The Utilitarianism that Sedgwick advocates, is a philosophy which seeks the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people, operating off of a morality system which is based off of a universal understanding or common sense morality. However he realizes in this section that “Humanity is not something that exhibit’s the same properties always and everywhere,” meaning that it is “Absurd to lay down a set of utilitarian rules for mankind generally.” I feel that Sedgwick, although he clearly realizes that this is an issue, belittles it by believing that even though Utilitarianism is not able to transcend different cultures or belief systems it can still work within a certain culture. He believes that we have our own “Societies morality,” and that when looking at others “We can realize imperfections.”
This is a problem however because in the modern world not only is there no universal common sense or common morality that can transcend culture, today there is not one uniform culture even within a defined geographical location. So nowhere can a Utilitarian world exist. In his writing he proposes a rather absurd idea, that if everybody was to be “Converted at once to utilitarianism and if everybody left behind there own old moralities, then it would work.” I agree with him on this point in both that it would work if it could ever be possible, and that it is completely unrealistic. There will never be a universal morality it is impossible even if we were all born into a culture of the same set of beliefs people are always going to challenge moralities that they are given, I think that Sedgwick belittles the significance of an individuals life experiences and individual beliefs in determining morality. Since no two people have the same experiences in life there will never be a universal common sense or universal morality.
I really like Mr. Stephens scientific take on morality, that the ultimate end is not happiness but instead preservation of oneself and the community. I like this not necessarily because I agree with it, but merely because it is such a different take on morality which I have never seen or thought of. Even when he speaks of common sense it can barely hold because if different societies have different values then common sense is going to change as well. If in my society there is an extreme shortage of water and to bring the rains we must sacrifice a cow and in another society cows are seen as holy and if you kill the cow you will have bad fortunes in this life and the next, then common sense is no doubt going to be varied. Also again even within our own cultures these contradictions will exist.
8 comments:
Grant, I agree with you on the fact that Sidgwick’s argument can be circumlocutory. However, I don’t think he is trying to belittle the principle of utility to merely an exhibition of “the same properties always and everywhere.” Sidgwick presents this challenge of Utilitarianism in order to differentiate it from Common Sense Morality. He admits that there is no universal common sense, and further explains that the problem with Utilitarianism is that “the nature of man, intellectual and impulsive, are continually being changed” (464). Therefore it is erroneous to assume a constant nature even if everyone assumed the principle of utility. Sidgwick resolves the conflict by arguing that individual freedoms maximize general happiness more than any universal morality. I think it is important to understand that Sidgwick admits of exceptions and contradictions in the Utilitarian principle. However, this does not necessarily invalidate the philosophy because it observes ethics both objectively and subjectively.
I agree with you when you say that a Utilitarian world would never be able to exist. However, I think that the point that Sidgwick is trying to make is that yes there are differences in moral opinions between different cultures, but that no matte how different these moral opinions are, there is always a considerable body of moral law that is common to people in all cultures (475). I like Sidgwick because he seems the most realistic. He acknowledges that universality is nearly impossible because there are in fact so many exceptions depending on different situations. For this reason he says that we should avoid Utopian mentality (469) because we will never be able to achieve such a Utopian conjecture.
For utilitarianism does it really matter that there is not one uniform culture even within a defined geographical location? If for utilitarianism all that matters is the excess of pleasures over pains, it should not matter if there is universal morality. The primary focus is the ability to resolve dilemmas immediately without considering future consequences. That is an individual action that does not consider the universal morality of the rest of the world.
Through all the reading and discussing that we have done this semester, the idea of universality has been challenged time and time again. Is there some sort of universal law which dictates our morals? Are all humans, regardless of cultural background, divinely endowed with a sense of what is right and what is wrong? Many people would argue that yes, this is the case. However, Grant, I agree with you; I too believe that it is cultural and societal norms that dictate morality, not any sort of universal human nature. If there was some sort of universal human ethical standard then there would be no debate over ethics. The debate over ethics and morality only comes up when something immoral or unethical happens. You only feel guilty if you have done something wrong. If there was some sort of universal moral code that everyone adhered to, there would be no wrong, and then there would be no need to discuss the ethics and motives behind it. Because of this, the question of why someone does something can never be discussed on a universal level and it must only be interpreted individually based on the circumstances of the situation.
I would have to agree with what is stated above. Everyone is subject to their own ethical standards. These are usually similar with people who live in the same general area. These guidelines are formed by a person's society. Mill's idea that there is always an internal sanction, a reason we act the way we do because we want to be judged a certain way, seems to be a good reason for the different ethical standards. Each society views actions differently so the people in each society act differently creating their own unique ethical guidelines. I agree with the fact there there can be no universal ethical code because if there was, as James stated, there would be no wrong. We determine something is wrong because it goes against what we believe. If we all believed the same thing, then we would all act in relatively the same way making nothing wrong. But given the different needs of different people in different situations, it is impossible for every person to agree with each other on what is right and what is wrong.
Grant, I'm confused when you say, " I feel that Sedgwick, although he clearly realizes that this is an issue, belittles it by believing that even though Utilitarianism is not able to transcend different cultures or belief systems it can still work within a certain culture," because in my understanding this is his reasoning for Utilitarianism. Why utilitarianism works is because there is no other absolute morality that makes sense in all situations. So then we must analyze each situation and use our common sense, or the greatest happiness principal according to each specific situation. Why is Sidgwick saying, " It is absurd to lay down a set of utilitarian rules for mankind generally," if he is a proponent of utilitarianism?
I also agree with Sidgwick when he says that if everybody "converted at once to utilitarianism and if everybody left behind their own moralities, it would work." As of now, I think that our society is hedonistic in the way that we seek the good for ourselves rather than for the good of others. Obviously, with this going on, Utilitarianism would never be able to come about because of the inability of our society to bring happiness to the most amount of people. On the other hand, one may also argue that since everybody is working towards and focusing on their own happiness, it would be easier for utilitarianism to work because each individual only has to worry about the happiness of one person, which is themselves and not have to worry about other individuals.
Post a Comment