Utilitarianism.

[SteveH]

This thread is an off-shoot from 'Searching for God'.
I probably don't have to tell anyone here, but I will anyway, that utilitarianism is the ethical system that judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by whether they tend to increase happiness or reduce unhappiness (right), or the opposite (wrong). There are other sytems, such as deontology, which says that morality should be based on a set of fixed rules such as the ten commandments, rather than on the consequences of actions, as in utilitarianism. It seems to me that all other ethical systems, under investigation, collapse into utilitarianism. If you believe that morality is based on the 10 commandments, it is reasonable to ask why anyone should obey them, and the usual answer will boil down to "because it leads to greater happiness", so deontologists turn out to be utilitarians after all. Utilitarianism does not need to be questioned in that way: "Why should we seek to maximise happiness?" is a foolish question, the only sensible answer to which is "because it's happiness!". We all do try to maximise happiness for ourselves anyway, and it only takes a modicum of imagination to realise that, since everyone is doing it for themselves, a maximally happy society will be one in which everyone acts in such a way as to maximise general happiness.
There are two major types of utilitarianism: act and rule. Act utilitarianism applies the principle of maximising happiness and minimising misery to individual acts, which I think is impractical, whereas rule utilitarianism derives general rules from the principle, and judges acts according to the rules, though in exceptional circumstances it might be right to break a rule. Thus murder is normally wrong, but may in exceptional circumstances be justified, such as killing Hitler in 1938. I am a rule-utilitarian.

[Rhiannon]

What's happiness?

[SteveH]

FFS. 

[SteveH]

Any sensible comments?

[Rhiannon]

I mean it. What is happiness? If you can't answer that then your argument is pointless.

In dismissing it you just look evasive.

[SteveH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
That which humans desire for its own sake. Wealth, friendship, etc. are desired not for their own sake, but because they produce (or at least it is hoped that they produce) happiness.

[SusanDoris]

Any sensible comments?

Rhiannon's question was a perfectly sensible question. The human species has not evolved to  be happy, it has, like all other species, evolved to survive. Its behaviours, on a very wide range from what we label the very worst to the very best, have been affected by random mutations and naturally selected for. The fact that there are still so many people who behave in ways we might consider the worst has probably added to our chances of survival, because the rest of us have had to find ways to deal with them and have thus become stronger overall.

By knowing how it feels to be content and to enjoy the pleasurable things in life, and knowing how we feel when people behave in aggressive, angry ways, we are more likely to find ways for the more pleasant feelings to be more prevalent.

Bringing in the biblical ten commandments sounds to me like a bit of  a red herring.

[SteveH]

I was hoping for a sensible debate about utilitarianism versus other ethical systems, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to get one.

[Rhiannon]

I was hoping for a sensible debate about utilitarianism versus other ethical systems, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to get one.

You can't simply say 'this isn't sensible' when your initial argument is based on such a fuzzy concept (see wiki article) as 'happiness'. You can't really pin down what happiness means - it varies from individual to individual, religion to religion, culture to culture.

If you want to discuss utilitarianism go back and find something a bit more concrete in its purpose the than creating 'happiness', which sounds like something that Oprah would be endorsing on her show. Although I'm not sure what measurement or aim there is that you can come up with that won't be subjective.

[SteveH]

I gave a perfectly reasonable, succinct definition above - "that which people desire for its own sake". How about adopting that as a working definition? (  )

[Rhiannon]

Plenty of people desire things for their own sake because they find happiness in hurting other people. If that is your definition then you really need to work harder.

The link that you provided explains how difficult it is to pin down 'happiness', that it is a fuzzy concept. Did you even read it?

[SteveH]

I'm abandoning the thread until or unless someone has something sensible to say. Carry on, chaps.

[Rhiannon]

I’m happy to debate this with you but give me something solid to work with, not this fluffy bunny happiness cobblers.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m happy to debate this with you but give me something solid to work with, not this fluffy bunny happiness cobblers.

My take on what Bentham meant by happiness and/or pleasure which he equates with it, is that it's is happiness about something rather than some consistent idea across humanity so that the individual's perception of what is good is what's important rather than an abstract.

[SteveH]

My take on what Bentham meant by happiness and/or pleasure which he equates with it, is that it's is happiness about something rather than some consistent idea across humanity so that the individual's perception of what is good is what's important rather than an abstract.

Each person defines their own happiness - fair enough. Of course, the psychopathic may derive happiness from making others miserable, and the selfish don't care about the happiness or misery of others, but that doesn't invalidate utilitarianism: a psychopath's happiness in making others suffer cannot be allowed, because it reduces overall happiness.

[Nearly Sane]

Each person defines their own happiness - fair enough. Of course, the psychopathic may derive happiness from making others miserable, and the selfish don't care about the happiness or misery of others, but that doesn't invalidate utilitarianism: a psychopath's happiness in making others suffer cannot be allowed, because it reduces overall happiness.

Though it does make rule utilitarianism a harder sell since the happiness then becomes the sum of individuals rather than marked against some abstract standard. To be honest I think as with most 'isms' it's not what we actually believe it's more a post hoc rationalisation. It works in the abstract rather than the specific so I'm always going to want what I want but in order to have a functioning society, I'll be willing to give up some of those times since I don't rule the world. If you add in Rawls' veil of ignorance idea - that we don't know how much power we might have, then how would organise decision making then you end up with something like utilitarianism as an abstract method. It's not what drives the indivduals feelings though.


 

[ekim]

What's happiness?

I'll have a go a answering it from, let's say,  the mystic's standpoint and use 3 words to represent aspects of it. 

The first is 'pleasure' which I'll use to represent what we get from appropriate stimuli, whether physical, emotional or intellectual.  What turns you on stimulates you in a heightened and acceptable way, if it exceeds certain personal boundaries it is called pain, if it is non-existent it is called deadness which can depress all future stimuli.  Desire and its satisfaction is what drives economies and causes  business to search for the cause and market it.  Some see it as physiological and related to brain chemicals which fuels the narcotics trade.  Some see it as sensory which fuels the sensational world of touch, sound, taste, smell, vision and gravity.  Some see it as emotional which fuels the imaginative entertainment world of art, drama, music, literature.  Some see it as intellectual and bore you to death with it.

The second is 'happiness', taken from the name of the great Goddess 'Hap', the goddess of chance.  If she smiles upon you and you win the lottery it opens up the imagination to all kinds of satisfactory pleasures.  If she turns her back on you, you suffer mis-hap.

The third is 'joy' , sometimes called bliss, ecstasy, rapture, heaven.  Whereas, perhaps, utilitarians see the source of pleasure and happiness as arising from the external world and attempt to internalise them, the 'mystic' sees the source of joy as arising from within and attempts are made to externalise it or promote it externally by providing methods so that others can similarly look within for their own source.

Unfortunately, from the satisfaction of desire, there is the opportunity of the less scrupulous to exercise power over each source which can be seen in commerce, politics and organised religion.  The word 'wealth' used to mean 'well being' until the poor realised that only the rich seemed to have well being and were wealthy.

[ippy]

What's happiness?

Watching the presenters on the BBC doing their reportage on Brexit night, the looks on their faces etc, I'd love to see a re-run of the whole event, it was happiness for me.

Regards ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

  Pleasure and its satisfaction is what drives economies and causes  business to search for the cause and market it.  Some see it as physiological and related to brain chemicals which fuels the narcotics trade.  Some see it as sensory which fuels the sensational world of touch, sound, taste, smell, vision and gravity.  Some see it as emotional which fuels the imaginative entertainment world of art, drama, music, literature.  Some see it as intellectual and bore you to death with it.

I would consider simply "interest" as more fundamental - and this may in turn generate the other phenomena which you mention.

[ekim]

I would consider simply "interest" as more fundamental - and this may in turn generate the other phenomena which you mention.

I should have checked what I posted.  I meant 'desire' and not 'pleasure' as the driving force and have altered the posting.  I not sure what you mean by 'interest' but doesn't interest imply a desire for more stimulus from what attracts interest?  The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone."

[SteveH]

Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

This thread is an off-shoot from 'Searching for God'.

I probably don't have to tell anyone here, but I will anyway, that utilitarianism is the ethical system that judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by whether they tend to increase happiness or reduce unhappiness (right), or the opposite (wrong). There are other sytems, such as deontology, which says that morality should be based on a set of fixed rules such as the ten commandments, rather than on the consequences of actions, as in utilitarianism. It seems to me that all other ethical systems, under investigation, collapse into utilitarianism. If you believe that morality is based on the 10 commandments, it is reasonable to ask why anyone should obey them, and the usual answer will boil down to "because it leads to greater happiness", so deontologists turn out to be utilitarians after all. Utilitarianism does not need to be questioned in that way: "Why should we seek to maximise happiness?" is a foolish question, the only sensible answer to which is "because it's happiness!".

It’s not a foolish question at all if you want to argue for objective morality. Why would you think that the axiom on which this approach rests (that maximal happiness equals maximal good) necessarily identifies an objective moral truth? If you don’t want to overreach into claims of objectivity though, then you may as well accept this axiom as any other. 

We all do try to maximise happiness for ourselves anyway,…

Do we? What about selflessness, altruism etc? Or are you hinting here that the dopamine kick that rewards us when we do a “good” deed itself thereby maximises our happiness?

…and it only takes a modicum of imagination to realise that, since everyone is doing it for themselves, a maximally happy society will be one in which everyone acts in such a way as to maximise general happiness.

What would that look like even if it wasn’t so nebulous? How for example would you weigh the denial of happiness the smoking ban caused to smokers against the happiness for others derived from non-smoking restaurants and the like? 

There are two major types of utilitarianism: act and rule. Act utilitarianism applies the principle of maximising happiness and minimising misery to individual acts, which I think is impractical, whereas rule utilitarianism derives general rules from the principle, and judges acts according to the rules, though in exceptional circumstances it might be right to break a rule. Thus murder is normally wrong, but may in exceptional circumstances be justified, such as killing Hitler in 1938. I am a rule-utilitarian.

So how would you propose to decide upon which rules should apply? Should for example my rule that I like eating steak so killing certain animals is fine carry more or less weight than someone else’s rule that meat is murder?

Don’t get me wrong here by the way. I subscribe to the broad thesis that more happiness is better than less happiness (I consider myself a eudaimonist), but I hesitate to derive from that anything but localised and subjective truths, and as a practical means of acting in the world it seems to me to be beset with problems almost the moment you try to apply it. 

[Rhiannon]

Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?

If you had said 'personal good', or 'the greater good', then the discussion around meaning wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry, but 'happiness' is so individual and subjective as to be meaningless. Choose something less fuzzy and fluffy in future. That's just sensible, right?

[Rhiannon]

Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?

Ok, so moving beyond the vague choice of words... how does deontology promote wellbeing, or personal good? Take your example of the Ten Commandments; I didn't get much good, pleasure, happiness or bliss from only worshipping one god. And adultery...how do you define that? Cheating on a partner? a spouse? Or sex between people who are unmarried?

[wigginhall]

I don't think that everyone tries to maximize happiness.  I've met a lot of people in therapy who preferred misery, for all kinds of reasons.    Freud wrote an interesting article called "Those Wrecked by Success", in which he describes a need to fail.   Of course, you could argue that failure made such people happy, but not really.  In fact, this is a massive topic in therapy, as so many people demonstrate it, and the reasons are complex, for example, self-sabotage, avoiding envy, shame, etc..