In this reading, Sidgwick defines Utilitarianism and tries to come up with the proof of Utilitarianism. Sidgwick puts forth that Utilitarianism is the conduct that “will produce the greatest amount of happiness on the whole,” or greatest amount of happiness of all whose happiness is affected (408). In this manner, Sidgwick also defines the greatest happiness as the greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain (409). In this definition, we can all see the inherent problem: it is hard to compare the pleasure and pains of different people/beings. How can we deny the happiness of one person over the happiness of another? To clarify this point, Sidgwick explains to make the number enjoying the happiness as great as possible, weighing happiness gained by the majority against happiness lost by the remainder. But does everyone’s happiness count equally? Sidgwick is with Bentham saying, “Everybody count for one and nobody for more than one” (412).
In the second chapter of this reading, Sidgwick looks to find the proof of Utilitarianism, asking the question, “Why should we live for the happiness of the greatest number and not just for our own happiness?” (414) This is a big problem that Sidgwick does not exactly answer. Admitting that Common Sense says that we should seek our own happiness, Sidgwick answers that “it cannot be proved that the difference between his own happiness and another’s happiness is not for him all-important” (416). To prove to an egoist that utilitarianism is superior would only be to make an egoist accept that utilitarianism is a mean to his end (his own happiness). In other words, the happiness of the greatest number will probably include his happiness; therefore, the egoist can accept this theory. The egoist believes that “nature designed him to seek his own happiness” to which Sidgwick responds that one person’s happiness cannot be a more important part of Good, universally, than the equal happiness of any other person. With all these problems with finding a proof, Sidgwick wants to find a synthesis that binds unconnected and conflicting principles of common moral reasoning into a complete and harmonious system (418). Sidgwick never really does this though. Sidgwick comes to a quick conclusion that common sense proves Utilitarianism. He concludes that the proof of Utilitarianism is that the morality of Common Sense is exhibits the Utilitarian principle that common sense naturally appeals to (418). In other words, common sense follows the conventions of Utilitarianism, so Utilitarianism must be true, given this proof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You make a good point as far as the proof of Utilitarianism goes, that "common sense follows the conventions of Utilitarianism". However, with respect to the first half, I feel like the discussion of pleasures and pains leaves a lot to be desired. Having said that, is it not true that this idea of mathematically determining whether a lifetime of pleasures outweighed a lifetime of pains is capricious and arbitrary? How can one account for every moment of good and bad in their own life? Furthermore, what if one lived a life of total pain, but the littlest of pleasure at the end made it all worth it. I feel as if the extenuating circumstances attached to the insanity of the mathematical procedure make Sidgwick's proposal complete nonsense.
I actually think Sidgwick gives a fairly reasonable explanation for how each person’s individual freedom can cumulatively lead to general happiness, even though some system of re-distribution might appear to be more Utilitarian. To me, his hypothesis is similar to legendary economist Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” theory which states that when people pursue their own economic interests or ends, they in turn, actually promote the economic welfare of society as a whole. The major issue I have, however, is that the general happiness which results from each person's pursuit of individual freedom seems to be just an unintentional result of egoism. This would seem to suggest that Utilitarianism is just an unintentional accident which occurs in society and not a legitimate moral philosophy.
Great post, and I agree that Sidgwick's argument seems to be faulty at best. I think it would be idealistic to think that everyone's own self interested happiness would lead to universal happiness.
In regards to Sal's comparison to Adam Smith, it has been shown throughout economic history that the "invisible hand" left to its own devices does not work or leads to drastic economic consequences. I think the same apples to utilitarianism, it all has to be regulated in some fashion (through laws, ethics etc) in order for it to function properly.
Post a Comment