![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
She brought it up. Somehow the topic of a class in Logic had come to the front of the discussion and she presented the idea of utilitarianism as "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people." The conversation proceeded something like this:
'You know, the funny thing about 'utilitarianism' is how much that concept is already at play right now.'
'How do you mean?'
'Take our presidential election for example. Everybody votes and the person with "more" wins. That is the greatest amount of "good" for the greatest amount of people.'
'Yeah but in those elections [2000,2004] people were removing their own rights, that was not the greatest good.'
'Certainly not in your opinion, but many people were happy with those outcomes. You must separate your feelings from the discussion--I never said it wasn't messed up.'
And so it is when considering advanced ideas and concepts that we must be responsible. It is a long and widely respected trait to have the capacity of separating one's emotional self from a discussion. The Japanese respected politeness and self-control. The Greeks contemplated hubris and temperance.
We are in a world where things are so continually re-defined that sincerity is greatly lacking and even the oldest human concepts have little meaning. People's attitudes regarding words like 'socialism' and 'patriotic' are more often influenced by news media as opposed to their own time spent thinking about it. Perhaps justice would call for the "American" people to get "Cramered" regarding their social convictions. If it's on TV it's gotta be true.
this is a well timed post. i have seen several examples of people not being able to remove their emotional selves from a discussion this month. it is hard to do sometimes.
ReplyDeleteSo is 'the distinction' simply between the emotive opinion and a logical one?
ReplyDeleteWho's buying into this 'greatest good for the greatest number' definition, and does an adherence to that definition regard elections in a particular way?
I doubt it's "simply" the difference but it is the concept to hold in mind when debating the merits of any idea--especially the ones we hold dear. It's when you lose temperance that you also lose reason and logic.
ReplyDeleteI think the "greatest good for the greatest number" summation is how most people accept the theory of utilitarianism. I still haven't finished John Stuart Mills' essay but I already know that many crucial observations therein are often ignored when nutshelling it for the modern "thinker." Perhaps I'm bending the term, but by that simplistic logic that is how elections go when you have millions of people and two candidates.
The reason I ask is because 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people" still leaves you to decide whether you judge that good by the means or ends of a process, and I think that forces you to expand the definition a bit-- the ends might not seem best for the greatest number of people (rights limitations)but democracy could still be the 'greater good'. I wonder how 'function' plays into a question of means versus ends?
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of Mill's essay was that the ends must be in some kind of harmony with the means. You could point to numerous times in human history where the greatest number of opinions on a subject never really ended up on the side of good. It really isn't what one prefers, more in the sphere of benefit to the persons; but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn the realm of news media, there are some well-paid talking heads who use their own emotions as the driving force of their shows. Right-wing, as well as liberal commentators are guilty of this, but now that opinion and fact are blurred, the people on the lower-end of the intelligence scale often just point to a phrase or a concept and cling to that as being the truth. It's part ignorance and part laziness. You can't help but feel sorry for those with the attention span of a five-year old.
So nice to have you, Isaac! Your and LEF's comments remind me of Ghandi's wisdom:
ReplyDelete"Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony."
In that regard, it's easy for me to see the source of much unhappiness in our world. Those commentators are infamous for SAYING they're patriots and "Americans" but prudent minds see the conflict of their attitudes and actions. Support our troops--my way.
LEF is good to bring up the means/ends facet and I'll take it a step further to address the scope of these issues. I'm comfortable that my ends justify my means but that goes without saying that I seek virtue in every step along the way. It's the over-simplification of things that dulls an otherwise thoughtful discussion:
"Oh, you think the ends justify the means?! Well, would you kill a child to save ten people?"
Yes. Sure. If you're going to reduce it to convenient numbers, losing one to gain ten is a favorable outcome. In the moral vacuum that people create with these questions I have no problem answering the obvious.
Back to Isaac, the best thought I've come across in Mills' essay is in Chapter 2:
"Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others..."
I find this to be universal wisdom evident in the thoughts of all great positive thinkers with an interesting spin of a stronger social aspect than other philosophies. I'm still working on it with many more thoughts to come.
To LEF I reply that the function of a mean is to achieve an end and one is only as good as it is successful. But what of very general ends, such as the desire for someone to "be a good person?" Any means--even unrelated--that violate this end have little useful function. Democracy is a greater good, but when it stops doing what it's supposed to do I start to wonder...
In my introductory Philosophy course (more than a few years ago) my professor posed this essay question.
ReplyDeleteWe were supposed to offer two different philosophical viewpoints (I chose Kant and of course, Mill) and argue for or against this action, using either Kant or Mill to justify or denounce the action.
Here it is, word for word:
"The given situation states a problem where a young student is faced with a choice. Her parents (which have control of finances and her future job placement) have instructed the student to earn a letter grade of ‘A’ in order to reap their future benefits, i.e., their financial support. If the student fails at this promise, then there will be no reward and her support will be withdrawn, leaving her with a child to tend to, and a lifetime of hardships to endure. With this problem at hand, the student ponders cheating off a fellow classmate in order to earn the required ‘A.’ The question is then presented: Will the student be morally justified to take this step in order to achieve her grade?"
My argument lasted for quite awhile, but it really made me think about the meat of Mill's essay, and what the different possibilities were pertaining to this and other situations. I won't get into my answer here, for the sake of sleep, but I'm certain of the fact that over the years, my opinion of it has changed.