If we value life simply because our emotions tell us so, therefore when a person’s emotion tells him otherwise, then he is justified to terminate his life, is this what you are telling us? Committing suicide would therefore be justified?
Yes. To a utilitarian, anyway. If you aren’t the judge of how happy you are or will be, then who is?
Thanks for the question. “Why should we value any of our instincts?” First, there has to be list of instincts to value or not value. These are what I would call basic instincts: survival, mating, pleasure, socialization, curiosity, truth. These are off the top of my head, but I’m sure there are others. Some could be a group related to one of these. For example eating, sleeping, etc. is part of the instinct for survival.
I do not see that an instinct can be in the form of emotion. Emotions are part of our conscious being which involve feelings, sensibility, or mental agitation. They can come and go, be intense or weak, react to pleasure or difficulty, etc. They can overcome us or be under our control.
This is where John Stuart Mill did interesting work. He claimed that there were different levels of happiness, and that these levels formed a hierarchy. He didn’t plot out these levels, but he did note that people tend to prefer socializing, art, feeling like they’re part of a group, etc. over gaining material wealth, drinking alcohol, or having sex.
Given those things, utilitarianism doesn’t seem simplistic at all. Sure, we have some emotions that we classify as whims and impulses, but we do have less flexible underlying emotional
convictions that are responsible for our perspective of life in the long run. They can, however, be changed; but often not that much.
For example, I would get pleasure from jumping the next attractive girl I see in public. But it is easy to see that more suffering would be derived from that action (even if we only consider me) due to the hierarchal system. Sure, I want to have pleasure from sex, but then again, I want to remain socially acceptable and feel ethically consistent, and both of these elements I hold in higher regard than sex.
I think that it’s not so hard to tell when the happiness derived from an act outweighs the suffering, or vice versa. Even if emotions are difficult to gauge, it doesn’t mean that it’s the wrong standard to use. If you’re following a different ethical system because of that, you’re looking for an easy, irrational way out.
If we can’t agree that these instincts can’t eventually take the form of emotions, can we at least agree that there are different, all but established levels of happiness for each person (though not all of those hierarchies are the same)?
I don’t think we can reduce all moral answers to a reliance on emotions. For one thing, we often have conflicting emotions. Thinking and choice also come into play. Then there is the conundrum of happiness, mine or my lover’s.
Utilitarianism’s slogan is “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” not “the greatest happiness for everyone.” That would be impossible. We should make the decision that will cause the most happiness overall.
How do you suggest we resolve conflicts? The world is full of conflicts. Many of them arising precisely from our emotions/instincts.
See my response to Granny above.
Why is genocide good? Because the tribe doing the killing perceives that their safety, their food sources, their water sources, and their happiness dictate it.
Mill himself stated that, if there were a virtue involved in utilitarianism, it would be the concern for others’ happiness. That tribe clearly didn’t have it, and we can be sure that they eliminated more potential happiness from the lives of those they killed than they themselves gained. Not only were there actions immoral,
they were immoral.
The last time I checked, we humans occupied less than 15% of the earth’s surface. We’re certainly not over-populated, are we?
No, but our comforts that we think we
have to have require a hefty upkeep. The use of our technology is taking a toll on the environment and the animals within. Plus, most people want to occupy the same places.
