|
|
|
|
Mill defines utility as what produces the greatest amount of happiness for the most amount of people. One’s actions are deemed moral or just in relation to the amount of pain or happiness they produce not just for a singular individual but overall. Our acts are not judged by the deed itself but by the consequences it produces. When Mill says this he is not talking about the simple pleasures that bring us happiness that we share with the beast. Mill states that since we are highly endowed beings it takes more than simple pleasures to satisfy once we have tasted their fruits. Also because of this our sensitivity to pain and suffering are more acute. Mill says we are not born with a moral faculty but we do have the capacity and that through education it must be developed. The core of this system of ethics is that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and to do as we would be done by. Acting in this manner we would hope to produce the most amount of good for the most amount of people most of the time. Out of all of the philosophies we covered I think Mill gives the best-explained reason for morality. I like that Mill doesn’t just say this is because it is. He lays it out logically and says if this is true than this is proved but we will leave that up to the consideration of the thoughtful reader. Utilitarianism as explained by Mill meshes well we the other philosophies as well. Mill gives more than just a vague reason of why we should do this without neglecting our desire for a satisfying answer to the why we should part of the question. If you were to ask Augustine why we should do this he’d tell you it is because it is God’s eternal law and it’s right to do as such. What answer would Augustine give if asked why this was God’s eternal law. He’d probably tell us very eloquently of course just because it is. The same is true of Kant. If we were to ask Kant why reason is supreme and we are bound to things by duty he’d tell us something in the same manner. He’d very eloquently explain to us that it is our duty because it is our duty. Utility seeks to give tangible and acceptable reasons as to why should seek to follow an eternal law or why these imperatives and maxims are our duty. If you were truly to follow the letter, and definitely if you were to follow the spirit of either Kant’s or Augustine’s philosophy you’d be serving the ends of utility. It would serve both of their purposes if they were able to incorporate this ideology with their own. It’s literally impossible for Kant or Augustine to say that if fully carried out that each of their standards wouldn’t meet the utilitarian end. Mill makes a strong case for happiness as the only real end that is achieved and everything else being a means to that end. Why does God have an eternal law? Why does reason necessitate duty to imperatives? If it’s not so that we might collectively achieve happiness what would it be? What else do we do that doesn’t ultimately end in our increase or decrease of pain or pleasure for others or ourselves? The greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people sounds pretty good to most rational beings. It’s very hard to show that this isn’t a principle that should be universal. Who in the world would say that we shouldn’t do the greatest amount of good for the most amount of people and apply that even to themselves? They would very shortly be on the other end of that and surely would want someone to act towards them with a good intent instead of harm. Christian-Judeo law and the reasoning of Kant would say otherwise but I’ll show examples of utility where it is the consequences in respect to the intent and not the act itself that determines the agent’s morality. There was a lady in a nursing home that had Alzheimer’s disease. As the disease goes the woman was in full control of her faculties but her memory was lacking. Every week her sons, daughters, and husband would come to see her. Now it happens that her husband passed away. Her sons and daughters came to visit and being brought up in a good Christian-Judeo home and having studied Kant were debating when or even if they should tell their mother that her beloved husband had passed away. After much debate they decided that it was just and the right thing to do to tell their mother the truth about her husband, their father, that he had indeed passed away. They gathered together and told her this news and it grieved her deeply. She did not eat or sleep for two days and confessed that without her mate life was not worth living. Her children consoled her those two days and she seemed better and saw indeed life goes on and there is hope and a reason to live. The very next week the old ladies children come to visit her again and she inquires about her husband. The old woman had absolutely no recollection of the events of the previous week. The children debate at great length once more and decide again that it is their duty to their laws and moral imperatives to tell the truth regardless of their intent or consequences. So they tell their mother once again about the death of her husband who is their father and it grieves her in the same manner as it did the last. She neither eats or sleeps for two days and confesses that life is no longer worth living. Another week passes she recovers from this state and they visit her once again. Again the old lady, who is the mother of these children, inquires about her husband. All of the woman’s children are wary this time of telling her the truth because they have seen what happened the last two times. It troubles them even more so that the woman never remembers this and should they choose to tell her they all may end up enduing this for the rest of her days on the earth. One of the children ask how many more times must she endure hearing about the death of her husband as she forgets it each and every week? After much debate they decide that it would be best for their mother’s condition, for those around, and themselves if they did not tell her the truth about her husband. Now every week when the go to visit their mother and she inquires about her husband they tell her he is in the lobby, running late, or whatever it is that seems right for that time of the day. All of her children have agreed to lie to her about this matter for as long as she has Alzheimer’s disease for as long as she should live. Now this is not a made up or fanciful story but something that actually happened. Did the woman’s children do the right thing? Were they moral? Under utility they most definitely are. The sum total of the amount of pain produced far outweighs the amount of pleasure. Under either Augustine’s or Kant’s philosophies you’d be very hard pressed to find someone who would stick to the law on that matter. It would be almost be impossible for them not to without making the person a means to the ends of law or reason. In Augustine’s philosophy the lie would still be wrong but it would be okay for the person as long as they went and confessed and atone later. Even if one were a supporter of Kant they’d surely apply Kant’s standard to the actions of another but it is inconceivable that we would find one that claimed to lover their mother and would do what Kant’s system of ethics would require to their own mother. Another example is the practices involved in warfare. At first this seems like mere expediency but when you look closer you can see the ends of utility being met. I used to work in a Direct Air Support Center when I was in the service. We would always put the actual radios and the troops operating the radios ¾ to 3 miles away from camp. This was done so if our signal was found they would blow up only those at the radio station and not the whole center. Similar decisions are made when deciding on whether or not to send troops into an area or drop bombs. There will probably always be debate over the atomic bombs that were dropped in WWII for we can’t judge what might have happened but only what actually did. Some would say that those in charge are just using people as the means to an end. In their mind though they are operation on principles of utility. They know that pain will be involved and seek to choose the method that will allow them their solution with the least amount of pain for all involved. Counter Argument:
If we judge what is moral upon what is the most amount of good for the most amount of people when do we ever act in regards to ourselves as a single individual. The military is a very good example of this. It is very rare that a commander will purposefully leave a wounded or even dead soldier on the battlefield. It wouldn’t matter if it took 20 people to go in and get them. Either we’re all going home or nobody is going home is what many of them will even tell you. Take Private Ryan for example. If we were to serve the purposes of utility we would have to leave him and every other wounded one out on the field and especially true if they were already dead. Could we apply this even to ourselves? If we are truly all equal should we not each be afforded and even granted the same rights, liberties, and privileges? Are we no longer individuals and operating as a collective? If we are always looking out for the other guy who is looking out for us when they are not doing the same? In a class here at Xavier called Group Dynamics we conducted an experiment where you could see this in action. The object of the game was to win money. The class was divided into four groups. Each group could put in an X or an O for each voting turn. When everyone’s vote was an X everyone got money and no one lost any. When everyone’s vote except one was an X just the O got money and the X’s lost money. If two people had X’s and two people had O’s only the O’s got money and the X’s lost money. Each group was allowed to send one person from their group to the middle of the room to bargain with the others or agree on a vote. We all sat down together and said if we all vote X we will all get money. Needless to say there was conniving going on and votes were changed in hopes they would come ahead. In the end no one stood to gain and all of us were in the negative. Now if everyone had voted X all the time everyone would have gained money and no one would have lost any but that is not what happened. It actually got very ugly. Now what are we to do when we have full knowledge that those around us are not operating with utility in mind? It became quite evident just as it does in real life sometimes that all of those around us do not love us as they love themselves nor do they do to us as they would be done by. What other choice do we have than to play the game or to be played by it? When do you draw the line and act on your own behalf? Are we sentenced to be a martyr? What if we do not accept this, are we now immoral or unjust? Response: On first examination it would seem that utility removes the rights of the individuals and places the rights of the collective above them. On closer examination this is found not to be the case. What is the collective made up of but of each of these individuals? Any unwarranted diminishment in the happiness of lowest one of these individuals affects the sum of the whole. Our every thought and intent isn’t totally focused outside of ourselves. Every time you stop to ask would you have this done to you or in the same manner you must exclusively focus on you. The happiness of society is affected by our happiness as an individual. Likewise our happiness as an individual is affected by society’s. When we benefit society we in some fashion benefit ourselves. In cases like Pvt. Ryan’s it would seem not only expedient but to also meet the ends of utility to just leave him out there. At first glance it would seem that way but rescuing him is what would truly serve the purpose of utility. Even though this is only one person he touches many and more than his own happiness is to be lost or gained. Mill quoted Jesus of Nazareth who was quoting the Torah (Lev 19:34) when Mill said not only should we love our neighbor as we love ourselves and do as we would be done by. Now on the surface it would seem like looking for Pvt. Ryan does not meet the ends of utility but it does. If you were to ask any of the people looking for a lost person it’s not only because they want the person found, as they may not even know the person. A part of them will tell you, “If I was out there I would know or want them looking for me.” The laws, rules, and regulations that we have are in place to protect us from harm and provide for us the most amount of people that it can the most amount of happiness the most amount of time. In the example of the game we played in Group Dynamics there was something missing. None of us knew that if we all voted the same every single time that we’d all come out ahead and that that was the only way to win the game. None of us would come out ahead of one another but all of us would come out ahead of where we started. Had all of us known that to begin with the outcome would have been much different. Life is very similar to the game we played in that regard. Now imagine a world with the same rules as the previously mentioned game. In that world where everyone truly loved their neighbor as themselves and did as they would be done by and knew that was the only way for anybody to win. Now examine the world we live in where everyone doesn’t know those are the rules to the game and even some of those that do know do not seem to act as such. Through education, training, and cultivation of our higher sense and moral faculty we can come closer to achieving utilitarian ends. The most happiness, for most people, most of the time.
Read My Guest book! Tech Advantage© 2000
| ||||||
