"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...
”
— Jeremy Bentham , The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Ch I, p 1"
And to complete the theory we only have to throw in the famous phrase, that it is all about "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". A phrase coined by Joseph Priestley., a clergyman, natural philosopher, educator, and political theorist And here is Utilitarianism a fact.
A fact? In a way it is. The influence of Bentham and his students is still recognisable in our political thinking. But when we look at the history of philosophy, which we have studied sofar, we know we have the philosophical duty to question Bentham's basic statement: human nature is based on the principle of pleasure and pain.
First of all we have to analyse the epistemological basis. How do I know for sure that his principle is a universal truth. And the concepts 'pleasure' and 'pain', how are they defined. Are they innate ideas or plainly derived from experience.
I know I can give a long lecture on all the theories Bentham proposed, his political views, so modern still,like individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, animal rights, the end of slavery, the abolition of physical punishment (including that of children), the right to divorce, free trade, usury, and the decriminalization of homosexuality.
But that you can all read in extenso elswhere. I want to go to the bone with Bentham's ideas and apply a philosophical analysis to his basic idea. At least I want to clarify his premisses, for it seems so easy to say that the human being strives for pleasure and and wants to evade pain.
This is a judgement. So what do we do with it? On what is is it based? And then we see the influence of the Enlightenment and empiricism. Bentham's startingpoint is based on a kind of idea that it is a reasonable conclusion from our experience that the human being strives for pleasure.
This may be a reasonable observation, but in no way you can deduce from this observation that we OUGHT to do so too. Thence to say that a deed leads to more pleasure does not imply automatically that this deed is morally good.
For Bentham human behavior can be explained by reference to the two primary motives of pleasure and pain; this is the theory of psychological hedonism. There is, Bentham admits, no direct proof of such an analysis of human motivation--though he holds that it is clear that, in acting, all people implicitly refer to it. And here you see a belief in the truthfulness of the ratio.
The soldier, that threw himself on a grenade to safe the lives of his comrades put willingly an end to all his seeking of pleasure, which is the alleged motivation of man. Was his deed morally wrong, because he selfinflicted pain, or was it morally right because he sought the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
But if this can be done by a human being, we can conclude that this utilitarian moral philosophy overlooks certain aspects of human drives and motivations, like a sense of duty or love.
Nevertheless is the study of the philosophy of Bentham not at all a waste of time. On the contray, for his individualistic hedonism is a typical feature of our present day society too. The skope of this lecture is too limited to pay full attention to the philosophical legacy of Jeremy Bentham, but series of comparative lectures between his moral and political philosophy and contemporary opinions would certainly be interesting. However, an other time maybe.
The Discussion
[13:21] Herman Vos: So far on Jeremy Bentham..:-)
[13:22] Herman Vos: I hope I didnt was too cryptic..:-)
[13:23] Riven Flare: lol no
[13:23] Ganymede Blackburn: Abundantly clear. We've moved on to questions now?
[13:23] Herman Vos: Well.... quiet class then today...
[13:24] Herman Vos: Mr. Bentham wasnt that controversial afterall..
[13:24] Riven Flare: lol not trying to be... deamons home for holiday.. so i'm distracted
[13:24] Zen Arado: why doesnt utilitarianism work then is the question
[13:25] Fenchurch Shepherd: he may have been then but not today
[13:25] Herman Vos: It works because these Englishmen werent stupid....they based a lot of their theory on plain psychology
[13:25] Zen Arado: it is too selfish?
[13:25] Herman Vos: and we must admit..pain and pleasure are common goods in life
[13:25] Riven Flare: true they are
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: I cant quite wrap my head around the relationship between morals, pleasure and pain and the greater happiness for the greatest numbe
[13:26] Riven Flare: the prob is no one agrees on how they should be best handled
[13:26] Ganymede Blackburn: It seems to me a bold assumption that people always choose the easy way out, if they know what they're doing.
[13:26] Herman Vos: That is a bit the problem Aristotle...
[13:26] Fenchurch Shepherd: The erroe is assumming one cause only
[13:26] Herman Vos: that something is pleasure is just that....where is the link to morality in it
[13:26] Zen Arado: too much pleasure isnt good
[13:26] Cailleach Shan: Is it the same as saying that all our decisions in life come from either a place of fear or a place of love and that fear is dominant.
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: it seems that pleasure and pain is uniquely an indiviual thing
[13:27] Gudrun Odriscoll: too much of anything is not good
[13:27] Riven Flare: well... in truth we are taught pleasure isn't good.. pleasure is bad if it harms or interferes
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: pleasure is a individual - moral a social issue..
[13:27] Herman Vos: you are wrong on that Aristotle....it is a basic drive of organisms
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: but the intensity is felt indivudually
[13:28] Cailleach Shan: Can you elaborate on that Herman?
[13:28] Herman Vos: Yes hope....Bentham was very individualistic while Mill will put it in a social context
[13:28] Zen Arado: he ran into trouble defining pleasure didnt he?
[13:28] Herman Vos: On what should I elaborate Cailleach
[13:28] Zen Arado: pigs satisfied or something
[13:28] Ganymede Blackburn: It even seems contrarian to avoid pain while seeking pleasure. The two are often closely associated, in my experience.
[13:29] Cailleach Shan: (To Herman) [13:27] herman Bergson: you are wrong on that Aristotle....it is a basic drive of organisms
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: you can not have the one without the other
[13:29] Herman Vos: Yes Ganymede..look at SL with all it BDSM clubs...:-)
[13:29] Ganymede Blackburn: exactly
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: faux pain
[13:29] Zen Arado: BDSM?
[13:30] Gudrun Odriscoll: what about if you give people happiness pills and nobody would know what pain is about
[13:30] Ganymede Blackburn: but anything you really care about is bound to cause you pain from time to time, as well as pleasure. Nothing to do with BDSM.
[13:30] Riven Flare coughs BDSM isn't bad
[13:30] hope63 Shepherd: brave new world gudrun?
[13:30] Herman Vos: Well..Cailleach in my opinion it is a biological phenomenon, that the central nervous system tries to avoid negative stimuli
[13:30] Cailleach Shan: How do you know pleasure if you don't experience pain.
[13:30] Zen Arado: there's a thought experiment about an ;experience machine'
[13:31] Herman Vos: training your dog is a matter of pleasure (reward) and pain (punishment)
[13:31] Fenchurch Shepherd: Perhaps its not pleasure we should be looking at but at Satisfaction?
[13:31] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. this would imply that positive and negative stimuli are a priori..
[13:31] Zen Arado: you could wire it up to give you constant pleasure
[13:31] Gudrun Odriscoll: yes, and as my other interest is AGI, and I talk to some of the philosophers from Oxford Ethics, some of them don't see a problem with eternal pleasure
[13:31] Gudrun Odriscoll: sorry that I am outside, was late, feels just like class in real life
[13:31] Ganymede Blackburn: herman: No, the central nervous system doesn't try to avoid negative stimuli. Sometimes it even perpetuates and aguments them, despite our wishes.
[13:32] Zen Arado: we need suffering to mature
[13:32] Herman Vos: Eternal pleasure?...isnt that the end of pleasure?
[13:32] hope63 Shepherd: negative-positive-- these are judgments..
[13:32] Ganymede Blackburn: That's what happens to depression sufferers, for example.
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: I think one would need just a little rest
[13:32] Zen Arado: what is pleasure?
[13:33] Zen Arado: not the same as happiness
[13:33] Herman Vos: Yes...some people inflict pain on themselves for pleasure
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: at least to contemplate the pleasure
[13:33] Herman Vos: Bentham equated pleasure and happiness
[13:33] Cailleach Shan: Yes, I agreey Ganymede. I think the negative is dominant and we emphasise the positive for balance which equates with pleasure.
[13:34] Cailleach Shan: It's a cycle.
[13:34] Ganymede Blackburn: I didn't quite say that, Cailleach. :)
[13:34] Herman Vos: This comes close to Bentham's opinion about basic selfinterest of man
[13:34] Zen Arado: pleasure pails and you need more and more stimulation
[13:34] Ganymede Blackburn: It could be a positive cycle as well.
[13:34] Zen Arado: thats what happens to drug users
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I think life would be boring without both pleasure and pain
[13:35] Cailleach Shan: lol no, but I did
[13:35] Gudrun Odriscoll: not necessarily more and more stimulation, only if you want more and more pleasure
[13:35] Herman Vos: But to return to the point....
[13:35] Ganymede Blackburn: Bot pleasure and pain can be self-perpetuating, imo.
[13:35] Herman Vos: can pleasure and pain be the basis of morality.....
[13:35] Zen Arado: i dont think so
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: well if 6 people feel pleasure from something and four feel pain ...is it a moral thing?
[13:36] Gudrun Odriscoll: think about pain and Christian morality, and think about the pleasure of afterlife
[13:36] Herman Vos: I would go even one step further....
[13:36] hope63 Shepherd: i think so herman..
[13:36] Zen Arado: if you keep to large numbers...
[13:36] Zen Arado: but not on a personal level?
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: gudrun?
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: no Austrian, living in London
[13:37] Herman Vos: A deed is always related with intentions...
[13:37] Zen Arado: that's doubtful morality Gudrun
[13:37] Herman Vos: a deed is always related with intentions
[13:38] Herman Vos: and not directly aimed on getting pleasure
[13:38] Zen Arado: what about drug users?
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it is my intention to make life as pleasurable for me as I can
[13:39] Cailleach Shan: Herman, do you mean we only do something from a purely selfish perspective.
[13:39] Riven Flare: don't we?
[13:39] Herman Vos: that is a problem.....should we set standards for rationality and common sense ?
[13:39] hope63 Shepherd: well ari.. it will be if you can avoid pain..
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: yes like dodge ball Hope
[13:39] Herman Vos: No Cailleach on the contrary...
[13:40] Herman Vos: A soldier who goes to war doesnt do it for pleasure, but his intention is to defend his family
[13:40] Fenchurch Shepherd: or to gain satisfaction
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: ahhh the ancient brain....survival
[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: or to respected .. honoured from the society
[13:41] Herman Vos: yes but it would be rather dogmatic to reduce every intention to that
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: a cerbreal choice to let loose the beast
[13:41] Gudrun Odriscoll: Soldiers fight for their countries sto get best access to resources
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: well think the reason changed over the centuries
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: soldiers fight because they are told to gudrun..
[13:41] Fenchurch Shepherd: soldiers fight because they are in trouble if they don't
[13:41] Herman Vos: Firemen that risk their lifes...
[13:42] Herman Vos: policemen who often do the same
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: soldiers fight because they are brainwashed to hate
[13:42] CONNIE Eichel: but they choose to be soldiers...
[13:42] Fenchurch Shepherd: get satisfaction
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: I once spoke to a former mercenary who claimed he'd always enjoyed getting shot at.
[13:42] Herman Vos: forget soldiers...
[13:42] Zen Arado: they dont always think altruistically
[13:42] Gudrun Odriscoll: of course hope, but they do it not for defending their families, they do it for helping the greed of countries or for bloody nationalist reasons
[13:42] Ganymede Blackburn: that was his motivation, according to him...
[13:42] Herman Vos: Yes ganymede there are people like that
[13:42] Zen Arado: they need a career
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: oh no gudrun.. that's too harsh!
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: some of them sure.. but not all
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: now gudrun.. how did they come to think of that.. :)
[13:43] Fenchurch Shepherd: don't look for one reason!
[13:43] Cailleach Shan: I think when people put themselves in danger to save another it's an instinctive thing not from a moral sense.
[13:43] Gudrun Odriscoll: come on, they are either brainwashed, or they are paid employees
[13:43] oola Neruda: war is an extention of politics... an arm of "diplomacy"... or shall we say failed diplomacy... soldiers are pawns
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: I do not think war is a good analogy of Mr Benthams theory
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: no cal.. you are right.. but it is from what humaity developped morals..
[13:44] Cailleach Shan: Isn't morality just a construct to oil the wheels of a society
[13:44] Herman Vos: can there also be a moral sense next to instinct Cailleach?
[13:44] hope63 Shepherd: and it's not that instinctive either.. only works in social groups.. animals like us..
[13:44] Herman Vos: Betham would have said that Cailleach..:-)
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: so what we call instinct is programmed by social behavuour..
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: I think not Hope
[13:45] Herman Vos: But by saying morality is a construct you dont say much...
[13:45] Herman Vos: for what is a construct?
[13:45] Zen Arado: instinct is evelved behaviour
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: so? do animals withoput social group behave like those with? a shark compared to a dolphin?
**** to get to learn what a construct is will have to wait, for the Sim crashed :-) *******
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment