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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow. That's so true. Mill's view seems very practical, especially in a perfect world. But like you said, it could be so easy to come up with excuses for their actions and convince themselves that what they are doing is better for people. The corruption within our world and the natural selfishness of human nature makes this philosophy just a little bit harder to believe and/put into practice. For Mill's Utilitarianism to truly work, people have to embrace a mentality and lifestyle of humility and love for our fellow man.
ReplyDelete