Utilitarianism

[Dunemeister]

It depends on what you mean by holiness. I don't think happiness as a goal is that new. Everyone has always wanted to be happy, they just went about it in different ways. It used to be that life was just generally harder for the majority of people, or a least it meant more work. Some people find pleasure in work, others don't. The others who don't, though, usually understand that it is necessary to survive. For instance, several centuries ago, if you didn't hunt and you were a peasant, you didn't eat.

This theory doesn't imply that one is going to be happy all of the time. We still understand that that can't happen, but some things are necessary evils to gain more happiness in the end.

Historically, happiness has not always been regarded as a good. In fact, at times even in European history, it has been regarded as an outright delusion. People at different times and places didn't seek to be happy. They sought to be holy -- righteous in God's sight. And that may have involved all sorts of rigors and hoop-jumping that made life difficult and dreary.

True, some religions have the carrot of heaven, nirvana, or whatever, to help people endure their lives now. Bad life now, happy life later. The point, though, is that we (under these circumstances) don't do what makes people HAPPY, we do what makes them HOLY. So the penultimate good is holiness, and the ultimate good is happiness. But we can't do anything about the ultimate good because on most accounts, we do what we can, but God is judge, so we may still end up losers in the end. So we work hard to be holy, not happy.

I hope I'm not being too incoherent, but I fear I may be.

 

[Magic Man]

Historically, happiness has not always been regarded as a good. In fact, at times even in European history, it has been regarded as an outright delusion. People at different times and places didn't seek to be happy. They sought to be holy -- righteous in God's sight. And that may have involved all sorts of rigors and hoop-jumping that made life difficult and dreary.

True, some religions have the carrot of heaven, nirvana, or whatever, to help people endure their lives now. Bad life now, happy life later. The point, though, is that we (under these circumstances) don't do what makes people HAPPY, we do what makes them HOLY. So the penultimate good is holiness, and the ultimate good is happiness. But we can't do anything about the ultimate good because on most accounts, we do what we can, but God is judge, so we may still end up losers in the end. So we work hard to be holy, not happy.

I hope I'm not being too incoherent, but I fear I may be.

Right, but take God out of it. If everybody goes by this philosophy, then the holiness/religious point is moot. If someone belives in God and wants to be holy, then fine, considering that generally doesn't interfere with others' happiness anyway.

 

[Dunemeister]

Right, but take God out of it. If everybody goes by this philosophy, then the holiness/religious point is moot. If someone belives in God and wants to be holy, then fine, considering that generally doesn't interfere with others' happiness anyway.

Well that's the point. We can't just "take God out of it." In the world, there are people who believe in God and those who don't. SOME of those who believe in God hold that holiness is the good we ought to strive for in this life. As a utilitarian, it's not possible to critique those theists. If you say "that's fine for you so long as you don't disturb others' happiness", that begs the question. For the theists might retort "but HOLINESS is the greater good whether you believe it or not, and we're darn well gonna make sure that you act in a holy manner or that your 'happiness' doesn't infringe on our holiness." On what basis can a utilitarian answer? There's no rational response to be made.

 

[Magic Man]

Well that's the point. We can't just "take God out of it." In the world, there are people who believe in God and those who don't. SOME of those who believe in God hold that holiness is the good we ought to strive for in this life. As a utilitarian, it's not possible to critique those theists. If you say "that's fine for you so long as you don't disturb others' happiness", that begs the question. For the theists might retort "but HOLINESS is the greater good whether you believe it or not, and we're darn well gonna make sure that you act in a holy manner or that your 'happiness' doesn't infringe on our holiness." On what basis can a utilitarian answer? There's no rational response to be made.

Again, what is holiness, to start? Next, why would holiness conflict necessarily with happiness? If you're holy, then that doesn't bother me, unless you then do something that specifically and unnecessarily bothers me.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

"Every person on the planet has the goal of being happy. Generally people are at their happiest when the people around them are also happy. So, the best way to achieve happiness for ouselves is to help others be happy, or at least not do things that make them unhappy. Also, if I do something nice for someone else, there is a greater chance that that person will do something nice for me in the future. If I want you to respect me, the best option I have is to respect you to gain what I want. There is no higher power involved, just common sense."

I made this assertion in another thread, and it was described as Utilitarianism. Is that true, and what is Utilitarianism? Also, it was suggested that there are severe difficulties with this point-of-view. Do you agree with that suggestion or disagree? Do you generally agree with the quote?

I disagree with the suggestion because it ignores principle and instead focuses on desire. That said, it is absolutely not Utilitarian, because the goal, as stated, is to earn happiness and respect for yourself, not the greatest good for the greatest number. To me it appears to be a cooperative path to selfish ends, which while respectable, often times leads individuals down a path to losing themselves in the needs and demands of others, instead of standing upon ones own principles and judgment.

 

[Fluffy]

So how, as a utilitarian, do we decide between holiness and happiness as ultimate goods? I believe this is a serious, but perhaps not fatal, problem for utilitarianism.

Happiness (read satisfaction) is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake.

Even if holiness leads to misery, those who act to be holy must desire holiness. Therefore, they are acting to satisfy their desire. Therefore, holiness is not desirable for its own sake but only desirable if one has the desire to be holy.

This is not true of happiness. It is irrelevant what a person desires so long as they desire. Therefore, happiness is the ultimate good.#

It's only in the 20th century or so that it has become something to be considered an absolute good, partly because western societies have become rich enough to make the notion conceivable.

Eudaimonia? Yes this is not really "happiness" but then neither is the "happiness" of utilitarianism. Indeed virtue ethics could be constructed as a form of rule utilitarianism wherein acting virtuously is seen as an intermediary principle conforming to the principle of utility.

 

[Yerda]

However, it then seems like if we want morals to be true then they have to point to moral facts. Otherwise, morals are really only opinions and no moral belief can be said to be true.

What is a moral fact, Fluffy?

I'm not sure how moral expressions can be true. "Murder is wrong" doesn't sound like a proposition that any fact could verify.

 

[Fluffy]

What is a moral fact, Fluffy?

I'm not sure how moral expressions can be true. "Murder is wrong" doesn't sound like a proposition that any fact could verify.

Since I am coming from the point of view that moral facts have yet to be demonstrated, it is difficult to answer the question. All I can do is point to claimed moral facts which I don't believe to exist.

I give an example in post 12. Mill makes the claim that happiness is the ultimate good because it is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake. This is a moral fact which he then uses to justify the principle of utility.

Another example is Kant's concept of the good will which he equates with rationality. Rationality is common to all rational beings (self evident), a moral fact upon which he justifies his Categorical Imperative.

It should be noted that moral facts are only "moral" facts in virtue of their ability to justify moral principles. I don't disagree with either Mill or Kant that what they have identified as moral facts are indeed factual. I just disagree that they are moral because the consequent justification appears flawed in one or more ways.

 

[Yerda]

Since I am coming from the point of view that moral facts have yet to be demonstrated, it is difficult to answer the question. All I can do is point to claimed moral facts which I don't believe to exist.

I give an example in post 12. Mill makes the claim that happiness is the ultimate good because it is the only thing that is desirable for its own sake. This is a moral fact which he then uses to justify the principle of utility.

Another example is Kant's concept of the good will which he equates with rationality. Rationality is common to all rational beings (self evident), a moral fact upon which he justifies his Categorical Imperative.

It should be noted that moral facts are only "moral" facts in virtue of their ability to justify moral principles. I don't disagree with either Mill or Kant that what they have identified as moral facts are indeed factual. I just disagree that they are moral because the consequent justification appears flawed in one or more ways.

Cheers, Fluffy.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree with the suggestion because it ignores principle and instead focuses on desire. That said, it is absolutely not Utilitarian, because the goal, as stated, is to earn happiness and respect for yourself, not the greatest good for the greatest number. To me it appears to be a cooperative path to selfish ends, which while respectable, often times leads individuals down a path to losing themselves in the needs and demands of others, instead of standing upon ones own principles and judgment.

The point is that in trying to achieve happiness for yourself, you automatically achieve it for others. I want to be happy. I'm happier when people around me are happy too, and enjoying themselves. so, for me to be happy, it only makes sense that I help them be happy too. I don't believe anyone ever does anything purely selfless. Outwardly, it might seem like you're only doing something to help others, but in essence, you're doing it because helping others makes you happy. In the end you get something out of it that you desire too.

 

[Dunemeister]

Again, what is holiness, to start? Next, why would holiness conflict necessarily with happiness? If you're holy, then that doesn't bother me, unless you then do something that specifically and unnecessarily bothers me.

1. I'm not saying holiness actually is the ultimate or penultimate good. I offer it only to show that there are alternatives to happiness.

2. Define holiness any way you like, but it generally means doing the will of God X.

3. Holiness doesn't have to conflict with happiness, but it may. And when it does, holiness will out (if you're a holiness utilitarian).

4. Your last sentence isn't a statement a utilitarian would make, but an individual rights theorist. Different beast, although you can make some connections.

 

[Magic Man]

1. I'm not saying holiness actually is the ultimate or penultimate good. I offer it only to show that there are alternatives to happiness.

2. Define holiness any way you like, but it generally means doing the will of God X.

3. Holiness doesn't have to conflict with happiness, but it may. And when it does, holiness will out (if you're a holiness utilitarian).

4. Your last sentence isn't a statement a utilitarian would make, but an individual rights theorist. Different beast, although you can make some connections.

2. And wouldn't doing the will of God X make you happy? You might have to do some suffering, but it's all a means to the end of happiness, right? So, then you could say trying for holiness makes you happy.

4. It might not be, but I never claimed that my original statement was Utilitarianism. I think my last sentence there was in line with my original quote, even if not with Utilitarianism, although I think they do fit together.