issues Flashcards
is pleasure the only good?
paints an unpleasant view of the human mind as a pleasure seeking animal with brains acting to calculate maximum pleasure.
some religions claim that seeking pleasure is not good.
however bentham claims that even these people are still driven by pleasure and pain.
Nozick’s experience machine
imagine being faced with the chance of plugging into a virtual reality machine.
This machine will produce the experience of a very happy life, not only with many and various pleasures and few pains but (the experience of) many successful achievements.
if we plug in, we will not know that we are in a virtual reality machine. We will believe that what we experience is reality. However, we must agree to plug in for life or not at all.
Nozick argues that most of us would not plug in.
Explanation <3
We value being in contact with reality, even if that makes us less happy, even if we experience fewer achievements.
what we want is not a psychological state at all; it is a relation to something outside our minds.
we want achievements; but we want real achievements, not just the psychological state of experiencing an achievement.
Nozick concludes that we cannot understand what is good just in terms of our subjective psychological states, such as pleasure.
criticisms of the pleasure machine
list
it isn’t pleasure we seek but state of affairs in the world things outside our heads
it isn’t pleasure that we seek but the specific actions activities and objects themselves
pleasure is a way of talking about behaviour not sensations
it isn’t pleasure we seek but states of affairs in the world things outside our heads
- what people often want is a state of affairs in the world, they want their children to be happy, or for people to think well of them, or for there to be more dolphins.
- People want states of affairs not for the sensations that might then result in their heads, if it was sensations, we’re after, then surely we would step into the machine, but many wont, as what they seek are things in the real world and not sensations and deceptions.
revision guide
nozick created the thought experiment to show that the idea of human just seeking things inside our heads (pleasure) may be wrong. what people often want are specific states of affairs in the world. they want their children to be happy or for people to think well of them people want the relationship and states of affairs in the world and not just for the sensation that might then result in their heads. many would refuse machine as what they seek are things in a real world not sensations.
it isnt pleasure that we seek but the specific actions activities and objects themselves
- imagine collecting stickers, you’re missing one and have been trying to get it for ages, you really want it. Bentham would claim that the sticker is just a means to your ultimate aim, which is the pleasure it will give you. However, you may feel strongly that what you actually want is the sticker, not the pleasure it will give.
- But if I offered to give you something of equal amount of pleasure that you would gain from getting the missing sticker, but some another source ie unreleased music, then you might be tempted but would still probably claim that it is the sticker you want, not just a certain quantity of pleasure.
- Henry Sidwick claimed that it is the specific activities/objects in life that we desire and not pleasure itself. I might want to play volleyball for the intrinsic qualities of the game, the squeak of the floors, the impact of blocks, etc not for any specific sensation called pleasure.
pleasure is a way of talking about behaviour not sensations.
- We gain pleasure from lots of things: anime, good music, vibe sess. These are all things I seek to do but there doesn’t seem to be a specific mental sensation linking them all. Behaviourists and others would claim that pleasure isn’t a specific sensation, instead they claim it’s a way of talking collectively about all of those things that we seek to do ie calling things pleasurable= what we seek.If this is true then he psychological hedonism theory is empty, if we can define pleasure as what we seek then the sentence, we seek pleasure means we seeks what we seek which is a tautology (true by definition) and tells us nothing new about the world, this may be why Bentham, thought it was always possible to show that we seek pleasure- because its true by definition.
- Is not clear that pleasure is a mental sensation or a way of talking about activities we prefer to do because some utilitarians believe that we should focus on satisfying people’s preferences rather than maximising their pleasure.
problems with calculations
- Act utilitarianism requires that we work out the consequences of an action for human happiness.
- according to rule utilitarianism, we don’t have to work out the consequences of each act, in turn, to see if it is right. We need to work out which rules create the greatest happiness, but we only need to do this once
- Rule utilitarianism gives rules a formal place in its theory of whether an action is right.
weakness: Fairness, liberty and rights
act utilitarianism
- Act utilitarianism does not rule out any type of action as immoral. There are no constraints on pursuing the greatest happiness. For example, if torturing a child produces the greatest happiness, then it is right to torture a child.
- act utilitarianism, we may object, doesn’t respect individual rights or liberty, because it doesn’t recognise any restrictions on actions that create the greatest happiness.
weakness- Fairness, liberty and rights:
rule utilitarianism
- rule utilitarianism can plausibly argue that a rule forbidding torture of children will clearly cause more happiness if everyone followed it than a rule allowing torture of children.
- Rules requiring fairness and justice will produce greater happiness in the long run than rules that do not.
criticism
claiming that ideals such as liberty honour and justice have value as ends in themselves.
liberty and fairness are worth pursuing as ends in themselves independently of whether or not they maximise happiness
people have gone through great hardships for liberty democracy and justice. it could be argued that people were trying to maximise happiness but do people really sacrifice their lives for maximising happiness.
mill on libertry- the risk of the tyranny of the majority
- pleasure machine. Could it be because you didn’t like the idea of being trapped inside, perhaps you valued your liberty more than your happiness.
- Mill was an advocate of liberty. Concerned that utilitarianism(+democracy) can see the desire of minorities crushed under the weight of the majority.
- Mill argued that the only reason governments and other individuals should interfere in your life is to prevent you causing harm to others. If what you are doing doesn’t harm others, then individuals should be left to pursue their own lives in the way they see fit.
- Mill claims its consistent with the principle of utility- adapting a ‘hands-off’ approach will lead to more happiness in the long run. Is this the case?
Calculating utility
Average or total happiness?
World A has a higher happiness total, but world b has a higher average. When we aim to maximise utility it’s the average of utility or the total we should aim for?
- Is it better to have a large population who are less happy then providing free contraceptives is morally wrong as it stops children being born who would add to the total happiness or a smaller population who may be happier per person but with a lower total happiness whereas if you were to maximise the average then providing free contraception may be the right thing to do?
- Both approaches have their problems. Aiming for the total may end up with an overcrowded world of barely happy people; going for the average could (in theory) lead to killing anyone less than averagely happy as it would raise the average. Taken to the extreme, this would end up with a world with just one person.
Strict vs progressive accounts of utilitarianism
Eg- treating friends to pizza this added 99 happiness points to the world so it would be a good act but feeding 100 homeless people would equal 100 happiness points. If this was the case, then was treating your friends to pizza a good or right thing to do?
strict
claim that a good action= one that maximise the general happiness therefore treating friends to pizza isn’t a good thing as there are many options in terms of bring happiness. Our moral duty is to maximise happiness with our actions.
problems- Strict means that non-wealthy single mothers who give away half of her income to charity is still not doing the right thing- not good enough- seems too strict.
