Ethics

[seeker5133]

I have been taking a Philosophy 101 course this semester and we are currently studying ethics and lately we have been stuck in the Utilitarian school of thought and while it seems logical there is something that just dosen’t feel right about it. Could anyone give proofs against it?

 

[tonyrey]

The theory that all action should be aimed at achieving the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people overlooks individual rights and justifies intolerance of minorities.

JS Mill remarked that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Lots of problems with Utilitarian ethics, although there have been attempts to refine the ethical theory and eliminate them. Some are:

• Utilitarian ethics is based on outcomes which, though predictable in some circumstances, are completely unknown or unpredictable in many other circumstances.
• Other elements of what we would consider part of the “moral life”, such as motives, are not considered to any great degree.
• This ethical system can be used to support what we would consider heinous actions. Refining Mill’s approach to suggest “less pain” rather than “more pleasure” helps but only to a degree. The problem ultimately still remains.
• There is the logical problem: utilitarian ethics basis its justification on outcomes (pleasure over pain, for instance), however, if another ethical system (such as Kant’s deontological system) achieves these outcomes to a greater degree, it would be preferable (on utilitarian theory) to utilitarian theory! So, it seems to cancel itself out!

Hope that helps.

Jonathan

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have been taking a Philosophy 101 course this semester and we are currently studying ethics and lately we have been stuck in the Utilitarian school of thought and while it seems logical there is something that just dosen’t feel right about it. Could anyone give proofs against it?

Another issue, it seems to me, is that a system which is based upon the utility of behaviour towards an end must identify what that end is towards which acts ought to tend in order to be considered good acts.

Most utilitarian systems of ethics fall short by picking something like pleasure or, more broadly, happiness as the end and then “calculate” the efficacy of the acts towards the end. Where these systems fall short is in being “short-sighted” regarding the end in focus.

Aristotle laid out a much more convincing case for a teleological system in Nichomachean Ethics which far surpasses what the utilitarians propose. He suggested that what needs to be taken into account in any discussion of ethics is the purpose or function of human virtues towards their proper end and that these virtues need to be exercised according to their purpose in order for “eudaemonia” (the state of fulfillment of one’s true purpose) to be achieved. Utilitarians fail in that the nature of human beings is merely assumed to be biological and the end not much more than survival with benefits, which is satisfying only to those who think in those terms.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Good point, and it becomes problematic when you try to generalise “pleasure”. For instance, one person might find pleasure solely or most satisfactorily through physical pursuits, another through mental ones. Which pleasure is more valid? Now, I think Mill argued that mental pleasure is higher but isn’t this just the bias of an intellectual?

So, we find a real problem in assessing what would give more pleasure and less plain.

Furthermore, why should the standard of “more pleasure, less pain” be accepted prima facie? Only if there is an underlying assumption that this is what fulfills humanity. Yet, many people are fulfilled by pursuing painful activities, that do not give direct pleasure, but some other benefit, such as peace or harmony.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good point, and it becomes problematic when you try to generalise “pleasure”. For instance, one person might find pleasure solely or most satisfactorily through physical pursuits, another through mental ones. Which pleasure is more valid? Now, I think Mill argued that mental pleasure is higher but isn’t this just the bias of an intellectual?

So, we find a real problem in assessing what would give more pleasure and less plain.

Furthermore, why should the standard of “more pleasure, less pain” be accepted prima facie? Only if there is an underlying assumption that this is what fulfills humanity. Yet, many people are fulfilled by pursuing painful activities, that do not give direct pleasure, but some other benefit, such as peace or harmony.

Then there is also the issue of dysfunctional pleasures. A sadomasochist, for example, derives pleasures from acts that many would consider problematic. Yet if pleasure is the end good, then do these acts become morally licit?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Then there is also the issue of dysfunctional pleasures. A sadomasochist, for example, derives pleasures from acts that many would consider problematic. Yet if pleasure is the end good, then do these acts become morally licit?

True.

Ultimately, with utilitarian ethics you just come back to some form of deontological ethics anyway. Why? Because unless you favour a society of individualistic ethical norms (my pleasure may very well not be your pleasure), there must be some law and moral making body deciding moral values according to utilitarian principles and then encouraging or legislating the public to conform to them. So, in the end laws will be made and you must obey them even if they do not fit your particular pleasure.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Kind of reminds me of a class where we were asked to write a “Personal Code of Ethics.” Basically, it meant, where would we draw the line on what we find acceptable? If we were asked to something on a job, would we do it? I mean, what if it went agains our personal beliefs and wasn’t within our “job description”? This would be about the same. Because each person holds different beliefs, each would find certain things repungant. It’s a flimsy set of arguments.

 

[Stillness]

A problem with utilitarianism is that it assumes something. It assumes that material comforts are “good”, and then attempts to spread the greatest amount of material comfort over the widest number of people. But it seems to just accept this as being good, without giving a greater reason for it.It tries to make the case that comfort is inherently good in and of itself, which is ridiculous.

 

[Love4All]

Utilitarianism is entirely impersonal, whereas love is always personal. Ergo, utilitarianism isn’t love. Utility is essentially based on statistics, whereas love is based on a personal preference.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Utilitarianism is entirely impersonal, whereas love is always personal. Ergo, utilitarianism isn’t love. Utility is essentially based on statistics, whereas love is based on a personal preference.

I would disagree. Love is not based on personal preference - that is emotion, attraction or attachment. Love is about how the well-being of others is considered in our choices. Loving others often means disregarding our personal preferences for the sake of others. It is a detachment from self to consider others as, minimally, equally worthy of our consideration as we are to ourselves. At times, when the safety or well-being of others is in jeopardy we may be called to treat their need far in excess of our own. So love cannot be a personal preference, unless you are using the word “preference” in some idiosyncratic sense.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Some might say it’s a preference because it’s a choice. We can decide to act out of a love for others, or not. Would it be a decision for self, or for others? Is it self centered, or other centered. Perhaps maybe even God centered.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some might say it’s a preference because it’s a choice. We can decide to act out of a love for others, or not. Would it be a decision for self, or for others? Is it self centered, or other centered. Perhaps maybe even God centered.

Those are good questions.

Preference seems somewhat ambiguous because it typically involves emotion. A preference then would be an emotionally driven choice, which may or may not be the essence of love because choosing the well-being of another could well mean not acting from emotionally preferred options but perhaps against them. Someone showing courage might act against fear and put themselves at risk for the welfare of another person. They might prefer to preserve their own life but act contrary to that preference.

 

[Love4All]

I would disagree. Love is not based on personal preference - that is emotion, attraction or attachment. Love is about how the well-being of others is considered in our choices. Loving others often means disregarding our personal preferences for the sake of others. It is a detachment from self to consider others as, minimally, equally worthy of our consideration as we are to ourselves. At times, when the safety or well-being of others is in jeopardy we may be called to treat their need far in excess of our own. So love cannot be a personal preference, unless you are using the word “preference” in some idiosyncratic sense.

Was there not one particular Apostle of whom the phrase is used, “the Disciple whom Jesus loved?” Saint John is Our Lord’s Beloved Apostle. Are you saying there was nothing special about that?