Quotes

Explanations must come to an end...

Sometimes you have to take the choice between of bad versus badder

confusing Kant

There is a ‘Golden rule’ regarding morality which goes something like this: ‘do unto others as you would do unto yourself’. While you may have heard this as a child it is prominent in other cultures and religions. However it is not a sound proposition. What if you were on an island full of masochists or sadists? It wouldn’t work so well then would it? Or couldn’t a prisoner use this on a judge to avoid punishment?

While Kant agreed with the general universal principle which the Golden Rule extolled, he felt that a modification was definitely needed to make up for its shortcomings. He uses this very obscure phrase to suggest what he means:

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. (Kant, 1785, in set book, p. 510) 

 

But what the hell does this mean? Here is my take….You shouldn’t act on a statement of intent (maxim) if you cannot see the general population rationally choosing (willing) to do the same. Or, in other words, is the maxim univeralisable.

What this does NOT mean is that personal prudential reasoning should be a consideration for morality. In fact personal inclination is irrelevant for morality. Kant prefers that people make the rational choice based on the universal principle rather than the choices based on personal inclination.

There is two aspects of whether we can will that society choose a maxim. (that society will choose rationally)

The first is if the maxim contradicts itself and becomes irrational it cannot be willed. Take for instance the maxim ‘we should make promises that we don’t intend to keep’. Suppose we can imagine a world in which everyone followed this maxim. In this case there would be no truth or trust in which anyone could rely on. The promise would not exist so the maxim is irrational. How can you will a fake promise if a promise does not exist.

Another example is the maxim or the fair weather friend: ‘ we should only befriend people for short term gain’. Well if everyone does this no one would really be a friend (as we know it). Thus a ‘friend’ would not exist. Both this examples are the same as the maxim 2+2=5. Well this is irrational and we cannot expect people to follow this maxim. Ie we cannot conceive of this world

The second aspect is Kant’s argument if that the will (remember meaning ‘rational choice’) does not ‘conflict with itself’. (p105). Take for instance the ‘miser who wants what is best for himself and cares not to lend his money to other’. Well if everyone followed this maxim the individual would not get ahead as he could not rely on anyone, everyone would be on the take. Kant suggests that the miser’s maxim is not ‘reasonable’ for everyone to adopt. This reasonableness should supersede personal inclination.  

But whoa whoa hang on Nelly! Isn’t this second aspect doing exactly what Kant suggested we shouldn’t do: ‘use prudential reasoning as a consideration for morality’? Well, no he isn’t! There is a subtle difference.  You are taking you out off the consequences. You are not saying that you act in a way in which real life choices (of being a miser) will have real life consequences on you life, rather you are only envisaging a world of misers and how this would effect everyone.

Another problem is that you could adapt a maxim to be sneaky. Therefore insincere liars could be seen as not universalisable, but specific maxims could be: Ie. ‘if I happened to be in a bank on 1.15pm on Thursday, and I would stand to gain from promising insincerely, I will do so’. Or ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’. The very specifics of these maxims mean they fulfil both aspects of Kant’s universalisable test. They maxim does not lead to irrational contradictory consequences and their ends do not defeat their general principle. One counter-argument made by the author is to make the maxim’s general and specific. So rather than saying ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’, this should be modified as ‘people murder people for personal gain’. This falls down on Kant’s principle because in a world where everyone murders each other everyone will be murdered, including myself.

Some philosophical jokes

Q. How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?...A..It depends on how you define 'change'

Q. What did the buddhist say to the hot-dog seller?...A. "Make me one with everything".

John Stuart Mill- ‘Utilitarianism’

Notes from the text. (numbers represent paragraphs)

Mills Hedonism

1. John Stuart Mill agreed on the same common principle as Jeremy Bentham. ‘Pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends’ (p513).

2. Critics have pointed out that by basing our ethics/morals on the greatest pleasure Bentham and Mill reduce humans to the level of ‘swine’- as animals who only have base pleasures.

3.1. Yet Mill suggests it is these critics which are the ones reducing what it means to be a human by this very comparison. For it suggests that humans have the same pleasures as animals. But in fact, Mill argues, humans have more elevated desires than animals. Especially of the pleasure of the intellect. ‘Once they are conscious of them [the higher pleasures], do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification’.

3.2. Mill suggest most ‘traditional’ Epicureans (another name for someone who believes in Utilitarianism) such as Bentham, would normally place the ‘higher pleasures’ of intellectual pursuit higher than that of the pleasures of the sensations in their quantitative measurements such as intensity, duration etc . ‘That is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than their intrinsic nature’. However Mill argues that some pleasures are of a intrinsically higher quality. We should not just look at the quantity of pleasure or pain that an action gives us, we should look at the quality of the pleasure.

4. But then how does Mill decide bigger ‘quality’ pleasures? Here is how….

If someone, or a group of people, have experience of two pleasures and decidedly prefer one over the other (nor would swap any quantity of one over the other), then this is assuredly the higher quality pleasure.

5. Yet people who are clever take a lot more to get satisfaction/pleasure than the dumb sort, and are also more readily dissatisfied with life’s little imperfections. Why be smart then? Well, Mill argues that those who are satisfied with their lot are confusing happiness with being content. And this is a big difference. ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. BIG FLAW IN MILL’S ARGUMENT (ESSAY). WHO IS TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WANT TO RAISE THEMSELVES.

6. Not much was said in this paragraph

Mill’s Consequentialism

7. Mill suggests that there is a different form to utilitarianism to the traditional. Whereas Bentham looked at the utility in terms of actions Mill looks a the utility in terms of the rules one follows. (hereafter Mill et al’s form of utilitarianism is known as Act Utilitarianism and Mill‘s is known as Rule Utilitarianism). Rule Utilitarianism is defined as the rules and precepts for human conduct by the observance of which an satisfactory existence might be secured for all mankind.

8. Utilitarianism then does not mean the agents own happiness when he considers his actions, but that of all that are concerned. Do onto others as you would be done by. However two factors must be in place for this to be effective.

a) ‘laws and social arrangements should place the happiness, or (as speaking practically it may be called) the interest, or every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole’.

b) education and opinion must be set so that it is established in peoples minds the association between the individuals happiness and the good of the whole. This new form of utilitarianism was to address some of the big criticisms directed against Bentham.

How Mill used Rule Utilitarianism to deflect criticism of Bentham’s version of utilitarianism (phem!)

9. Some objectors may say it is too much for someone to think of the general public good in all of their actions. But Mill argues they don’t have to! They just have to do right in a general way and let the few public policy makers make the big decisions. Just by looking after the individual virtue they can generally follow the public good. Nor do people have to be dominated by moral right in all they do. More bigger motivations will normally be employed in 99% of situations. Just follow the general rules will do.

10. It is a general criticism of Benthams consequentialism that it leads to consequences that are ‘expedient’ rather than based on morals. A example of this expediency is the innocent man in the trail of the great fire of London being convicted in order to prevent the greater evil of a riot. In Mill’s consequentialism the innocent man would not be convicted because innocents being convicted is generally bad. Or is it? Mill uses lying as an example- you shouldn’t lye generally because it affects the general veracity (trustworthiness) of mankind. But to confound this he suggests there are exceptions- ie such as withholding information that would be bad for a dying man. However caution needs to be made when reviewing the exceptions. My point is who made this exemptions!!!

11. A final criticism is that people don’t have time to always weigh up effects of conduct and actions vis-à-vis actions. But they don’t have too Mill protests- its all in precedent baby!! Thus ‘the principle of utility admit to indefinite improvement’. (Mill p517).

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism means we should always do what promotes the greatest amount of happiness. People that follow it are called utilitarians or epicureans. It means not just personal happiness, but overall happiness ‘not only the action of a private individual, but of every measure of government’ (p183).

One of its main champions was Jeremy Bentham through his 1789 work ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislature’ (or ‘Principles’ for short). Earlier exponents were Socrates in Plato’s Protagoras, Epicurus and ‘the Great Infidel’ David Hume.

Bentham’s Utilitarianism has two components:

Consequentialism which means you do actions which have the best consequences

Hedonism which means one action is better than another if it produces more pleasure and less pain.

Some people felt Bentham’s utility principle reduced human morals to a dreary form of functionalism. Hazlitt suggested Bentham ‘reduced the theory and practice of human life to … dull, plodding, technical calculation’ (Book 3, p52). It certainly seems to take the romance out of moral decision making. A bit like the decisions people made in the movie Logan’s Run.

Quotes from ‘Principles’ (in course book).

‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain’ (p183). Other moral theories based on other aspects of human experience are rubbish.

‘Pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends that the legislator has in view: it behoves him therefore to understand their value’ (p184). For this purpose Bentham lists various values to pleasure,

a) intensity (in our mind)

b) duration

c) its certainty

d) its propinquity- how long it will be before the pleasure occurs

e) its fecundity- how long it will likely be caused to repeat itself

f) its purity- if it is likely to generate opposite sensation

To this Bentham added that an important aspect was how many people the pleasure would effect.

---------------------------

Bentham was trying to adopt a scientific approach to morality. This was revolutionary at the time (although it did mean his writing was a bit stiff and legalistic).

Like Glaucon he felt that human nature is driven by human interest. And this was based on Hedonism- pleasure versus pain.

Therefore he felt if society followed this the rule for the individual then the society as a whole would prosper. IE there would be a confluence between the two entities- societies and the individual.

Bentham uses punishment to prove this interplay:

Quotes from ‘Principles’ (in set text).

‘The immediate principal end of punishment is to control action. This action is either that of the offender, or of others.’ Physical restraint/reformation of character to stop them from doing it again and as an example for others to not do it. (p580)

Punishment also provides ‘a pleasure or satisfaction to the party injured’. This is secondary consideration. (p580)

General principle of punishment was to reduce mischief. ‘But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil’. So a balanced view needs to be taken- the greater evil needs to be eradicated. (p580)

In the following cases punishment should not be inflicted:

a) Groundless

b) When its inefficacious (ineffective). In such cases as infancy, insanity and intoxication.

c) unprofitable or too expensive.

d) when it is needless (mischief will naturally stop)

------------------------

Bentham had two motives for his views:

1. To apply a empirical scientific approach to matters of morals and ethics. This was revolutionary. Normally retribution was the reason for punishment.

2. To reduce inequality. He wanted to improve society as a whole.

Some problems with consequentialism

We could use the slogan ‘The ends justify the means’. In terms of utilitarianism this could lead to bad consequences. Eg an innocent man could be convicted to placate a baying mob. Such as what happened during the Great fire of London. A greater evil to society was prevented (a riot) but an innocent man was convicted. Other considerations than the best consequence needs to be assessed for morality.

Bernard Williams came up with another problem in his scenario Jim and the Jungle (p63). Do you shoot one Indian to save the other thirty? ….The fact is most people would feel that it would be difficult for them individually to do the deed, but could see that it would be the best to do. This conflict is what Williams terms as integrity. This shows a divergence from consequentialism and our actual moral code. However our actual moral which would provide this reluctance may be just an arbitrary code of our time in history and our culture. (eg we don’t have the same moral code as 300 years ago).

In Bentham’s code moral principles as above ‘carry no weight at all’. (p66). Only the consequences matter.

But I think consequentialism is good because it disregards moral principles as irrelevant. These moral principles (lying, stealing) are social constructs and could be prejudicial. IE some societies may or may not accept certain Christian moral principles. Consequentialism is universal (although minorities would need some protection).

 Separate note: about recording: the interviewee refers to utility as welfare? Is this correct.

Plato and Socrates and morality

Plato and Ethics

Context:

In Ancient Greece Plato argued there were 4 virtues: Wisdom (prudence), Courage (Fortitude), Self Discipline (Temperance) and Justice. All were generally accepted as virtues except Justice and this was what Plato was arguing for. Note: 'Virtue' in ancient Greece meant the attribute of doing something that was good for your personal well being, not the Jane Austin type of virtue.

In his book 'Republic' Plato records a fictional conversation between Glaucon and Socrates to look a at the issue of Justice. (In ancient Greek justice was the closest approximation to the English word ethics so we should view it as such). Being just (which is the same as being moral or ethical in our terms) Glaucon argues is not a virtue in itself, only to seem to be virtuous. Socrates disagrees.

The Debate: Socrates versus Glaucon (not be confused with Glutton)

Glaucon's position

Glaucon says there are three types of 'goods'. Here again we need to explain the terminology. Goods are things that are enjoyable that can happen to a person.

a) There is the good which are immediate pleasures, but which are not related to their consequences (ie getting drunk at an office party). Ie its intrinsic.

b) good which has immediate pleasure and pleasurably consequences (ie being healthy)

c) good which is only apparent for its consequences such as staying out of prison. Or perhaps taking credit for someone elses good deeds.

Glaucon suggests that most people believe justice lies in the 'c' category., as it offers no immediate pleasure. Socrates believes 'b'.

This leads Glaucon to two big conclusions:

1. People only do the right thing if they believe it will lead to the right consequences, they don't do the right thing because doing the right thing is intrinsically good. Ie they only do the right thing because of fear of the consequences if they do bad. The story of the ring of Gyges which makes the wearer invisible shows what would happen if people were sure they would get away with bad things. The Shepard usurped the King! The good person cannot help but be bad if he knows he can get away with it.
2. Also people would be stupid to do otherwise! The Just (for the sake of it) are wretched idiots!! Just is not a virtue. People that do the right thing for some kind in profound purpose are mental!! Thus to return to the notion of the virtues - Justice cannot be a virtuous because it is not intrinsically good to be virtuous, only to appear to be virtuous and get the credit for it!!! You can actually be un-virtuous to gain an advantage. In fact, to be just, but without trying to gain credit, would be a stupid thing to do (you would not gain any personal advantage).

Origins of Justice

And why do people believe in 'c'. Glaucon tells you why. Its because of the way justice was originated. Glaucon suggests that 'to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice evil'. By this he means the good and evil from the individuals personal enjoyment. Thus to steal is your car is a good injustice for me and a bad injustice for you because I have your car! Now, generally, to suffer injustice is worse than to do injustice thus a tacit agreement is set. To be just is a compromise between these two points. People would naturally be unjust if it weren't for the threat of sanction.

Socrates position

Socrates main argument is against Glaucon's second claim (2 above) that being just isn't a virtue at all. He introduces to arguments to this effect. One is argument from mental health, the other is the argument from superior judgement.

Plato's tripartite theory of the mind

First however I need to explain Plato's tripartite theory of the mind.

Plato's tripartite theory of the mind is thus: the mind is split into three parts-

a) rational part

b) the passionate part which is concerned with emotional drive

c) desirous part which is concerned with physical appetites

The passionate part should take orders from the rational part and they both control the desirous part. If this is so then the mind is harmonious.

Socrates argument from mental health

Socrates argues that the unjust are not ruled by the rational part of there brain, and that those not ruled by the rational part of there brain are unhappy. Hence the unjust are unhappy. So being just good for you. The reason for this is that being unjust means your mental faculties are unaligned and that either your passionate or desirous part are in power. Basically you are suffering from some mental decease.

Socrates argument from superior judgement

You may be thinking why the those that are ruled by the rational part of there brain are happy? I know I was. Well its because they know what it is to be happy- thats why. And Socrates uses the example of a typical type of people- philosophers- to show this.

Each of the three types of minds has their own pleasure and each person dominated by this trait would argue that their pleasure was the best type. How to judge which is the best? How do these people make their decisions on what will give them the best pleasure? On the basis of three tests for good decision making for happiness is experience, intelligence and rationality. Yet it would only be the rational philosopher that would have experience of all three types of mind trait- therefore he is best placed to know what it is to be happy.

Philosophy of Religion: Argument from Design

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume uses a discussion between three fictional characters to outline his views on the theory of design and god. This theory is championed by the character Cleanthes and dispelled by Philo (the other character Demea doesn't have much to say). The argument goes something like this:

Cleanthes; Cause equals effect. If an effect we see is similar to another effect then the causes should be similar also. The world looks like a complicated machine. Complicated machines in real life are designed by intelligent human beings. The world must also have been designed by an intelligent entity which is god. God is like a human mind but more complex.

Philo; analogy is weak.
(a) Cause equals effect only if similar articles are discussed. For instance knowledge of a leaf growing will not tell us much about the vegetation of a tree. Also in most cases the operation of a smaller part.
(b) operation of a part does not tell us about operation of a whole. For instance you could not use a peasant economy as a paradigm for the economy of a state.
(c) Uses the human mind as an analogy for the mind of god is not very impartial.
(d) We have no idea in many instances of how nature works now let alone at the start of the universe.
(e) Therefore, only when objects are the same can an analogy be suitably applied. Hence we would need to see the origin of worlds similar to ours to see a suitable analogical example.

Cleanthes repost; but we do not need to see the origin of another world to see that the Copernican system is valid in this world. You can prove the origin of the universe based on your experiences.

Philo: but there are other worlds that prove the Copernican system which are directly observed- the Moon, Venus, etc. He concludes that the nature of the origin of the world exceeds all human reason and enquiry.
-------------

Some time late, the philosopher William Paley wrote 'Natural Theology'. This modified the argument from design to make it more palatable for non believers.



My views:

It seems without the theory of evolution we would be logically inclined to believe that there was a designer of the world. How else would complex things come into being.