Is the happiness of the masses really the best?

When learning about Utilitarianism today in class, we discovered what they believe to be the chief rule in happiness: that the end of the means should always be to benefit the most people possible.  This, on the surface, seemed like a really good philosophy.  In class I even thought to myself, "This guy may actually be a philosopher I can completely agree with.” However, when I thought more about the subject and some loopholes that can be made, I thought of a Robin Hood sort of scenario.  Let's say there was a man who stole from the wealthiest and gave it all to the poor.  Even though he would be making the majority of people happy (because the wealthy really only make up a tiny fraction of our society), it still would not be morally correct.  Wouldn't one say that is the opposite of something that is "useful"?  By having this kind of mindset, you can get away with a lot of crime and immorality just by giving the excuse that it is benefitting the most people.  I suppose that in a perfect world, Utilitarianism would be practical.  Taking our example of the poor and rich: the happiness of the masses could be achieved because everyone would desire to help each other out and poverty would not be a problem.  It is because we live in a world full of humans that are prone to error that Utilitarianism is not possible.  I would, however, agree with the utilitarian’s view on the end justifying the means rather than Kant’s view that only the “will” is what matters.  If my friend was being chased by that axe murderer, you better believe that I would lie and tell him that my friend ran the other way.  I think Kant would have done the same thing, too, if placed in that sticky situation.

2nd Misunderstanding of Utilitarianism

In class today, we covered utilitarianism and established that it is a form of Hedonism, which involves the pursuit of pleasure. After declaring what Mill calls the greatest happiness principle, actions are morally good inasmuch as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, we then eventually covered five of what Mill considers to be the ten misunderstandings people have of utilitarianism. The second misunderstanding is that people find utilitarianism as base and demeaning because it reduces the meaning of life to pleasure. Mill argues that human pleasures differ from animal pleasures and states that we have a choice between higher pleasures (distinctly human) and lower pleasures (shared with animals). The question was raised: if people did not have to work would they do nothing? Some responded with a resounding ‘no’ and explained that people would become too bored and would be unhappy with simply not having mental stimulation and something to occupy their time. I also thought about something I had learned in a Sunday school lesson before. People have always been accustomed to doing some type of work. Before Adam and Eve had sinned, they spent their time working in the garden. Work helps to keep people growing mentally and possibly physically depending on the task they do. Although taking leisure time is great every now and then, to simply do nothing for so long can become boring. Mill, I think, would concur that a person would not be content in doing nothing. On page 18 Mill states: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Animals have the lower pleasure because their minds only focus on pleasing their needs and themselves while human beings can opt to achieve higher pleasures to obtain happiness. The previous quote encourages the idea that being a human being and dissatisfied is better than being a pig and acquiring all the pleasures it desires. Overall, I agree with the notion that people would not be content at not having to work and do nothing all day because in some cases people want to be active.     

Society Needs Laws

This week while going over Immanuel Kant’s, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, we learned that everyone has a necessary duty. Duty is defined as the necessity to act out of reverence for the law. Laws are what keeps society in order. They believe in being autonomous which is being self-governing. They think laws are good if we’re compelled for the benefits of ourself. I personally believe that this is a good belief because every society should have a set of laws. Without laws there would be no structure for a society. I agree, some people can control themselves, but some people have no self control whatsoever. People need guidance for the sake of the goodness of the society.

It is also believed that people perform maxims which is a principle upon one acts. One of the main things of Kant’s beliefs is one should act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law. I believe this means that with every action you make, make sure that you are acting under a universal law and make moral decisions. This is a easy way for people to stray away from the wrong.

Kant's Cateogorical Imperative

On Monday we talked about Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. This is comprised of three sub aspects. They focus around our acts and how to determine if it is a moral act or not. I agree with what Immanuel Kant presents in his categorical imperative, but I think that two of the three aspects are the most important. His first sub aspect of determining if an act is moral is the philosophy of our actions being able to be applied as a universal law if we are acting morally. This makes sense because if you are acting in such a way that is moral, then it is understood that others are able to act in that same way and be considered as acting morally also. I think this principle does away with being moral in certain circumstances. When it becomes a universal law then you cannot say that it is moral in one circumstance and not in another. The next aspect he says to consider when determining if an act is moral is treating humanity as ends in itself. This is important because I think when you begin to use people for your benefits solely, then you are not being moral. You are treating them as means and not ends. This takes away from their humanity and in a way treats them like property or objects. Lastly, he says that you should act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. I think this is the same as an action that can be universally applied to everyone. If you think about it, when you are acting in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law then you are acting like one of the members in the “kingdom of ends” that is giving the universal law.

Kant's Concept of Good Will

In class today we discussed Emmanuel Kant’s philosophical belief on good will towards others. In Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the need for purity and morality in philosophy. I agree with Kant’s opinion and definition of what good will is. Good will is the intentions behind different actions we believe to be morally acceptable or right. Kant escribes to a belief that there are three major distinct types of philosophy: Logic, Physics and Ethics. Kant espouses a belief that in order for a person to have good will they must always have good intentions with their actions.

The question that becomes can people have good will or good intentions even when the result isn’t what a person intended. I class we discussed a situation in which a student in the course gave the homeless food that he or she did not have any idea was poisonous and all the homeless individuals tragically passed away. Did that individual possess good will?

In my opinion, yes. I postulate a position that a person would have a good will if their intentions were pure and unmaliciously. I think the incident that unfortunately when poorly would not the will of the person. In the same way that an athlete may lose a game but that does not change his or her desire to win. I think the loss of life would be tragic however the will of the person would still be good or pure in nature. The person would still be trying to behave in an ethical and rational way. They would still be trying to escribe to both a higher moral law and legal code. 

Love Is A Choice?

Undoubtedly in this way also are to be understood those passages of Scripture which command us to love our neighbor and even our enemy. For love as an inclination cannot be commanded; but beneficence from duty, when no inclination impels us and eve when a natural and unconquerable aversion opposes such beneficence, is practical, and not pathological, love. Such love resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and only this practical love can be commanded.
p. 12

Sometimes we understand love as a thing that happens to us, as something against which we are passive--"love-struck," for example, seems to say that love is the one doing the striking! On other occasions, we understand love to be something which we choose to do or not to do--and, I would argue, it is this love which is Kant's "practical love." This "beneficence" which Kant describes, it is showing love independently of feeling "love"--independently of the sensations which we associate with "being in love" with someone, or, in other areas of life besides romantic relationships, simply "loving" someone... I would argue that "love" when acted out could have its own word in our language, in order to differentiate it from "love" that is felt--that is, distinguishing the "active" love from the "passive" love, if you will.

Even during a time in which we do not feel the emotions associated with "being loving," we are capable of performing actions that can be described as "loving" actions--taking care of someone who is ill and unable to take care of themselves, for example. But, if we do not perform those actions "lovingly," that is, in a loving manner--which is to say, with the qualities associated with being loving--then can those actions themselves still be called "loving"?

"Love" is not real if it is forced; that is to say, someone who forces themselves to say "I love you" to a disliked relative, for example, cannot be said to truly love that relative. Moreover, the feelings of love cannot simply be willed into existence... Because then, by that point, those feelings are a conscious choice, and even if the person wants to be/have those attributes, and so conjures them up and displays them with little resistance, that does not change the fact that, at one point, beginning to love a given individual, thing, etc., was something that the person decided to do.

So, there is being in love, or loving, of the sort which is out of one's control, and there is being loving, which is, ultimately, a conscious choice... At least, that is the statement which I am tempted to make, but in all honestly, I am still struggling to figure out exactly how to word this entire idea/set of ideas in order to convey effectively what I am thinking of--in fact, I'm still in the process of figuring out what it is, exactly, that I am trying to say, what ultimate points I am trying to address via this discussion!

Kant's "Pure Moral Philosophy"

In Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant pushes the need for pure moral philosophy. In the preface, he describes the three divisions of Ancient Greek philosophy. He states that it is divided into three sciences: ethics, physics, and logic. Kant then goes on to describe the three divisions and how they differ from one another.

Kant depicts logic as being purely formal. Logic only deals with itself and not with any other object. Also, logic is pure because it does not depend on circumstances or experiences to be justifiable. Physics and ethics differ from logic because they deal with particular objects. Physics deals with the laws of nature while ethics deals with the laws of moral principles. Physics and ethics can also be empirical and non-empirical. The non-empirical part of physics deals with the concept of time and space while the empirical part deals with physical laws. Kant proceeds to encourage the need for a special sort of inquiry that he called the "Metaphysics of Morals." Kant states "That there must be such a philosophy is evident from the common idea of duty and of moral laws." The content of the moral law should not vary according to certain circumstances. Kant's purpose in writing Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is to set up a foundation for moral laws. He tries to establish "pure" moral philosophy by using ethics to find the "supreme principle of morality." Kant's goal is to develop a clear understanding of moral principles.

Although Kant strives to find "pure" moral philosophy, it is almost impossible to think of an action that is purely moral. Everything we do is for the sake of something else, whether is it for someone else or for ourselves. All actions, or experiences, come from some sort of motivational factor. These experiences depend on circumstances, while Kant argues that pure moral philosophy is independent of all situations.

The Two Virtues

Aristotle’s two different kinds of virtues confused me for a minute and made me think about what makes a person truly a professional at something. Intellectual virtue is the virtue of knowledge or wisdom. In translation, it means that one knows a lot about a certain subject and could tell you all about it but has never actually done it before. On the opposite hand, practical virtue is the virtue of action. This virtue is not innate. It is just merely out of habit. The example used in class was to be courageous; one must act as a courageous person does. I believe this virtue to be true and is more creditable than the other. One reason is because one might know a lot about a subject and could talk about it for days and days but until one actually is put in a situation that test one’s skill then it doesn’t matter. I mean it will definitely help out a lot if one is educated about it but I feel as though actually doing it says a lot. For example, the example I mentioned earlier was saying that to be courageous one must act as a courageous person does. We would hope that the reason people perform good deeds is out of the goodness of their hearts but we know in today’s world sometimes that is not always true. People most often perform those tasks to look good in front of other people, whether it is their friends or anyone else for that matter. And if someone is doing it for this purpose then it is not technically being courageous because one is not doing it for the good, but for his or her own personal gain. One might know a lot about courage and think about the right thing to do is but until one actually performs it for no personal gain other than the fact that it improves something else then that is a person who is courageous.

No Pain, No Gain.

        It struck me the other day that the philosopher Epicurus would probably have a giant problem with the modern day quip 'No pain, No gain'.  As a Stoic, his approach to life revolves around the central idea that people need to control their will to act in accordance with nature, while at the same time not allow themselves to be overcome by passions.  In the end the ultimate goal in life is aponia, the Greek phrase describing the absence of pain.
         
          My disagreement with this philosophy is the extreme to which it is taken.  According to Epicurus, pain is to be avoided at all costs.  On the surface this sounds like a no brainier, pain is the opposite of pleasure so why on earth would anyone want to experience it?  If someone slaps you across the face, no one’s natural reaction is to turn the other cheek.  In the context of the individual this philosophy makes sense, but let’s analyzes it on a bigger scope of a community.

          
          Epicurus believes that everything in life should follow nature and rationality.  If pain is irrational then, how come it is so frequently found in nature?  Certain species of chimps have been known to fight each other, often to death, a clear contradiction of nature being succinctly ruled by rationality and the absence of pain.  Likewise, we humans are far from being a peaceful lot.  Murder, rape, slavery, abuse, the list goes on and on of examples where we inflict pain on one another for the sake of our own selfish desires.  While thankfully not everyone practices these awful actions, the Epicurus certainly doesn’t do a good job of explaining their existence. 

            One of the leading causes of pain and injustice is caused by people’s desire for retribution.  There’s a snowball affect once someone is harmed that leads to further harms and reactions.  This is why I believe Epicurus is wrong in concluding pain is always to be avoided.  Hypothetically this may sounds great, but in reality it’s simply impractical.  People don’t act in every way to avoid pain, instead they act based on self-interest overall.  They weigh the benefits and the consequences and react accordingly.  Consider the profession of the secret service.  These men and women are willing to give their lives for the sake of another person.  If what Epicurus says is true, these acts of selflessness make no sense whatsoever. 

            In the end I don’t think the avoidance of pain can be the basic motivator for people.  Simply put, there’s too much pain in the world caused by people for this to be true.  Pain in certain circumstances is actually good.  Athletes are motivated by the phrase ‘No pain, No gain’ an expression that sometimes we undergo the rough to reach the happiness.  Ultimately then pain isn’t what matters, it’s the outcome that matters. 

Epicureans???

Epicureans believe in  hedonism, which  means that pleasure is only good. So basically, if you are experiencing pain or suffering then you can not be fully happy. A certain amount of this is very  true  but what about those are suffering but they are happy spiritually?

Also, Epicureans believe that  Gods should not reward humans. So, they live a normal life, trying to  avoid pain and suffering, without getting any rewards. This is where I highly disagree. Humans only do things to get rewards or some type  of recognition. So to live in a world where no  one  is rewarded for their efforts is hard to believe.

Living without getting rewards is does not make life fun.  So do the Epicurean people  think their life is meaningless. If  so they should just kill themselves. The purpose of life is to  have  a happy life, and without rewards, how  happy can life be for epicureans? Wouldn't you say that life without benefits is not a happy life to begin with.

Emotional Attachment

We analysed the varying viewpoints of Epictetus and Lucretius in class and the main comparative arguments that overlap between these two philosophers is the need to be indifferent.  Epicureans sought to maximize happiness by minimizing pain where as in Stoicism followers looked for the perfect middle point in their passions, not too little and not too much.  Furthermore, there is an order or reason to nature.  Although unexplainable events may occur (chaos), the world is structured and we as humans must 'maintain a will in accord with nature' (Class Notes).  Therefore it is in our benefit to remain indifferent to sadness and destruction in the world.  This is most apparent in the analogy correlating the breaking of a cup to the death of a child.  Cups will break and people will die however it is wrong to be distraught over your own personal belongings or offspring as opposed to someone else's.  This is the most common pain that humans experience, not physical but rather mental.  From loss of possessions, ending of relationships, to feelings of regret or remorse, mental pain is the most abundant and stems from all the relationships that we as humans create for ourselves.  Is being indifferent not the same as lacking emotional attachment.  To live a true stoic/epicurean lifestyle you cannot attach emotions of feeling to anything.  Unless you somehow manage to treat all people and possessions with the same amount of sentiment or compassion.  I do not believe this is even remotely possible, so the only option must be to void your life off all relationships and feelings.  To be a perfect stoic or epicurean is to be indifferent to the chaos of the world and in doing so you must remain emotionally unattached.

Stoical Suicide

Wednesday we talked about the concept of suicide in class. The stoics say that if your life is in such chaos that you cannot actively practice Wisdom, Courage, Justice and Temperance. Then it is the logical thing to do is to commit suicide. I can understand where their ideas stem from this in how they want to actively be able to practice these virtues and reach a form of happiness. However, where my view differs is in their idea of wanting to follow their virtues whenever they can and avoid failing to do them. For example, in class I said how it is not temperate to commit such an extreme act. And this extreme act goes against the virtue of temperance, creating a paradox. The man who considers killing himself but does not creates such a paradox. He thinks, “I cannot follow the virtues, I must end my life,” but then in choosing not to, he practices the virtue of temperance but then his earlier statement is proven wrong.

Many people would agree that the person in such a bad state – for example under a dictatorship – has the power to kill himself no more or less than before he was put in to such a state. That is to say that this man is committing suicide for two reasons, 1) because he feels he cannot actively practice the four Cardinal virtues, and 2) because he doesn’t like the place he is in. While some may say that those are two very good arguments, I disagree. I believe that the stoics put too much stock into how much they needed the Cardinal Virtues. While they are extremely important and good to live out as often as possible, I feel that they break the fourth one of Temperance in committing suicide for something that could be very opinionated. That is to say, some people in the bad state may not think it is that bad, therefore those who are not upset at life at the moment would say that the man who kills himself is ignorant for not seeing what they see. Whereas another man agreeing with the suicidal man would disagree saying that the other man had no choice and had to end his life. I just don’t think that the stoics thought the process through of how bad off they really were.

Cups

In class this week one of the most interesting topics that we talked about was the stoics point of view on how we should react to situations. They believe that we should not be overcome by our passions. To an extent, I would agree with how they feel about that. However, there are some things that I do not agree with them about. One example that we discussed in class was the breaking of a cup. We said that if a cup breaks and we are not the one who breaks it, then we would say, "it's just a cup. It's no big deal." Therefore, we should say the same thing if we are the one to break the cup. After that, we used the same theory to explain the loss of a child. I do not think that every situation can be viewed in the same way. First of all, the loss of a child is very different than the breaking of a cup. Past that, even if one was to view the loss of someone else's child and say, "that's life. Death is inevitable," they might feel completely different about their child. I know that stoics and Epitedus say that you should not feel differently, but the attachment that one has to a child of their own is much stronger than anything else. If it were my child, it would be impossible for me to detach myself that much and say my child was going to die anyways. The same goes for anyone I was close to or any family member. You might look at someone you don't know and not be too shaken up about their death. If it is someone you are very close to, however, it is a much different situation.

Pleasure and Pain

Lucretius and the Epicureans believe in the thought of minimizing harm in order to maximize happiness. I see this as their version of the Christian's thought of turn to the other cheek. However, Epicureans give an answer to each potential pain to lighten the crushing blow that potential pain may cause. For example, on page 55 section 3 the passage roughly states if you really like something just state the simplicity of it so when it is gone you will not be as upset. I have to disagree with the Epicureans philosophy about pleasure and pain. I believe that each human is different, and that some people can not mentally think like that to lighten up the pain. Also I do believe that sometimes you have to experience the worst times to truly maximize the good times that you will have. If you only have good or great experiences all the time how can one truly know that they are pleasurable experiences if it is an everyday thing. I feel like that people would get bored of that lifestyle very quickly. A good modern day example is lottery winners. Everyone wants to win the lottery, but when given that lifestyle they lose everything. They lose friends, family, and sometimes their life. So for someone to honestly been happy you must have some pretty rough times to appreciate the good times.

Why Pain is Worth the Price

In class, we discussed whether or not it would be worse to live a life painless but without joy or to have a life of pain and joy.  I understand that it cliché and overused to say things such as “Oh well, the lowest of lowest makes you appreciate the highest of highs”; I do not believe that at all.  When I am in a bad place in my life, I never stop and think “wow, this really makes me appreciate all the good in my life!”  The way I would tackle this issue would be by taking a view that Aristotle may have as well.  If you ask yourself why you do anything at all in your life, you would eventually come to the conclusion that happiness is the ultimate motive of human existence.  Now, keeping that in mind, let’s go back to the Epicureans.  They believe that pleasure is the result of life without pain.  But that is not pleasure at all.  That is just not having pain.  Living a painless life does not mean that you are happy.  That is why I would prefer to have a life with the ups and downs rather than a life without pain but with no joy.  As a human being, I strive every day to make myself happy.  Whether or not that is selfish does not matter.  It is in my very nature to pursue Eudaimonia.  Having said this, for me and most other human beings, we believe that even though pain is terrible and not desired, we are willing to endure it for the sake of reaching our happiness that demands pain to accompany it.  That is why we are so willing to fall in love, make friendships, or do anything that has any level of risk.  We are willing to make these sacrifices to continue our pursuit to our ultimate goal: which is happiness.