Ethics phil 330
What is the "ignorant blunder" that Mill wishes to guard against in his description of utility?
"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals "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. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure." (Mill 7). What Mill meant by the "ignorant blunder" is the misconception that utilitarianism is against pleasure, when in it is the contrary. Utilitarianism is also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle in which happiness is a pleasure. Utilitarianism is based on the pleasure of the majority, according to Mill.
Carefully explain the drowning example on p. 18. What point is Mill making? (18-19)
A concept from the reading that I will try to apply to the explanation of the drowning example is the idea that Utilitarianism has a base in the belief that happiness, of an individual or being generated to the community, is a factor in the definition of morality. In my relating this concept to the agent in the drowning example Mill states: "...Utilitarian standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier..." (Mill p.11) In the example Mill states that "He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble". And from the abovementioned quote, Mill established that even if one who saves another from drowning doesn't gain gratification, it will at least generate happiness to others. Since happiness is a result of the action it can be deemed morally right, therefore the noble agent's motive doesn't matter in the classification as such. Even if one saved the other in hopes of an award the consequence would be happiness on the part of the drowning man and the community, thus morally right. He also writes "...something might still be said for the utilitarian theory, since utility includes not solely the pursuit of happiness, but the prevention or mitigation of unhappiness". (Mill p.12) So even if the motivation brings no happiness to the agent or the community the fact that the act would presumably mitigate unhappiness still deems it morally right, regardless of the motivation. In a note of opposition to this concept, Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies writes "Surely the rightness or wrongness of saving a man from drowning does depend very much upon the motive with which it is done." She goes on to explain a situation where a tyrant saves the drowning man only to torture him in worse ways. Therefor the motivation of the rescuer should be considered and would make the act immoral. This overall concept could be applied to the job of a first responder. Their dedication to saving lives is viewed as highly moral and the fact that they are paid to do so does not diminish the morality of their actions. If the first responder used his income facilitate his drug dealing side-gig it doesn't diminish the morality associated with the job because from a utilitarian standpoint, it causes general happiness and mitigates unhappiness. Or does it?
What is Mill's view of self-sacrifice?
Chapter 2, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, he explains that his theory of morals is grounded in his theory on life. He stated that, "Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends and as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain" (Mill 7). Mill's view of self-sacrifice is that he does recognize the power of sacrifice, but refuses to recognize the actual sacrifices that people make. He states, "A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted" (Mill 17). A real life example is a mother and her children. No matter what challenges in life that present, a mother will go to every extreme to prevent her children from having any pain. A mother will sacrifice her own health so that her child's life is unharmed. I feel that looking into her child's eyes seeing them happy and healthy, gives her enormous pleasure and is a welcomed sacrifice.
On pages 16-17, Mill says "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility." Explain why he would claim this.
I believe Mill uses Jesus and his ideals as a model for Utilitarianism. He uses the passages, "To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mill, 17). He breaks down the essence of utilitarianism simply by acknowledging that to follow utilitarian ideas you must place everyone else's happiness before your own. These align with Jesus's principles for his disciples and all with whom he encountered. He also values education and learning to promote the "general good" so everyone will be aligned with the same values and ideals. Everyone should be on the same page and marching to the same drum beat so utilitarianism functions properly. If everyone is looking out for everyone else's happiness, then by default everyone is happy and taken care of. It's an oversimplified version of a perfect society, but the possibilities and the groundwork for such a society was laid through Jesus and his disciples.
What is Mill's response to the objection that the disinterested character that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect?
In Chapter II, it states "Those among them who entertain anything like a just idea of its disinterested character sometimes find fault with its standard as being too high for humanity"(Mill,2001 p.18). They say it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society (Mill,2001 p.18). Mill explains that this meaning of utilitarianism is mistaken because standards and morals aren't induced by the interests of society but instead the motives behind the action. When someone does something morally right it doesn't matter how others feel about that action but instead the person completing the actions motives. The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights, that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations, of anyone else (Mill,2001 p.18). The example in the book was a good explanation explaining an act of saving a creature from drownining because morally the right thing to do. Saving an escaped tyrant would also be morally right even if it's to torture them later because it's classified as a duty in direct obedience to principle.
Why would someone say that "utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine?"
In chapter II, What Utilitarianism Is, Mill begins by expressing that utility is misunderstood and that it was only intended to be used to regard pleasure. He explains that utility is the "foundation of morals" (Mill, p.7) and deems the actions that create the most happiness as right and those actions that create the least amount of happiness to be wrong. Mills then supposes that it is said that, "life has no higher end than pleasure" (Mill, p.7) and that all we are seeking is happiness or inherent happiness in our time as physical beings. This statement is degrading to human life and ability. To believe that our purpose in life is to seek only pleasure suggests that humans only possess this ability which may be that of animals merely minimizes the vast capacities that we naturally hold. The theory of utility is said to be "doctrine worthy only of swine" (Mill, p.7). This is due to the limitations that utilitarianism imposes upon us to such a basic purpose and nothing greater than pleasure seekers and capable of nothing more than what swine are capable of. Mills explains that this is undignified because "a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness" (Mill, p.8). Mills soon points out that utility is assessed by quantity and fails to consider quality due to the concept on which it is based. This factor is critical in circumstances such as friendships. Would merely having a larger number of friends make you happiest though you may lack deep connection and personability with them or would a person find greater happiness through few friendships that are meaningful and more deeply rooted? Utilitarianism ignores the quality of the friendships and would therefore direct that the former option would give you the greatest amount of happiness. Under this assertion, we have failed to reach beyond the surface and the lack of depth and critical reasoning would render us nothing greater or more evolved than swine. Humans are indeed capable of greatness and seek more than basic happiness. We are more gifted than swine and thus the shallowness that the utilitarianism theory offers is irrational to assess the happiness and life purpose of man.
It may be objected that many who are capable of the higher pleasures occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower" To what is this an objection? What is Mill's response? (10)
In chapter two of "Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment," John Stuart Mill shed light on what a utilitarian truly is. Morality is not the main factor as it is the "greatest happiness principle" (Mill 7). Simply put, this means that the actions that cause happiness are right, and anything that causes unhappiness are wrong. There is a point when self-sacrifice is necessary, but that would fall under specific guidelines of bringing more happiness for others or causing less pain for others. The majority rules in this perspective. If my happiness makes 100 people miserable, than it is only logical and morally right that I should forgo my happiness in order to make 100 people happy. It may seem like it is just a selfish mind set of making yourself happy above all things, but Mill explains that it is for the good of the group, and the decisions made are for the majority to be happy. Mill stated that to some, it may be objected that those capable of the higher pleasures postpone them to the lower due to temptation (Mill 10). Temptation and speed of satiating pleasure are simple reasons why a person would choose the lower. "Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be less valuable" (Mill 10). It is a lack of patience for delayed gratification. A person wants to feel pleasure, so a quick option seems like the best option, even though it may actually have more of a negative consequence on their health. It takes time and opportunity to indulge in higher pleasures, but the inferior pleasures are easier to obtain, and more hazardous to maintain. A person who wants to achieve the higher form of pleasure may work hard and strive in their job in order to earn the coveted "pension" and live comfortably in their older years. It is a long road and can be tough to maintain. This same person gets exhausted and wants to go the easier route. He starts drinking daily in order to have moments of lower pleasure that satisfy at the moment, but cause issues later. The drinking triggers more problems at work and the alcohol starts to deteriorate his health. "It may be susceptible to both classes of pleasures ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower, though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both" (Mill 11). As Mill believes, it is not a viable option to successfully live on both sides of the pleasure spectrum without having some sort of conflict.
What is Mill's response to the objection that the promotion of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect? (18-19).
Mill disagrees with the objection that the general welfare utilitarianism demands is unreasonable. One of the arguments for this was, "An opponent, whose intellectual and moral fairness it is a pleasure to acknowledge (the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies), has objected to this passage, saying, "Surely the rightness or wrongness of saving a man from drowning does depend very much upon the motive with which it is done. Suppose that a tyrant, when his enemy jumped into the sea to escape from him, saved him from drowning simply in order that he might inflict upon him more exquisite tortures, would it tend to clearness to speak of that rescue as 'a morally right action'? Or suppose again, according to one of the stock illustrations of ethical inquiries, that a man betrayed a trust received from a friend, because the discharge of it would fatally injure that friend himself or someone belonging to him, would utilitarian- ism compel one to call the betrayal 'a crime' as much as if it had been done from the meanest motive?" (Mill, 2001, pg 18-19). So basically, Mill is saying that intention is what makes utilitarianism work. The intent of the man saving the drowning man to further harm him violates what utilitarianism stands for. It's all about the intent.
What are only things desirable as ends? What does it mean to say something is desirable as an end?
Mill states that "pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain" (Mill, pg. 7). This statement was so interesting to me that I had to think about it for quite a while. It can be interpreted in so many different ways. To me, an end is exactly how it sounds, an end goal. Mill is suggesting that all things we do in life are purely to promote being happy and to prevent being in pain. I find a lot of truth in this statement. I recently read a book about the late Kurt Cobain. This man was a gifted musician and a world renowned rock star. Many argue that his heroin addiction was simply due to living a rock star's lifestyle, while others attribute it to his depression and desire to live as a recluse because he hated the fame. Either way, he was not happy. He also had a stomach condition, most likely undiagnosed crone's disease, that left him in constant debilitating pain. His means to promote pleasure and prevent pain was heroin. His ultimate means to prevent pain was suicide. Another example would be your job, or the end result of work, money. People go to jobs that they hate every day, but they do it to earn money. The thing that buys us food, shelter, and possessions. No one is happy when they are hungry, and starvation will definitely cause pain. No one is happy or pain free when they are living in a freezing cold environment with no roof over their head. Money buys us the things that make us happy. Whether it be long term or short term pleasure, a vacation or a candy bar, the desire for happiness is still the goal. The saying is that money cannot buy happiness, but if you ask me, I think it goes a very long way to getting you there. Mill also points out that some look at this way of thinking as "a doctrine worthy only of swine," (Mill pg. 7) and in saying this "supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable" (Mill pg. 8). I highly disagree with this statement because a pig is content with just rolling around in the mud all day. Humans are always seeking the next thing that is going to bring them happiness. Even when someone finds something that makes them happy, it usually becomes stale and boring over time and then it's back to searching for the next thrill.
Why would someone object that the disinterested character that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect?
Someone may object that the disinterested character that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect because people tend to think about themselves, more than everyone else in the world when they act. Mill's believes that people can be happy without constantly being happy if it benefits the entire world. However, it is more likely that people will be selfish with their decisions in order to benerit themselves. "... on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so done if the rule of duty does not condemn them." (Mill 18)
Explain the objection that happiness cannot be the rational purpose of life. Why would someone make this objection?--
The idea that perpetual or constant happiness is a requirement or the rational purpose of life is what the writer, Mill, is rejecting. He actually states that it is this is not possible. "If by happiness be meant a continuity of highly pleasurable excitement, it is evident enough that this is impossible" (Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill pg 12) He does state that that it is acceptable for a person, rational, to seek happiness all the while keeping in mind that unhappiness is going to happen. I believe that this objection can be made because the highs that come with extreme happiness or even happy moments are fleeting. Thus making this the rational purpose of life, would also be or become fleeting. Instead, he argues or states that the happiness that is defined or described should rather be seen not as a, "life of rapture, but moments of such". (Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill pg 13). This I believe was the intent, or at least a portion, almost trying to manage expectations. If we were to always expect that happiness is to be a constant thing, we would never achieve it. I myself love my job, however even as much I love it and it brings me happiness, it can't be constant. I myself have to accept the highs and lows that come with the overarching personal definition of happiness surrounding my job. I believe this to be true for us all.
What qualities as a happy and satisfied life? According to mill
To many people it can be many different things, but according to John Stuart Mill it includes tranquility and excitement. "With much tranquility, many find that they can be content with very little pleasure; with much excitement, many can reconcile themselves to a considerable quantity of pain." (Mill 13) With these two they are exact opposites making it the best combination of life. " There is assuredly no inherent impossibility of enabling even the mass of mankind to unite both, since the two are so far from being incompatible that they are in a natural alliance..." (Mill 13) From what he is saying he means we have to find our peace in our life, and we also need excitement of something new or thrilling. For myself I find it extremely relaxing going on a walk in the woods or curled up with hot tea and a good book or movie after a long week. What excites me is when I get to travel new places, I love doing all kinds of research on an area and pick out spots I'd like to go to. Ultimately I do agree with what Mill is proposing on a happy and satisfied life, having both tranquility and excitement can fulfill that need.
What is the foundation of morals? In other words, what does the theory 'utilitarianism' claim?
Utilitarianism has lost its true meaning over time and not until recently has proper definition tried to be restored, even opponents of utilitarianism may not fully understand the definition they claim to be opposed to. The utilitarianism foundation and theory of morals is grounded in the theory of life. It states that actions, that of either right or wrong, is proportionate and equates to the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is the result of said actions. There are many derivatives within this theory coupled with the vast in the number of possibilities that leads to the determination of an action being right or wrong. In particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure and to what extent this left an open question (Mill, 7). Pleasure with the absence of pain are the only things desirable as ends, and that all things desirable either inherently bring pleasure or promote pleasure without pain (Mill, 7). People are subjective and look for and possessing happiness, whether it is from reading book, as an end; or in buying a book, as a means to pleasure. This applies to everything in life; people we interact with at work, school, and recreational activities ranging from public to most private in nature.
egalitarianism: the ethical doctrine that the good or goods should be distributed equally, fairly or justly. Why is utilitarianism not egalitarianism? (7)
Utilitarianism is not egalitarianism because although both may share the same ideas that things should be dispersed in a way which best benefit people, they have different ideas on exactly how to do this. Utilitarianists states that "life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure" (mill, 7). This philosophy excites many because who wouldn't want to have the best if they can and seek to benefit people with the most pleasure, egalitarianism does not favor pleasure though but rather the greater good of all people equally, with a strong emphasis on the equal part. Egalitarianism philosophy will want everyone no matter what to have the same everything from land, money, or food, they believe that truly having everything split is the right way "happiness, in any form, cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action; because, in the first place, it is unattainable" (mill, p.12). Mills states that those against utilitarianisms say that you can't base rational actions or decisions solely based on happiness or pleasure. The egalitarian method doesn't work so well though if the population is very diverse in terms of wealth, population or land because those with more originally might find this very unfair.
Egoism: the ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest. Why is utilitarianism not egoism?
Utilitarianism is the focus on the idea of the greater good. To judge something in an Utilitarianism way one looks at the moral worth of an action and judges it by how much it benefits everyone. In other words if the benefit of the action or moral has the possibility to cause harm to many but cause good to many more that action is believed to be ethical. Egoism only benefits the person involved whether it causes harm to others or not. It is strictly based off how the individual is benefited at no recognition for others. Utilitarianism is not egoism in the major fact that it can be summed up as the greater good. If any act is to be acted upon the idea is that it can cause harm to some but if it benefits more than it is justified. Egoism is strictly for the benefit of one person regardless of the effect on others. Egoism views something as ethical if it is benefiting the person involved in the act.
What is Mills response to the objection that "Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine?" (7-12)
While reading Mills book on Utilitarianism, here is the statement found, "to suppose that life has no higher end than pleasure - no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit - they designate as utterly mean and groveling, as a doctrine worthy only of swine" (Mill, 2001, p. 7). Mills response to this statement is that he believes that the comparison of Epicurean life to the life of animals is quite degrading, due to the fact than an animals sources of pleasure aren't the same as a humans sources of pleasure. Mills goes on to say how human beings in general have a higher functioning pleasure center that is much more elevated than an animals appetite for pleasure. For example, Mills explains that even the Epicureans responded by saying "it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature degrading light, since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasure except those of which swine are capable (Mill, 2001, p. 8). Mills supports this by explaining that few humans would want the things that animals found to be of pleasure, no rational human would want lower sources of pleasure.