Utilitarianism: The Ethics of Elitism
access the audio presentation of these notes at:
http://204eastsouth.com/cls/obvious.htm
the mp3 filename tells you which file covers that section of the notes.
Overview: What does Utilitarianism (U) actually mean?
(STO-philosophy-07-utilitarianism-intro-27-mar-05.mp3)
1. originally conceived as a way to assist governments in making ethical decisions
a. conceived as a top down moral theory. those who are "better than you" will decide what is right & wrong, what is best for you.
b. do we really need the government making moral decisions? of course we do, after all, our government is composed of morally outstanding human beings, right?
c. ethics is morality right? and aren't the type of people who are U also the same people who say things like "you can't legislate morality". but i guess it's ok when "they" legislate morality, it's only wrong when "you" legislate morality.
2. the object of morality is the promotion of the greatest happiness of the maximum number of members of society
a. you can't make everyone happy all the time. how do we decide who's happiness is more important? wait for it . . .
3. happiness is a favourable balance of pleasure over pain
a. ok, I can live with this.
4. actions which increase pleasure are good, actions which increase pain are bad: thus, the end justifies the means
a. motive and actions do not have moral value
b. only the consequences have moral value
5. happiness: the measurement of & the time frame
a. how do we measure this happiness? U says it can be done, but where is the scale? where is the chart?
b. what is the time scale on this happiness? instant? a week? a month? a year? a lifetime? that which causes happiness now may cause pain later, the inverse also holds true.
6. if we are suppose to create happiness and decrease pain, what about the paedophile? his happiness comes from having sex with young children. the argument is that the children will experience greater pain because of this experience, but can we be sure of that? is this true in all cases? how much of this pain is real and how much is caused by society? if people accept sex with small children as normal and healthy (ex: NAMBLA) and the children are raised to accept this as normal and healthy, would it really cause more pain? or might it actually cause more happiness? need I say it again, in U there is not motivation, nor action, which is morally right or wrong, only the outcome has moral polarity.
following page numbers reference Great Traditions in Ethics, 11th edition, Chapter 13:
7. the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) "holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." p.163
a. if the end justifies the means, and in U it does, that means that no action is wrong, only results/outcomes are wrong. this is important, follow me here as we will be coming back to this: neither action nor motive are morally right or wrong, only the result can be said to have moral polarity.
b. how exactly does one quantify and qualify happiness? while all U claim this can be done, I've yet to see an actual list.
c. Jeremy Bentham created U with the aim to develop an argument for how governments should form legislation, this involved his calculus of felicity (CoF), the idea that you can scientifically calculate happiness. you take how many people are affected, how much pleasure they will experience, how much pain they will experience and arrive at a scientific conclusion. the bullshit level here is beyond measure. again, where is the list? where is the rating system? where is the equation? i smell a lot of shit, but I'm seeing very little action.
8. there are superior and inferior pleasures. the greater pleasures are those which employee the higher faculties. p.164 this is his hierarchy of pleasures. again, you will note he didn't bother to leave us with an actual list.
9. better a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. p.165
a. there are not only levels of happiness, but level of beings capable on enjoying or not enjoying the various levels. when it comes to making the decisions about what is right or wrong for society I wonder who will be making those decisions? the people who are "better" than the rest of us maybe? no elitism here.
10. the standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether. p.166
a. now we see the suppression of the self, and part of why U is clung to so desperately by the left. you must not do what is best for you, you must do what is best for everyone.
b. who is going to decide what is best for everyone? those who can enjoy and appreciate the higher pleasures, the elitist, those who are better than you.
c. how do they enforce their will, the government. and if all this is so amazingly obvious, why do they need to enforce it to begin with? if this made any sense shouldn't everyone figure it out? do you have to be told that air is good? no, you can figure it out on your own.
d. what does this "system" remind us of? Communism. ask me again why the left clings to U so desperately. but there is another reason, and it's coming. wait for it . . .
11. Mill is certainly not wrong all the time: definition of happiness. p166-167
Utilitarianism in action:
Example 1: Euthanasia
(STO-philosophy-08-utilitarianism-euthanasia-27-mar-05.mp3)
1. Rachels, p96 "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
a. this sound nice, but doesn't actually work with the basic idea of U. yes, Mill wrote these words, but it's still a contradiction of his entire idea of U. his writing it can't change that.
b. if a person wished to be euthanised does this conform with the GHP? maybe: is the happiness caused by his death going to be greater than, in quality and quality, the happiness caused by his continued life? are you sure?
c. his death causes happiness for him, but that doesn't count. once he is dead he can not feel happiness. his death does however eliminate pain.
d. for his family his death will eliminate some pain, but a different pain will replace it, and this may cause some happiness.
e. but if he is kept alive, it will cost lots of money, and that money will go to the hospital. what about the doctors and nurses and janitors and others who will benefit from that money? what about the fact that more money keeps the hospital in business, and allows it to buy new equipment, and hire more people? then what about the fact that all of these things allow the hospital to help other people who are sick, and cure them, and make them happy? what if the hospital goes out of business? then it can't cure & help people. how much pain does this cause for a great number and how does that compare to the happiness of the few? how much is all that happiness worth? we could look this up on the scale only Mill didn't bother to write this hierarchy of happiness down for us. and why did he not write it down? because he knew he was full of shit even as he wrote this crap.
2. in class a question was posed by a student, what if someone wants to kill themselves for something that is not an incurable, unbearable situation. we came up with the example of Chad having bad arthritis and wanting to off himself. Speer stated that the decisions as to who was allowed to kill themselves would be made by a committee. Chad, wanting to be euthanised, would put in a request to the committee, they would make a decision and Chad would have to abide by it. you don't have a "right" to euthanasia, you have a right to "ask" for euthanasia.
a. elitism: you are too stupid to decide for yourself, we will decide for you
b. Communism: a committee (the government, appointed by the government or controlled by the government) will decide what the value of your life is and by what standard is this measured?
c. if the committee decides you have to keep living, you have to keep living. so much for "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
d. who gets to be on this committee? who watches the watchmen? this committee gets to decide life and death for specific individuals. can this committee (government) be trusted? what about the money trail? what about the potential for corruption?
3. on a somewhat related note: doctors and euthanasia.
a. Speer has an obsession with the AMA and the difference between active and passive euthanasia. the difference is one involves letting a person die because their body can not sustain life functions, the other involves causing a person to die due to introducing something to their body which shuts down life functions. there is a biological/medical/scientific difference here. now, is there a moral difference between the two? that is debatable.
b. why the insistence that doctors euthanise people? are people really too stupid to kill themselves? if you are that stupid you should die anyhow. contact me and I'll help you. yes, some people are incapacitated and are not physically capable of killing themselves. in these cases assistance must be given to them, but again, you don't have to have 12 years of medical school to kill someone.
c. why doctors should not be involved in the actual deed itself: doctors are suppose to protect life and health and i believe they have an obligation to do so, one might even say a moral duty (i know that sound odd coming from me). it's a matter of principles
d. ever notice that the people who want doctors to kill people are almost always also in favour of government controlled health care? the government controls the doctor, the doctor controls you life. nope, no communism or elitism here, just "happiness" (as defined by the government of course, using the GHP, which Mills didn't actually bother to write down). of course giving the government control of health care makes it easier for the government to sterilise, euthanise and eliminate people. in the USSR dissidents use to have "heart attacks" late at night, or be sent to mental institutions. in an U world, dissidents could be euthanised.
4. euthanasia is an action performed, or not performed, for an ends. U states that morality is in the ends, not the means nor the motive. thus, can we say that euthanasia is morally correct and permitable under U? no it is not. it is only permitable if the end creates greater happiness, less pain. but who decided the happiness/pain ratio? who decides who gets to decide? how is the happiness/pain ration measured? can we say that euthanasia is morally acceptable under U? no, and in this case U fails as a moral theory.
5. in another interesting moment, we discussed in class the person having to pull the plug, how the action would affect that person, etc. Speer said "If I were asked to pull the plug that would cause me problems, so the government should step in." lets take a close look at what this tells us about the sort of "person" who is a U. the government should step in perform the action which Speer wants performed because to perform that action would cause him "problems", yet at the same time Speer claims this action is morally correct.
a. if an action is morally correct, why would performing it cause "problems"? the only time I have a "problem" with an action I perform is when I know it is ethically wrong. this is a good indication that U know they are wrong.
b. U need others (the gov) to do their dirty work for them because they can not live with the consequences. this can only come from being an ethical coward. I would make this parallel. having served in the military (unlike tree hugging hippies) and having been trained to kill other humans I believe the following: in a combat situation, when I kill another person, I need to look that man in the eye as he is dying are realise that I have done something which is morally wrong on some level. I need to take that knowledge with me for the rest of my life and live with it, as I have a responsibility to this human being that I killed to take that action and his death into the future that it has meaning, so that I remember stepping outside the lines of ethics and remembering that will serve to keep me in the lines of ethics. to put it more simply, I have to live with the consequences of my actions. this is exactly what U seek to avoid. the consequences of their actions, this is all the more amazing since U is totally based on consequences. this is another indication that U know they are wrong.
** after recording the audio I figured it out all in one sentence: Utilitarians want to be able to kill people without having to take the consequences. as I said in the audio: they are cowards.
6. in fact, Speer advances that in the case of euthanasia, what should be done is "what the patient wants", yet that's not what U is. U is doing that which creates the most happiness for the most people while minimising pain. doing "what the patient wants" sounds an awful lot like Ethical Egoism
7. the only moral theory which supports the right of a person to have free and total control over their own life is Ethical Egoism (EE). if you believe a person has the right (the word right in these notes references moral rights, not political rights) to euthanasia, EE is the only moral theory (of what I call the Trinity: Utilitarianism (U), Ethical Egoism (EE) and Kantian Ethics (K)) which supports this right without exception. Kant tell us we have a duty to stay alive, U tells us we have a duty to create happiness (which might mean staying alive or dying), EE tells us we have a duty to do what we want to do. as a moral theory, U fails.
Example 2: Slavery
(STO-philosophy-09-utilitarianism-slavery-05-apr-05.mp3)
1. Speer asked the question "According to U what is wrong with slavery?" The correct answer is nothing, so long as the slavery increases the overall amount of happiness.
2. slavery is an action. U tell us that morality lies in the outcome, not the motivation, not the action. therefore, if slavery creates a greater amount of happiness, then there is nothing morally wrong with it.
3. how can slavery create happiness you ask? of course you do, because i have to explain everything. it's the burden of being always right.
4. as an example, look at Brave New World, a perfect U society. all the people in that society are happy, but they are also slaves. according to U there is nothing wrong with this.
5. we always think of slavery in context of black people in the south, but slavery has existed all around the world in all cultures and in some of these cultures slaves were treated pretty good. maybe not great by your standards, but in many cases pretty damn good by the standards of their time and place. this creates happiness.
6. also where is the line between freedom and slavery. it's not hard to argue that we are slaves, yet happy being slaves. look at the facts:
a. we must ask permission from the government to get married
b. we must have an ID number from the government to get a job
c. the government takes a portion of our income without our permission, and determines what amount that portion will be
d. the government has conducted scientific and medical experiments on human without their permission and sometimes without their knowledge
e. the government or your employer can force you to urinate in a jar and test it for "illegal" substances
f. your employer and your government can spy on you and access personal information about you at will, without your permission
g. you can be imprisoned or fined for having sex with another consenting adult under numerous conditions
h. the list could go on . . .
is this "slavery"? depend on who you ask. had you told John Adams and Thomas Jefferson this is the society they were founding, they would have killed themselves, yet many of us are quite "happy".
7. What is wrong with slavery according to U? Nothing, providing it creates greater happiness than pain. in fact, U is about subjecting the individual to the will & the happiness of the majority. U is about the destruction of the individual, the individuals choice and the individuals freedom, for the betterment of society as determined by the elite masters. in other words, slavery. As a moral system U fails.
Example 3: Abortion
(why, because it pisses people off to talk about it)
(STO-philosophy-10-utilitarianism-abortion-05-apr-05.mp3)
1. need i mention again that U only finds moral value in results, not actions. abortion is an action, thus under U is morally neutral.
2. the outcome of abortions is: no baby. the outcome of no abortion is: baby. which is morally right? under U, the government will tell us which is morally right, according to the GHP
3. thus, in a country like China, the government will tell you that having only one child is the right thing to do, and women may be forced to have abortions against their will, or put in a position of choosing an abortion when they would rather not if they had complete free choice in the decision. since this is gone for the greater good, under U it is morally right.
4. likewise, take for example Roumania, which under a communist (Utilitarian) government, implemented force pregnancy in order to rebuild the population. since this was done for the greater good, under U it is morally right.
5. under U is everyone equal? U support a woman's right to abortion. they do not support a man's right to abortion (explain male abortion). why is this?
a. if you get a dog, who is responsible for who? the human is responsible for the dog. why? the human is morally and intellectually superior. this position of superiority confers responsibility, you have a higher level of responsibility to the dog
b. women can have the baby or not have the baby, men on the other hand are expected to support the child no matter their desire. why are men held to this higher moral standard? because evidently men are superior intellectually and morally. and, given that superiority, men are capable of engaging higher faculties than women, thus the happiness of men counts for more. unless of course U want to support the right of male abortion. men must be superior to women, otherwise how can you justify holding them to a higher standard as U do?
6. is abortion morally right under U? of course not. abortion is morally neutral, as it is an action, not and ends. access to abortion is determined by the governments application of the GHP. if you think abortion is murder, or if you think abortion is a "right", ether way, as a moral theory U fails.
Why do some cling so desperately to Utilitarianism if it is a failure as a moral theory?
(STO-philosophy-11-utilitarianism-clinging-05-apr-05.mp3)
1. stupidity
2. elitism
3. did i mention stupidity?
4. justification of giving more power to the government
5. don't forget stupidity
6. and, this is just a theory, i could be wrong (that's a joke, "i could be wrong", that's a joke get it?) but how about stupidity?
Tangents:
Speer as a teacher, ram ratings reviews, "objective"? preaching vs. teaching
Chads bar story and email (reproduced below)
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure we made any explicitly, just presenting the information. some have taken a bit of exception in the class and claimed that it was one sided.
just wanna make sure everyone gets the chance to hear every possible view. i can sorta kinda imagine what folks would mean by another side. I'm just not sure the arguments are actually arguments.
chad
----------------------------------------
The main reason so many cling to Utilitarianism: Animal Rights
(STO-philosophy-12-utilitarianism-animal-rights-part-1-05-apr-05.mp3)
1. just as Christians start with "homos burn in hell" and then go looking for "facts" to support that belief, so do animal rights wackos (ARW) start with "animals have rights" and then go looking for "facts" to support that belief. this always leads them to U as this is the one moral theory (that I am aware of -- if there is another let me in on it) which specifically assigns the same moral value to animals as it does to human (or does it, as we shall investigate in a moment). once having accepted U for this reason, the ARW has to stick with U, even tho it fails to support the other moral beliefs ARW claim to have, such as the right to abortion, euthanasia and the wrongness of slavery.
2. do animals have rights, other than the right to be eaten by me? in the context of this discussion, who cares. if they do have rights, U still doesn't work, so their rights must come from some other source.
3. under U are animals "equal" to humans? sorry, but no. according to who? Mill, that's who. Mill writes:
If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. [A] Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.
[B] A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, [C] he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.
Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness- that the [D] superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior -- confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness, and content. It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. [E] It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.
complete text at: http://www.msu.org/ethics/content_ethics/texts/mill/mill_text3.htm
Lets look at where this leads us. keep in mind that U is based on the GHP: the objective is, the greatest quality and quantity of happiness for the greatest number of beings while also reducing the quality and quantity of pain to the minimum amount.
[A] some pleasures are better than other pleasures and this can be determined objectively according to Mill.
[B] being of higher faculties (intelligence) are capable of greater pleasure and greater pain than being of lower faculties.
[C] there are lower grades of existence, what might these be? lawyers? Democrats? tree huggers? Christians? or animals?
[D] there are superior beings. who might these be? obvious i am one, but generally speaking, might this mean people?
[E] an unhappy person is still "better" than a happy pig. better that is in the context of the quality of pleasure he is able to experience as compared to a pig.
thus: if the aim of U is to create the greatest happiness, and as we have seen humans are capable of greater and better happiness than animals, our satisfaction must count for more under the GHP. if our satisfaction counts for more, morally speaking, than that of animals, then animals can not be morally equal to humans under the beliefs of U.
PETA, Greenpeace and Animal Rights Wackos: What's Really Going On Here?
it was no surprise that i would have to sit thru the same movies that I've seen before. animal rights wackos (ARW) don't change their propaganda very often. hell, the still use photos from animal research labs that were taken in the 1950s.
i also find it interesting that we get films about animal rights, but nothing else. is animal rights the only ethical question that anyone has ever made a film about?
Speer kicked off the film fest with:
Meet Your Meat by PETA -- www.meetyourmeat.com
1. i don't have the knowledge to judge how accurate and widespread the practises in this film are. i also don't know and don't care how old the film is. i will not deny for a moment that livestock animals are often treated inhumanly. nor will i defend this practise.
i want to eat animals, but i want them to be healthy and running around in a pasture. why?
a. it's better for the animal mentally and physically and thus the animal is better meat.
b. to know the animal was happy makes me happy as i like animals way more than i like people.
2. Speer noted that the federal government lets unhealthy meat thru the inspection process. yes, they do. they also let terrorist fly air planes into building in spite of having the most powerful intelligence gathering network on Earth, and the most powerful military. so hey, lets put the fed gov in charge of health care. that will solve all of our problems. let's ask the fed gov for permission when we want to be euthanised. they couldn't possibly fuck that up.
3. if animal life is worth the same as human life, why doesn't PETA use some of that money to help animals?
a. buy the animals and put 'em out to pasture
b. if you could buy the freedom of a Jew in a concentration camp wouldn't you do it?
c. some German citizens risked their lives and families to save one Jew by hiding him, yet PETA will not spend some money to save one animal. evidently animals are not really equal
d. antibiotic free animals: signing a paper vs an oversight organisation. why doesn't PETA fund such an organisation, since they have all this money? why doesn't PETA found an oversight organisation to certify that animals have been treated humanely and not been given unnecessary drugs?
4. the real agenda: power
a, the leadership of PETA vs the rank and file members
5. what the fuck is a "vegetarian starter kit"? are people really so stupid they need a "kit" to avoid eating meat?
The Pig Picture by the Humane Farming Association (HFA)
1. my knowledge of the HFA is that they are not opposed to eating meat, they simply want the animals to be treated as well as possible and live lives as close as possible to that which they would naturally live. i can not object to this, and i fully agree with this position.