Ethics Weblog

Learning about Utilitarianism was a bit of a roller coaster, as there were times when objections were valid and sound in contrast to Mill’s defenses.  Despite the lack of clarity with Kant’s position upfront, I am finding myself more drawn to his theory of good will than that of utility.    

Utilitarianism also dubbed the theory of life, endorsed by Mill, postulates the worth of a deed is based on the amount of happiness it brings.

We have just began reading Kant, and he takes a different approcah to the theory of life.  According to Kant, thus far, the end-result of a good deed is irrelevant if the action was not endeavored with good will.

Good will as discussed in class, can be interpreted as reason.  Kant unlike Mill is seeing good will as a guide for determining our purpose or duty in life.

Mill does not take into consideration the intent of an act, but he relies heavily on the outcome of an action; furthermore if the action whether good or bad increases happiness it is considered acceptable. 

Despite the noble appeal of Kant’s approach, we already saw that reason can complicate our lives rather than using it to attain happiness.

It remains to be seen the high points of Kant’s approach.  

The objectors say, “it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society”.  Translation, the theory of utility is demanding too much of an individual for the collective happiness of mankind.

To side with the objectors, means that we should be selfish in our thought process, immaterial to the overall feeling of others.  The notion of community, togetherness, and brotherhood would be nullified if we are to take such a strange approach to our actions.

According to Mill, the motives of our actions are irrelevant.  The end-results matter solely.  Furthermore, Mill states that the great majority of our good actions are not intended for the benefit of the world; ultimately the personal motives of our actions resulting in happiness will impact the happiness of the rest of the world.

Fundamentally, there are issues with the theory of utility on this objection.  If we can one moment visit the works of Mother Theresa, and Ghandi; I do not believe for one moment there were any selfish motives behind their sacrifices.  Indeed, their sacrifices contributed greatly to the overall happiness of millions Worldwide.

Despite their sacrifices, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi were not asked to give so much of  themselves, they willingly, and unselfishly took on martyrdom.  Therefore, Mill this time around  failed to convincingly defend the theory of utility.

According to John S. Mill, the trustworthiness of human assertion depends on our adherence or commitment to the truth.  However, he also admits that there’s room for deviation or exceptions when it comes to telling the truth, or tell a lie sometime.

 Objection is that utility allows too many exceptions to moral rules.  If we go back to the scroll, number nine explicitly states the following ” Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.  If we subscribe to the Divine Command Theory, or believe in God, it is obvious that lying is violation of God’s commandments. 

To allow exception to that commandement in this case is wrong because, onec you tell a lie, you will continue with the lies for the purpose of cover up.  Lying ruins lives, relationships, causes extreme amounts of pain.  Why do we do it then?  Is it really wrong to lie?

Whenever a lie is uttered, there’s bound to be hurt feelings or loss for someone or individuals; and conversely there are gains for others involved.  A slippery slope exists, and yes it is wrong to deliberately tell a lie.  On the contrary, lying about the whereabouts on an individual when someone else is out to hurt him or her, is permissible.  Is it wrong to tell a lie?  It depends on  the situation.

I have done my share of lying in my shortlived life thus far.  Lord knows, if ever cornered and in defense of my life and the lives of those I hold dear, beyond a shadow of a doubt I will tell a lie again.  If I lie to save someone’s life, am I immoral?  Is there a difference between somebody who tells a white lie and a mythomaniac?  Are the consequences the same?  My answer to all the questions is no.

There are so many abstracts to really pinpoint any viable answers to any of those questions.  However, I am aboslutely convinced that utility does not allow too many exceptions to moral values.  People lie because they choose to, not because they subscribe to the theory of Utility. 

There are definitely times when the truth should be kept bottled up, and a lie will cause more good than harm.  The prevention and mitigation of pain or unhappiness to a terminally ill patient is worth a lie.  After all that is  what the theory of utility is all about: the pursuit of happiness.

As discussed in the classroom, the following objections were raised against the doctrine of utility:  Happiness is unattainable; Men can do without happiness; Mankind has no right to exist, let alone having a right to happiness.

There are some fundamental problems with the above objections, as the theory of utility was used solely in regards to happiness being equated to pleasures.  The objectors claim that happiness is unattainnable can be easily understood from one point of view.  That point of view would be looking at happiness, as it is known to mankind, as an everlasting state of euphoria, high, or excitement; in other words reaching that plateau of ecstasy, where one remains anchored on cloud nine (methaphorically).  There’s no debating the fact that the above mentioned type of happiness is unattainable.  

John S. Mill replies to the objections take us back once more to the definition of the theory of utility.  Utilitarians endorse the premise that an act of goodness is measured on the overall of happiness it brings to all concerned actors.  Furthermore, Mill restated  that utility is not only the pursuit of pleasures but the mitigation and prevention of unhappiness (pain).  He further solidified his defense by connecting morality, and the rationale of conduct to happiness.

It is easy to side with Mill, because he is looking at happiness as moments of  enjoyment.  Let’s take for example an individual (blue-collar citizen, head of household) who has cancer.  We’ll name him Bob, now he wins the lottery, despite being terminally ill, there are many burdens that are lifted from Bob’s shoulders.  Bob now can take comfort in the fact his family (of four) will be taken care of long after he’s gone.  Bob’s happiness, and the happiness of those close to him will increase exponentially regardless of the status of his health.  The painful existence of a life of  poverty has been avoided.   

When looking at happiness in that light, Mill is right in his assessment.  Happiness as a  fleeting notion does render the objections trivial. 

Mill has done an outstanding job at defending his position against the objections.  I do agree with the following statement made by Mill ”…an existence made up of few and  transitory pains, many and various pleasures has always appeared worthy of the name happiness…”

Once more, let’s look at the definition of Utilitarianism to facilitate this blog, the very essence of this doctrine is that an action is good if it increases overall happiness, and conversely decreases pain (unhappiness).

In defense of the objection that utility is a godless doctrine, John S. Mill argues that if it is truly God’s desire for his creatures to be happy, then utility is more religious than any other doctrine in existence.   Mill is leaning on the premise that utility promotes happiness; and after all religious people wouldn’t argue against an end-result that brings about harmony, and happiness.  

I believe that Mill argues his point to great effect despite the removal of God from the doctrine of utility.  Having rejected the “Divine Command Theory” in prior discussions, I, too, have subscribed to the principle that mankind does not need a doctrine of ethics to interpret the will of God.  Having the ability to choose right from wrong places the onus upon us to decide wisely, and the consequences that follow are in keeping with our choices.  Christian teachings are open to debate by all, utilitarians or not.  

For this round, Mill has done a pretty good job at defending his stand against the objection that utility is a godless doctrine.

Group “one”, thus far as a consensus, has come up with the following objection and reply based on our reading assignment (pg 323-325…consent to be without.”)

Objectors to Utilitarianism state that ” happiness cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action.”  Objectors have gone further to claim that happiness is unattainable and furthermore they (objectors) said that mankind has no right to happiness and our own existence is questionable.

Mill calls the aforementioned objections trivial and started his defense with the followingon page 323 “ … for if no happiness is to be had at all by human beings; the attainment of it cannot be the end of morality or of any rational conduct…” Mill further defends his position by re-stating that utility does not solely include the pursuit of happiness, but the prevention or mitigation of pain (unhappiness).  I am jumping on board here, despite my previous which I still stand by on Higher and Lower pleasures, with Mill because his defense thus far has is very promising.  

Acording to John Stuart Mill, one kind of pleasure is said to be higher than another if and only if the one kind is experienced by competent individuals to be infinitely or indefinitely more intense or more valuable than the other kind. 

Taking it one step further from an Epicurian point of view, higher pleasures are said to be mainly aesthetic and intellectual, while lower pleasures are food, drink, and sex.

While supporting Mill’s argument in regards to the fact that some pleasures are more desirable, and more valuable than others; I am not quite convinced that Mill took into account the subjective nature of mankind.  A gratifying game of tennis to one individual, may be registered as an act of higher pleasure by another.  To a sex-addict, sexual acts definitely fall in the higher description of pleasures in preference to the lower.  Despite the pain associated with childbirth, mothers that I have spoken to expressed their contribution to the continuation of life as the ultimate experience in their lives.  Mill fails to make distinction on pleasureable experiences that can be manifested mentally, and those experiences that are pleasureable physically.  Clearly the latter example delineates a higher pleasure experienced that is purely mental, because one would be hard-pressed to qualify childbirth as a pleasureable experience physically.        

Mill’s argument boils down to the simple fact that different people may place a different value on pleasures based on their own subjective experiences.  However, I disagree that the opinions of people who are better equipped to evaluate a wider variety of experiences should count for more.  Advocating that we should all aspire to a way of life, or a level of intellect necessary to experience those pleasures which have been rationally chosen by those with seemingly the capacity and qualities to judge between higher and lower pleasures in themselves, is mind-boggling and refutable.