key Terms/Definitions
Contradistinguished: to differentiate by means of contrasting or opposing qualities
Inveterate: having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change
Faculties: an inherent mental or physical power
Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_mill.pdf
Showing posts with label John Stuart Mill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Stuart Mill. Show all posts
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Utilitarianism Revised: Henry Sidgwick
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)