Lecture 17 Consequentialism. John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism Mozi Impartial Caring

Transcription

1 Lecture 17 Consequentialism John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism Mozi Impartial Caring 1

2 Agenda 1. Consequentialism/Utilitarianism 2. John Stuart Mill 1. Lower Order versus Higher Order Pleasures 2. Happiness as the Ultimate End 3. Proof of the Utility Principle 3. Mozi 1. Consequentalist or Not? 2. Jian ai: Inclusive or Impartial Care? 3. Impartiality versus Partiality 4. Mozi or John Stuart Mill? 5. Criticisms of Utilitarianism 2

3 Consequentialism/Utilitarianism Consequentialism: consequences are the only morally relevant feature of an action. Utilitarianism: We should evaluate consequences based on how much they maximize happiness. 3

4 Jeremy Bentham Consequentialism/Utilitarianism Founder of modern utilitarianism The Greatest Happiness Principle or The Principle of Utility Happiness = pleasure pain. Mill paraphrasing Bentham: Push-pin is as good as poetry. Hedonic Calculus: criteria by which to compare quantities of pleasure

5 John Stuart Mill Philosopher and economist Son of James Mill Wrote On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and On The Subjection of Women Following his father, Mill become the director of Britain s East India Company Early advocate for women s rights in part because of his wife, Harriet Taylor

6 John Stuart Mill 1. Lower order versus higher order pleasures. 2. Happiness is the ultimate aim. Everything else is a means to happiness. 3. Why is happiness valuable? What proof is there for the principle of utility? 6

7 John Stuart Mill 1. Lower Order versus Higher Order Pleasures Quality, not just quantity, of pleasure matters. A pleasure is of a higher order than another pleasure if all or most people who have experienced both prefer it over the other. Example: lower order pleasure may include bodily or sensory pleasures such as eating whereas higher order pleasures may include more intellectual pursuits such as doing philosophy. 7

8 John Stuart Mill It s better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied (2). 8

9 John Stuart Mill Problems with lower and higher order pleasures: 1. Why is something more valuable just because all or most people prefer it? 2. Why should you care about what pleasures other people prefer? 3. Can a large amount of lower order pleasures outweigh a small amount of higher order pleasures? 9

10 John Stuart Mill 2. Happiness is the ultimate end. Happiness is the only thing that is desirable as an end. Everything else that is desirable is desirable as a means to happiness. Other things can be desired in and for themselves because they are not only a means to happiness, they are also a part of it. Example: virtue and money. 10

11 John Stuart Mill 3. What proof is there for the principle of utility? The fact that each person desires his own happiness is reason to think that the general happiness is desirable. That happiness is a good, that each person s happiness is a good to that person, and therefore that general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons (5). 11

12 Criticism: John Stuart Mill Does it follow from the fact that each person desires his own good, that we should maximize the aggregate good? Nonconsequentialists might say that this means we cannot sacrifice one person for the greater good otherwise we ignore the distinction between persons. 12

13 Mozi Mozi ( BCE) was born a member of the craft or artisan class. Some argue he is the first true philosopher of China because he made explicit and systematic arguments. Led an organized utopian movement in which members engaged in direct social action, including specializing in the military defenses of states. Mozi is also the name of the philosophical text compiled by Mohists (followers of Mozi) from Mozi s thought. Lived at the same time as Socrates ( BCE). 13

14 Mozi Guiding Questions: Some think that Mozi was a consequentialist (he certainly thought there were three basic goods that state should maximize: wealth, order, and their population). Is this true? In what sense might Mozi be a consequentialist and in what sense might he not be? How are Mozi s views similar to or different from those of John Stuart Mill and utilitarians? 14

15 Jian ai 兼愛 Jian ai 兼愛 used to be sometimes translated as universal love although this is misleading. Our text (translated by Philip Ivanhoe) renders it impartial caring. Another possible translation is inclusive care. As we work through the Mozi, let s think about which one of these translations might be the best. This is an example of exegetical work! 15

16 Partiality versus Impartiality The business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful (63). Replace partiality with impartiality (64). Impartiality as the correct standard (65). These statements all sound consequential in nature. 16

17 Partiality versus Impartiality Question: What does it mean to be partial and what does it mean to be impartial? Impartiality might be understood as treating everyone the same counting everyone s interests as mattering equally. Partiality might be understood as treating some people and their interests as mattering more to you than others for instance, because they stand in special relationships to you such as parents or friends. 17

18 Partiality versus Impartiality What are the harms that are being done in the world? Mozi lists the following: Great states attacking small states Great families wreaking havoc on small families Strong robbing the weak He also lists these as harms: Rulers who are not kind Ministers who are not loyal Fathers who are not loving Children who are not filial How are these two sorts of harms different from one another? The first sort of harm is where the strong hurt the weak. The second sort of harm seems to be cases in which people fail to fulfill obligations they owe to others who stand in particular relationships to them. But this second sort of harm seems to be a case where people are not partial in the right way! 18

19 Partiality versus Impartiality Suppose one must put on one s armor and helmet and go to war in a vast and open wilderness where life and death are uncertain; or suppose one was sent by one s ruler or high minister to the distant states of Ba, Yue, Qi, or Jing and could not be sure of either reaching them or ever returning from one s mission. Under such conditions of uncertainty, to whom would one entrust the well-being of one s parents, wife, and children? Would one prefer that they be in the care of an impartial person or would one prefer that they be in the care of a partial person? (66) 19

20 Partiality versus Impartiality The previous thought experiment asks whether you would prefer an impartial person or a partial person to take care of your family and concludes you would prefer a impartial person. However, the very motivation behind choosing an impartial person seems to be partial! That is, you are choosing the impartial person because you care partially about your family. Is this a contradiction in Mozi s thought? 20

21 Jian ai as Inclusive Care Interpreting jian ai as inclusive care rather than impartial care is consistent with thinking that Mozi did not repudiate the obligation we owe to people with whom we stand in special relationships (e.g. family, friends, rulers/subjects). Instead, Mozi wants us to expand our circle of care to include people with whom we might not have special relationships. At the very least, this acts as a counter to temptations to exploit others in order to help one s in-group when one is strong and in a position to do so. 21

22 Jian ai as Inclusive Care How does jian ai understood as inclusive care differ from the views of John Stuart Mill and other utilitarians? Which view is better? One the one hand, jian ai as inclusive care avoids the objection to utilitarianism that it sacrifices personal relationships. On the other hand, does jian ai as inclusive care give up on an advantageous feature of utilitarianism namely, having an objective standard by which to weigh different interests? 22

23 Comparative Philosophy Comparative or cross-cultural philosophy engaging with philosophical traditions in multiple cultures or contexts helps to avoid parochialism. It enables us to explore new ways of thinking that otherwise might be foreclosed by the very assumptions or conceptual framework that we take for granted. 23

24 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 1. Pleasure 2. Consequences Justice Rights 3. Impartiality Overly Demanding Disrupts Personal Relationships 24

25 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 1. Is Pleasure All That Matters? Hedonism Pleasure is the ultimate good. Robert Nozick The Experience Machine Cypher from The Matrix 25

26 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 1. Is Pleasure All That Matters? Utilitarian Responses: 1. Right Action = Best Results 2. Pluralists: lists of various intrinsic goods. 3. Maximize preferences rather than happiness. Pleasure is subjective; preferences are more objective and linked to actual choices and behavior. 26

27 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 2. Are Consequences All That Matter? Justice Rights 27

28 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 2. Are Consequences All That Matters? Justice 28

29 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 2. Are Consequences All That Matter? Rights 29

30 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 2. Are Consequences All That Matter? Backward-Looking Reasons Intrinsic Features of Actions 30

31 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 3. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? Utilitarianism is Too Demanding Supererogatory: going above and beyond what duty requires you to do 31

32 Criticisms of Utilitarianism 3. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? Utilitarianism Disrupts Personal Relationships 32