Whatever your stance is on Mill's utilitarianism reflects deeper questions of morality and ethics. It's almost a cheap out to say that what's best is what gives the most people happiness. Giving cocaine or anti-depressants to everyone might make everyone happy, but is that really what gives the best result? When slavery was acceptable, the majority of people thought that the cheap labor was a good idea even though it meant repressing individuals. Studies have been done that show that people are happier when they are much better off when they are in a better situation than those around them. People making 100k a year feel happier living in neighborhoods where others make less than them than living in neighborhoods of millionaires. The thing that causes the greatest amount of happiness might be to give most of the money in a nation to 55% of people and to surround them with the poor 45%, but that doesn't make it fair or moral. The real answer is to behave as you would like to behave. But it's better put in this case in the reverse. Don't treat people like you wouldn't want to be treated yourself. In Mill's terms, it shouldn't be what gives the most people the most happiness, but it should be what gives the least number of people the least unhappiness. That solves the problems of things like slavery and injustice for popular benefit.
367 days ago | Tagged As: reverse it
In regards of your conclusion, although a very valid point, I think you are moving away from J. S. Mill and over to John Rawls (Theory of Justice).
I think I agree with you. However, I think that "cocaine and anti-depressants" are not a good counter-argument, because while drugs can produce short term happiness, they cause a greater unhappiness in the long term, and so avoiding them is consistent with utilitarianism.
The problem with this argument though is that it allows you to satisfy the many at the cost of the few. The government could, for example cut taxes for 90% of the people in a country, by taking all the money of 10%. There must be a balance between the needs of the many and the few.
367 days ago | Tagged As: incomplete
it's a philosophy based off of emotion. Why oppress a minority just cause the many want that? This is where Democracy reaches it's flaws. Gays can't even adopt in certain counties because the majority find it "immoral". total crap. we have to think logically.
367 days ago | Tagged As: Fuck That
In regards of single, political questions such as gay adoption, utilitarianism will not neccessarily act in the same way as practical democracy, considering that democracy in most cases is representative, and not direct. It is right that the minority will be subjugated to the wishes of the majority, but we do then assume that this will bring the most happiness to the highest number of people, and that all those who are involved will actually know their true choice in the matter. This further emphasizes that democracy and utilitarianism is not the same thing. The philosophy is not in any way based on emotion, but rather on the calculation and comparison of consequenses; emotions are not in any way included in the equation. This can be illustrated by ethical examples (we are now moving a bit away from Mill), such as H. J. McCloskeys sheriff scenario: A sheriff has to convict and execute one innocent man in order to stop a riot (in which hundreds would be killed). If we presume that the sheriff's plan in no way will be revealed to the public, the utilitarian must acknowledge that there is no other choice than to kill the one innocent man - he will not do it gladly (and NOT based on an emotional choice), but it would bring the most happiness to the highest number of people (in a hedonistic sense).
i was saying is that it appeals to the emotions of mankind. the emotions of one guy.
366 days ago | Tagged As: Fuck That
Utilitarianism does not appeal to the emotion of mankind, neither that of one man. It is a rational theory, which can be examplified in the fact that in utilitarianism, the greater good of mankind preceeds what is right. I would argue that on a emotional basis, we would have a hard time to agree with certain dilemmas, if we are to apply utilitarian theory in the solution. This seems to be especially true when the life of human beings are involved, such as in the sheriff scenario.
366 days ago | Tagged As: Rationality
You are correct in saying that Utilitarianism tries to avoid putting emotions in the equation when trying to solve what is right and wrong.
Excuse me...small point here...Isn't "happiness" an emotion? :\
A true and valid point, but: Maximization of happiness is the goal of utilitarianism, and not part of the means, and as of such does not have any appeal when deciding what to do in a given situation. As stated by kirstie, emotion is held outside the equation. When making a choice of A and B with an utilitarian outset, one does not seek the answer within ones emotions. One calculates and summarizes A and B separately, and then compare them in order to choose the one that in the best way satifies the goal (maximum happiness). The end-result can be said to have emotional properties, but the path leading up to it is of an instrumental nature. Once again I will mention that as an utilitarian, one might have to do despicable and horrible acts that will go against ones every emotion, if such action maximizes happiness.
Yes. The problem with that, however, is that happiness is experienced subjectively. What makes you happy may make the next person unhappy, etcetera. It seems untenable to me to build up a philosophy around an intangibility such as happiness. When we try to base a philosophy or society on that principle, then we have different sides who have different ideas of what will make you truly happy. To some that will be to follow the will of God, to some that will be to ignore every social convention and live as they please. But I should really read more of this guys stuff first before I say anymore, or else I'll probably just end up looking dumb. :P
A good point. As far as my knowledge goes for Mill, his definition of happiness would be that it is the experience of pleasure, which doesn't say too much. It is indeed a problem within utilitarian theory (that said, there are variations of utilitarianism, with different answers to this). One can, however, make an assumption that there is a universal kind of happiness, which most people experience in almost the same way. For example, we can all agree to the fact that all people are happy when they have something to eat, while all people are unhappy when they starve.
Exactly! =) The end point can be an emotion, but the means to that end cannot be decided upon by emotion!
I feel that in today's world Mill's philosophy can be applied to state government. The politicians need to put individual's or special interest groups views on the back burner, and instead focus on the greater good for the most number of people in their states. Our founding father's had this idea in mind when they gave a certain degree of power to the states to rule over their people. In Utah where there is a high number of Mormons, they might have different laws than in another state where there is a high percentage of Jews, for example. In this case the laws should be set up to govern all, but yet at the same time, make the most people happy.
|
