Socrates asks "How should one live?" Plato thought the answer lay in following a life of philosophical understanding.
Williams looks at the work of Socrates and Plato, who attempt to justify morality to amoral people. Williams asks why philosophers should even bother, as they are dealing with people who will be unmoved by their arguments. Williams believes that the reason we try to convince these people is because they might influence individuals to give up morality and live an unethical life. Williams says "to be skeptical about ethics is to be skeptical about the force of ethical considerations." These people must not be assumed to live lives that lack ethical considerations, but rather question what the force of these ethical considerations are. Skeptics interact with the world and must find actions they approve of or do cheerfully, removing skepticism away as the skeptic has just made an ethical decision. By removing oneself from all ethics, one has nothing to do.
Williams feels that we should not ask what to say to the amoral person but what we can say about them, as that message will reach the rest of the population who has morals - providing support and reinforcement of morals to the people who will actually listen, those with morals, instead of the amoral who won't listen. When it comes to force, Williams explains that Plato thought, "the power of the ethical was the power of reason", and that the power of the ethical was made into a force by the power of reason. The aim then should be to focus on reinforcing the ethical rather than attacking the unethical.
Williams asks if there is a Archimedean Point, and notes that both Aristotle and Kant have philosophical "ventures" that follow his own definition: something to which even the amoralist or the skeptic is committed but which, properly thought through, will show us that he is irrational, or unreasonable, or at any rate mistaken." Kant follows rational action (agency) and Aristotle thought that it is "the idea of a specifically human life." Williams says that there is no such Archimedean Point and says that he hopes people will adopt three things to help prompt ethics: truth, truthfulness, and the meaning of an individual life.
Williams proclaims that the scientific truth does not provide us with anything normative - possessing facts does not change people's behavior (smokers still smoke despite its known harm). This knowledge can have an impact though when we look at the social understanding we have.
The reason Williams says we should seek truthfulness is because our ethical thought should "stand up to reflection, with the goal of its institutions and practices should be capable of becoming transparent." If our ethics can't be transparent, then what are we hiding? We need to be truthful about our ethics so that people can know how ethical they really are.
Williams needs for "individuals of dispositions of characters" and "a life of their own to lead" for his hopes to be reached. As for the "meaning of an individual life", he looks for "one that does not reject society, and indeed shares its perceptions with other people to a considerable depth, but is enough unlike others, in its opacities and disorder as well as in its reasoned intentions, to make it somebody's." He wants people to understand each other, maintain that truthfulness, and to make the principle of general goodness someone else's principle so that they too can add to the world happiness.
Discussion Questions/Comments
Could you explain what Mill means by "One has nothing to do" in #5? Does he mean there is no meaning to an amoral person's life?
What does Aristotle mean by a "specifically human life?"
Key Terms/Definitions
Philosophical: general and abstract, rationally reflective, and concerned with what can be known through different kinds of inquiry
Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness and wrongness of something
Archimedean Point: a point where the viewer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality
Normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard of a norm, especially of behavior.
Phrenology: the detailed study of the size and shape of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities
Showing posts with label Week One. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Week One. Show all posts
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Greatest Happiness Principle: John Stuart Mill
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
"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
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
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Morality and Sentiment: David Hume
Hume's main focus is on one question in this reading: Does our morality come from our rational nature (reason) or our passional nature (Sentiment)? Both sides of the argument have developed full and complete claim as to why their side is sound in its reasoning, as well was pointing out the faults in the argument of the other side.
Hume suggests that it is possible that BOTH sides are sound, and in turn, possibly both work to make moral decisions at the same time. In many instances we start with the instant reaction of sentiment but without the ability to reason we lack the ability to explain why we have sentiment. In other cases though, such as fine art, we require reasoning in order to produce the feelings of sentiment.
Although it is possible for both sides to work together, Hume claims that only one (reason or sentiment) can be the ultimate source of morality. The first reason Hume believes that the source cannot fall to reason, is because as morality is practical. Interestingly enough, reason does not spring people to action - making reason unable to be the cause of moral conduct.
"What is honorable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true, procures only cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our research."
Without passion and warm feelings we have for virtue (sentiment), morality loses its practical study and its ability to impact our lives and actions.
The second reason Hume believes the source is not reason: despite our ability to know all the objective facts about a immoral situation, the wrongness of a person's actions cannot be found on a set list where we have created set moral judgments.
Reason either judges a matter of fact or matters of relations.
Matters of fact are Crimes - a moral action where things are done against people who have shown good will to the offender. There is also a contrariety relationship though between the offender and the victim. In the end, "moral relationships are determined by the comparison of action to a rule. And that rule is determined by considering the moral relationships of objects."
Because of these two reasons, Hume believes that sentiment must be the source of (and determines) morality. That said, reason plays a role in rendering moral decisions. In to order understand situations we must know all the circumstances and the relationships, in order to distinguish new understanding through reason. Processing the circumstance, relationships, and the understandings through reason influence us to create new impressions in our sentiment, which we then use to make moral decisions.
Hume says that there are two great societal virtues - benevolence and justice, with the first being universally valued. Justice, on the other hand, sole reason is for utility as it gives action when virtue is idle - unworkable or unnecessary. The rules of inequity and justice rely solely on the state and condition in which man is placed.
"Personal merit consists altogether in the possession of mental qualities, useful or agreeable to the person himself or others."
Hume believes that some of an individuals passions do not come from personal concern, but a person's morality is based on sentiments having their origin of concern for others. These sentiments are universally shared because they are not influenced by personal considerations.
Virtues are items of personal merit. Anything that holds the same usefulness or agreeableness that is characteristic of personal merit are virtues.
Discussion Questions/Comments
On page 138, Hume starts talking about how their is a distinction between fact and one of right and how it effects whether a person is a criminal or not. What is the difference between a mistake of fact and a mistake of right? Is he just talking about a mistake of morals is a mistake of right?
On page 141 right before 10, Hume is talking about justice and its necessity being derived from property and the need of ownership because of the labor it takes to produce enjoyments. Is this what Hume is really trying to say, or am I not following him correctly?
Key Terms/Definitions
Reason: a cause, explanation, or justification
Sentiment: A view or attitude toward a situation / Feeling or emotion
Virtue: whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation
Virtue: whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation
Personal Merit: Mental qualities that arouse the sentiment of approbation
Amiable: having or displaying friendliness and pleasant manner
Amiable: having or displaying friendliness and pleasant manner
Odious: extremely unpleasant, repulsive
Beget: To bring into existence by reproduction; To give rise to/bring about
Speculative: engaged in, expressing, or based on opinion rather than knowledge; involving high risk
Crime: a moral action where things are done against people who have shown good will to the offender.
Contrariety: opposition or inconsistency between two or more things; contrary opposition
Laudable: deserving praise and commendation
Approbation: approval or praise
Requisite: made necessary by particular circumstances or regulations
Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_hume.pdf
Laudable: deserving praise and commendation
Approbation: approval or praise
Requisite: made necessary by particular circumstances or regulations
Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_hume.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)