PH115: Introduction to Ethics

What is the meaning of life? It is a question that theologians and philosophers alike have tried to tackle. The proposed answers frequently relate to morality: “To help others” or “To make a difference.” If we follow in this line of thought, utilitarianism might say that the meaning of life is to maximize utility and minimize pain (Bennet 55). However, Robert Nozick calls this idea into question in “The Experience Machine,” proposing that maybe there is something more to life than happiness.

Many philosophers have long regarded happiness as the ultimate goal in life. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as “something complete and self-sufficient, it being an end of our actions” (Aristotle 12). Here Aristotle seems to state that happiness is the ultimate end to the means of living— the meaning of life, even. This is something that the hedonist would likely agree with. However Nozick seems to question the truth of that idea. In “The Experience Machine,” he proposes a hypothetical situation in which humans have the option to plug into a machine that would give you any experience you wanted. While in it, you would have no idea that what was happening wasn’t real. At the surface, this seems to be an ideal scenario. You can do, feel, and experience anything you want to; you can achieve a state of total bliss by handpicking the way your life will go. But Nozick argues that most people would not choose to plug into the machine. He states that there are more things that matter to us than just the way that we feel; if our internal emotional state is all that matters, why not plug in? Nozick says that we want to do things, and not just to experience doing them (Nozick 43). He says that what we are matters, not just what we do. And he argues that humans crave contact with a “deeper reality” (Nozick 43). All of these aspects of living are stripped away when you plug into the machine. And these parts of living seem to be ignored by utilitarianism, by just focusing on what causes you or others pleasure. Nozick states that “what we desire is to live ourselves, in contact with reality” (Nozick 45). This emphasis on wanting to stay in touch with reality implies that we want more than just the happiness that the machine would be able to supply. We crave the fabric of reality, including the hardships and the struggles that make happiness distinct. This mentality is echoed by other philosophers, such as Peter Singer. In his video “Let’s Talk About Your Hedonism,” he argues that we achieve meaning in our life through something deeper than just pursuing happiness. He says that “people that don’t aim at pleasure, but aim at something else, some activity that’s worthwhile in itself, and they get absorbed in the moment of doing what they’re doing… they actually get enjoyment and fulfillment out of it.” This idea directly supports Nozick’s argument that humans crave more than just pleasure in life, but something deeper and more personal.

While aiming to do what will make others happy is certainly noble, looking at it through the lens of Nozick’s article and supporting points of view, it just does not seem like enough to encompass all of it what is moral and all of what is important in life. Utilitarianism seems to miss out on a big part of life that Nozick seems to pick up on. What is just as important as happiness is the person, with the motivations and intentions that utilitarianism dubs as meaningless. What is important is a deeper reality that we can discover and get in touch with, which utilitarianism never addresses. What makes human life what it is is how we live in reality, with all of the different emotions beyond just happiness. All of these things are vital parts of the human experience, vital parts of the meaning of life.

While Nozick’s article never directly addresses utilitarianism, it seems to provide sufficient evidence to question the simplicity of the theory. He seems to argue that happiness is not all there is to be had. We cannot ignore the people we are, our motivations and intentions, or the importance of seeking a deeper reality than the surface on which hedonism and utilitarianism operate. The point of life, and the meaning of morality, are deeper and more complex than utilitarianism would suggest.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. Print.

Bennett, Christopher. “Chapter 4: Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Nozick, Robert. “The Experience Machine.” Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Let’s Talk About Your Hedonism. Prod. Big Think. Perf. Peter Singer. YouTube/Let’s Talk About Your Hedonism. Big Think, 16 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Oct. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfkcg05_uUg>.

This week we begin studying Normative Ethics, and more specifically, the theory of Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, a very important philosopher in the 19^th century, is one of the earliest advocates of Utilitarianism. In his essay, Selections From Utilitarianism, Mill defines what the theory is and provides his responses to common misconceptions people have against it. Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (77 Mill). Utilitarianism focuses on the general good of the world over individual pleasure. Although the theory sounds nice, for we all would love world peace, there are a few issues that I have with Mill’s responses that has me questioning the legitimacy of the theory.

Mill explained in his essay that according to Utilitarianism, the moral value of an action relies solely on the outcome of the event, making the theory consequentialist (55, Bennett). Furthermore, he believes that intentions behind actions are insignificant. The only thing that is important is the good deed. The issues that I have with this particular idea is that first, how are people supposed to know what the consequences of their actions are before they do it? A lot of times it is difficult to predict what the result of an action may be, hence why I believe motive is important. I disagree with Mill’s opinion that one’s intentions have little to no importance. Throughout the text, Mill constantly said that one of the most important aspects of utilitarianism is promoting happiness and good deeds. In many cases it is indeed true that when someone sees someone else behaving virtuously, he or she is more inclined to do something good as well. However, there are may scenarios that prove otherwise. In 2008, a crazy man intentionally burned down my family-friend’s company. Instead of giving up, my family friend worked endlessly and eventually made the company better than it was before the fire. Now, just because the result was positive, does not mean that the man’s action was acceptable or moral by any means.

Something I found very interesting was Mill’s view that everyone has some innate utilitarianism sentiment that is developed once people realize that morality lies in general happiness of all people. He believes that any serious problems in society, such as disease and poverty, can be resolved if the society is educated with appropriate values and is committed to their elimination.  Mills claims that this sentiment causes social unification, and would consequently make individuals feel ashamed if they acted against utilitarianism. This whole idea behind sentiments made me wonder whether its possible for an individual to have a good reason to do something even if his beliefs don’t promote doing so?

I think that the biggest issue that I have with Utilitarianism is that it places too much focus on the general amount of happiness of the whole world, and absolutely zero importance on an individual’s happiness. Although I think it is better to help others, sometimes we need to focus on the cultivation and self improvement of ourselves in order to better the community. In my opinion, there needs to be a balance between utilitarian and ethical egoist theories in order to achieve the most utility throughout the globe.

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Bennett, Christopher. “Chapter 4: Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

“Utilitarianism.” UTILITARIANISM by John Stuart Mill. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. <https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1863/utility/ch01.htm>.

In John Stuart Mill’s essay ‘Selections from Utilitarianism’, Mill provides a compelling argument for his theory in normative ethics called Utilitarianism. Utility can be defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain; therefore the main principle of utilitarianism is that “actions are right if they tend to stimulate happiness (pleasure) whereas actions can be classified as wrong if they produce pain.

What I found most interesting in Mill’s passage in chapter 2 was the discussion of the higher and lower pleasures. Mill argues that there are different qualities of pleasure, and only agents that have a wide array of experiences are able to dictate which pleasure are of a higher quality and which are not. However, what I didn’t really agree with was how someone’s experiences should have an affect on what consists of pleasure.  For example, if someone with a vast range experience carries out an action of what I would define as low quality pleasure such as washing cars free of charge and then told me he committing a high quality pleasure action I would disagree. Secondly, at what point in their life is someone considered having a wide range of experiences, therefore I find the whole technique of measuring pleasure and pain with utility implausible as I feel utility can be thought of as quite a subjective term in that quality of pleasure differs from individual to individual. Additionally, another flaw with measuring by utility is that what actually consists of higher quality pleasure. Does higher quality pleasure mean that it is more educationally beneficial or does it mean that it is more beneficial to someone other than the individual, such as an altruistic action? In chapter 2, Mill addresses the thought that the most righteous agents are those give up their own happiness to provide happiness for other people, however I feel that if this is true someone has to lose pleasure for others to gain pleasure and that in net effect there may not always be an increase in pleasure. For example if someone has to go through pain without any monetary reward in order to make someone else have increased pleasure should that still be considered as an increase in pleasure? Therefore I agree that people who sacrifice in order to make others happy can be considered as an increase in pleasure but only if the person going through the pain feels a form of reward from the recipient’s increase in pleasure.  If going by the theory of utilitarianism, should morals play a part in deciding ones actions or should it only be on whether the action creates high quality pleasure. For example, drugs such as cocaine increases the ability for the brain to reuptake dopamine, a neurotransmitter that increases pleasure and reward, but is highly illegal and not deemed morally permissible in various cultures, but by the law of utilitarianism the use of cocaine promotes pleasure so by that definition there should be nothing wrong with it. So I feel that utilitarianism doesn’t really look at the morals behind the action just the reward that comes with the action, which I feel wrong because many negative actions have positive rewards, a lot of them associated with crime and corruptions.

To conclude, I feel that utilitarianism can be quite a plausible normative ethical and I personally feel that positive outcomes from actions should be the mindset one has before committing an action however there are some criticism of utilitarianism that also makes me think twice about fully believing that this framework is completely sound.

Bibliography

Bennet, C. (2010). What is this thing called Ethics? NY: Saxon Graphics.

Mill. (1869). Utilitarianism. Mill.

Mill

John Stuart Mill was one of the most crucial thinkers of the 19th century. He wrote on logic, economics, political philosophy, and religion. His work, Utilitarianism, provides a way of thinking that promised those who employ it to maximize their happiness. Mill’s text is well paired with the reading, Chapter 4: Utilitarianism, from What is this Thing Called Ethics.

Mill establishes the principle of utility by stating 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 77). Simply, acts that produce pleasure or prevent pain are the most desirable. Is it right, however, to streamline life’s purpose to whether or not an action gives pain or pleasure? The quality of different pleasures tells one how to choose between two courses of action.

The utilitarian will perform actions based upon their benefit to mankind. If X and Y are two actions or decisions, and Y produces more happiness for mankind, then utilitarians will concur that Y is to be performed regardless of most other circumstances. This can be beneficial, as utilitarianism seems to appeal to a broad spectrum of people due to the fact it prioritizes the interests of the many (Bennett 56). It promotes impartiality and equality by saying that the happiness of one person is just as valuable as that of any other. By weighing each person’s happiness as a value of one, no less and no more, utilitarianism helps address moral questions and remove prejudices based in birth, sex, race, and social rank. Utilitarianism does not set moral limits on what we can do, it only says to maximize the social good by performing cost benefit analyses on decisions (Bennett 58). During my initial reading, I easily agreed with this view. Like subjectivism initially seemed good until Hitler was mentioned, I knew I needed to view both extremes before deciding whether I act as a utilitarian.

As I quickly discovered, utilitarianism can lead to disturbing consequences in certain situations. Bennett writes about a situation in which a person or party who is universally believed to be guilty but is actually innocent does not benefit from utilitarianism. Assuming that the true perpetrator of the crime died, how should a utilitarian police chief act in the best interest of the society? According to utilitarianism, the two possible actions would be either doing nothing or punishing the innocent party. Assuming there was no danger of the party’s innocence ever coming to light, and if nothing is X and punishing is Y, X = no effect and Y = some positive outcome – such as the “rallying” of a community or the beginning of a healing process after a shooting spree or mass murder. Then, Y will be employed because it is more beneficial for the community as a whole. Although the example is quite specific, this still leads to the conviction of an innocent party. Therefore, utilitarianism leads to immoral outcomes. Due to this lack of moral outcomes, I cannot consider myself a true, pure utilitarian.

An answer to the criticisms of utilitarianism, I thought, could be rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarians agree that an action is right if and only if it falls under a rule, the general following of which would result in greater utility than an alternative available rule (Bennett 64). In reality, humans do not calculate every single decision they make. Humans use patterns (Bennett 63) of behavior, called habits, to help do most of the “calculations” instead of starting from the beginning each time. The idea is to “always assess the consequences of your actions and try to act optimally” (Bennett 65). However, rule-utilitarianism has been called too contingent or accidental in the way it determines what is moral and what is not.

A current example of utilitarian ethics is the push human cloning. Judith Daar, the author of the article The Prospect of Human Cloning, uses an example in which a family that suffered the loss of a child would benefit from cloning. The genetic similarities between the child who passed and the new child would be impeccable, and this may begin to mend the families’ hearts. Daar cites studies that show there is traction for a human cloning movement, underscored by parents and families that have lost young ones in child birth or at young ages (Daar 16). A utilitarian would have to weigh the difference between the utility received by the family for having a similar child versus the unhappiness or discrimination that may come about from a whole new race (clones).

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Bennett, Christopher. “Chapter 4: Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Daar, Judith F. “The Prospect of Human Cloning: Improving Nature or Dooming the Species?” Seton Hall Law Review 33 (2003): pp. 1-90. Web.

In our first week of studying Normative Ethics, we come to one of the “big three” topics, Utilitarianism. This week, we read two texts, one by Christopher Bennett and one by John Stuart Mills about their viewpoints on the topic. Utilitarianism is “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people” (Merriam-Webster.com). In other words, when choosing what to do, a person living by the standards set forth by utilitarianism will choose the option that promotes the happiness and well being of the most people.

This concept is one that sounds great in theory and sounds like an awesome way to promote a happy existence on Earth. When digging deeper into utilitarianism, there are ways to refute that it is the best way to act. Many state the claim that it is a very difficult and arduous way to live. Under utilitarianism, one will calculate the costs and benefits of every action taken in order to determine the best choice for the individual. This sounds like a difficult process, but the true way the utilitarian will act is based off of patterns of behavior formed by the human race over time in order to prevent the need to calculate everything at every moment (Mill).

Another argument against utilitarianism is that in order to act in this way, promising something to another person is impossible as when the promise is to be enacted, the utilitarian might decide that it would be beneficial to instead do another act for the good of all sentient beings. The utilitarian would refute this claim by stating that breaking the promise with one person is okay as long as your new action would benefit more than the one. This still could create a society in which there is distrust among all people (Bennett).

These problems can also be solved by a sub-division of utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism. This states that utilitarians should follow socially beneficial rules rather than attempt to assess each and every consequence for ourselves. Basically, it states that we should always act in ways that are beneficial for society as a whole.

A utilitarian’s view on global poverty is as follows. Peter Singer, a utilitarian, believes that every person should be taking one percent of their income and donating it to eradicating poverty and helping those in need. Ideally, he states, that people should be donating more, but one percent is a small amount that he could ask from everyone (Schweickart, 3-4) This view that people should have it within their nature to donate to others and help support happiness and well being in the world is one that utilitarians try to promote.

Though criticized, I tend to think that I have the beliefs of a utilitarian. I believe that positive intentions are definitely there and I try to live my life so that I am helping the most people through my actions. There will always be those who state that the utilitarian is acting selfishly through his or her actions and that the benefit of others really means that of ones self, but I truly believe that after reading both Bennett and Mills that the mindset of a utilitarian, if truly abiding by the principles, is one that can benefit society as a whole and make it so the world could be a better place.

Works Cited

Bennett, Christopher. “4 Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 2 What Utilitarianism Is.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 4 Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility Is Susceptible.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Schweickart, David. “Global Poverty: Alternative Perspectives on What We Should Do- and Why.” Journal of Social Philosophy (2008): Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.

“Utilitarianism.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilitarianism>.