What are your thoughts on Mill's idea of utilitarianism?
According to Mill, Utilitarianism was a "standard of morality" which uses the happiness of the greatest number of people as its ultimate goal. Is this some thing you can agree with? Would this sort of philosophy improve society?
There was a request to have more classic and ethics based debates, I think by Bradf0rd. John Stuart Mills was one of my favorite philosophers which I studied as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois. The Wiki articles on him are wonderful and I suggest them as quick reads for those not familiar with his ideas and yet still want to participate in this discussion.
|
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. Side: reverse it
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. Side: reverse it
2
points
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. Side: incomplete
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). Side: Fuck That
1
point
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. Side: Rationality
|
