In chapter four of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, the philosopher explores the contention between desiring pleasure and desiring virtue. In order to do this he further defines the notion of happiness as “the only thing desirable as an end; all other things being desirable as a means to that end” (35). Does this mean morality is subsidiary to happiness? Mill answers this question by explaining that the relationship between virtue and vice correlate to the one between pleasure and pain. Virtue and pleasure are the equivalent because both are means for happiness, in the same manner that the absence of vice and pain lead to happiness. What’s even more controversial than this the idea that virtue and pleasure can be one in the same, is that in a person can desire virtue for itself (36). For example, I can desire virtuousness by becoming a nun for the sake of the virtues that type of life entails. Becoming a nun was the means to attaining virtue and therefore achieving happiness. According to Mill, anything that is desired for its own sake is craved for as a part of happiness (38). Desiring virtue is initially a means to happiness but can become a part of happiness as shown in the example above.
The contention between pleasures and virtue encompasses one of the susceptibilities for the proof of utility. Mill believes that it is a “physical and metaphysical impossibility” to desire things other than in proportion the pleasure it offers (39). This means that the only reason a person would desire virtue is because it offers some degree of pleasure. Even if leading a life of virtue means leading a life with less personal happiness. As the philosopher explains in previous chapters of this essay, the noble person is the best means to happiness because they sacrifice their own desires for the sake of a greater food. The notion of virtue is something that is different for every person. Does the doctrine of utility account for these different and sometimes even conflicting notions of virtuousness? For example, a pro-life activist believes virtue means preserving life at all cost. When a baby is conceived, abortion is an act of murder in this notion of virtue. However, a pro-choice activist believes virtue means sparing life for a greater good. When a sick a person is suffering, helping them pass on is the virtuous thing to under a pro-choice ideal. What is the greater good in this case? With which notion of virtue would the doctrine of utility agree with?
7 comments:
Rosa I agree with your post, and feel that you make a a very well explained, coherent argument! However, I noticed that you didn't discuss how virtue comes to be desired. Mill writes of virtue, "there was no original desire of it, or motive to it" (38). It is important to recognize that virtue is not something that humans innately desire. We desire virtue, not only because it is a means to happiness, but because of its association with with this happiness and pleasure. While I feel you argued a similar explanation, understanding that virtue is something that we are "originally indifferent" to, yet is transformed into a desire through our own search of happiness, is a key component in understanding Mill's philosophy (38).
Thank you for your comment Mary. You are right it is important to define the origin of virtue. However, I think beyond its association with happiness and pleasure, virtue is something that admits of the first principle. This relationship is what allows virtue to be a means of and eventually become happiness (37). Since Mill, or anyone for that matter, are unable to define what the first principle is we are conflicted with the idea of innate virtue. In the principle of utilitarianism, nothing will be desired for its own sake unless it leads to happiness. In other words virtue can be innate if it is desired as a part of happiness not as a means to it; allowing us to desire it disinterestedly for itself (38).
Mill makes sense in what he is saying when he stated happiness is "the only thing desirable as an end; all other things being desireable as a means to that end." This logic seems to alluded to the point you stated Rosa as morality being an afterthought on the road to happiness. However the regulation of pleasure and pains are what guide us to happiness, in that one can come to know virtue by regulating these pleasures and pains. It does seem somewhat contradictory in that the reason one is acting virtious in the first place is to attain ultimate happiness, which in turn gives them pleasure, so then can the model og utility really be applied in such a case? This raises more questions then answers
Rosa,
I like how you ended your post with the example of the abortion conflict. This conflict over what is truly virtuous parallels one of our discussions in class on how we weigh pleasures and if they are homogenous or heterogenous. Mill says that pleasures are heterogenous as some pleasures are considered more "intense" than others. He says that pleasures are very unique from one another and that true happiness is based on the most desirable pleasures for as many people as possible. I think that this is closely related to the question you brought up at the end of conflicting virtues because it seems as if Mill would would say that every virtue is different and that you cannot really start to compare them. Therefore the deciding factor here on which virtue is "better" depends on how many people follow each.
Rosa,
I also like how you used the abortion debate as an example at the end of you post. I think that the point you made prior to this example, that “virtue is something that is different for every person,” is a key element to this entire debate. I believe that Mill would say that the doctrine of utility does account for these different and conflicting ideas of what is virtuous. I think that he would not take sides on the issue. However, he would explain why notions of virtue differ among different individuals. He would justify his explanation by simply stating that depending on individuals beliefs of what is right vs. wrong, would determine their notion of what is virtuous in the abortion debate. Thus, the doctrine of utility would recognize the possibility of these different perspectives.
I agree with Amy here. It all comes down to the individuals beliefs, and with th abortion example it is obvious that this view is correct because the evidence is "in the pudding" as they say. The abortion case is good because we do see in real life that people are split down the middle on this issue.
It comes down to what your beliefs are and how the utility of your belief effects you. The different levels of utility cause a greater or lower sense in what you believe. You are more likely to be more active in what you believe, which in this case is the abortion issue, if your utility is higher.
I agree with Matt, and Rosa this article is quite ENTHRALLING. Confidently done!!! At first, it is hard to understand the equivalency of pleasure and virtue, but Rosa you explained it perfectly in your post. They are both a means to the good; or happiness. As long as a means is virtuous the end will be pleasurable. With your second question regarding the sick person, I think that it would be in the best interest of the others to first weigh all possible options and then “pull the plug.” This would relieve the patient of all of their pain and suffering and be the choice with the most utility.
Post a Comment