The philosophy of English philosopher John Stuart
Mills is not my cup of tea. Utilitarianism and its approach to
decisions centers on the goal of achieving the greatest amount of good for the
greatest amount of people. Before going
into my problem with this philosophy, let’s start simple. In everyday life people are faced with
decisions. Some decisions are simple,
while others are complex. Mills would
agree that every situation is different, but points out that humans have the
ability to group certain decisions into general categories. This mechanism of human rationality is twofold. First, it cuts down on the time it takes for
us to analyze every situation and process the infinite amount of possible
consequences. Secondly, it adds to the
world a sense of predictability and consistency.
While I agree with this all on an
individual basis for decision making, I have a real issue with the
extrapolation. If it is a universal law
that morality ought to be based on what is advantageous to the most people then
how does this apply to the world? If
hypothetically the whole world was under a single rational order, would this
same concept apply? My stance is that
accepting this philosophy universally will inevitably lead to immorality.
Wishing for the most good for the most
people puts us in a catch 51 dilemma. It
reduces morality to that of a math equation.
If x > y then we must choose x under all circumstances according to
Mill. If this is the case, a host of
questions can be asked of how society is arranged. Is it fair that a small population owns most
of the wealth? How about, is it
moral? If not, is it even moral to have distinct
countries and borders? In each of these,
there arises a conflict between the basic desires and wants of individuals and
the good of the rest. This is why I don’t
think morality can be based solely on the consequences of peoples actions.
While Mills might retort that this
argument is non-unique to his philosophy, or that no Utilitarianism ought to cultivate
certain beauties of character, I argue this is nothing short of sleight of
hand. To get himself out of this hole,
he shifts the problem rather than refute it.
How can someone claim to ‘cultivate certain beauties’ if there isn’t a
way to independently determine what those beauties are? In the end, independence is the problem. Mills and his philosophy can never truly be
objective. If you’re part of the 49% you’re
simply out of luck.
I agree with your position on English philosopher John Stuart Mills. I think that Utilitarianism is a dangerous philosophical approach because it espouses a position that the best decision is the one that affects the most good for the people like you discussed before. I think this makes sense in a theoretical sense but does not apply in the real world in applicable way because it would result in a certain level of immorality. I agree with your position that morality can also not be categorized just off of one’s actions. This approach also strikes me as somewhat communistic. I do agree that independence is the real question here and a system like this no person truly has it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position on English philosopher John Stuart Mills. I think that Utilitarianism is a dangerous philosophical approach because it espouses a position that the best decision is the one that affects the most good for the people like you discussed before. I think this makes sense in a theoretical sense but does not apply in the real world in applicable way because it would result in a certain level of immorality. I agree with your position that morality can also not be categorized just off of one’s actions. This approach also strikes me as somewhat communistic. I do agree that independence is the real question here and a system like this no person truly has it.
ReplyDelete