Sometimes I wonder what is more important in discussing ethical issues: philosophy or psychology. Both approaches deal with human behavior.
You could say that ethics tries to clarify how we "OUGHT" to act and psychology explains what motivates us to act.
The quintessential issue here is, that the psychological motivations and drives have a direct relation with our actions,
while in the "OUGHT"- case, we are confronted with the question: where does this obligatory character behind our action come from?
Let's recapitulate: The central tenet of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle: an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Key aspects include impartiality, which means that everyone’s happiness counts equally. No individual’s well-being is inherently more valuable than another’s,
and second, that the morality of an action depends solely on its results, not intentions or inherent nature, which means that the result counts, not that you meant to do good or that offering milk to someone is always good, though the person has a lactose allergy.
And here comes in the psychology/philosophy matter. Psychology explains our behavior without adding a value judgement to it. It is basicely only descriptive in nature.
Philosophy. however, add something extra to the description of behavior. It adds our rationality to the description, which can leasd to the question: should I have done it. yes or no?
When we add our rationality to our psychology, we run into a number of difficult questions about whether the consequences of our actions can be the moral standard for right and good.
For instance, you could justify deporting all Palestinians from Gaza to other countries, because the consequence would be millions of happy Israelis.
Another problem is how to quantify happiness. Comparing and aggregating happiness across individuals is difficult. How do we weigh one person’s pleasure against another’s pain?
And what to think of two persons, whose actions both increase happiness, where it could happen that a person helping others for selfish reasons is judged the same as one doing so out of kindness.
Then this scenario: a surgeon could secretly kill one healthy patient to harvest their organs and save five other dying patients who need transplants. Numbers and consequences here.
Suppose a person whose core convictions are non-violence and pacifism is told to kill someone to prevent more killings. This would undermine a person's integrity, their sense of self as a moral individual with particular commitments that define who they are.
Consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, has been a dominant force in ethical theory due to its emphasis on rationality, impartiality, and human welfare.
However, as you see, utilitarianism faces serious criticisms, including concerns about justice, impracticality, and counterintuitive outcomes.
Let's find another solution to discover what is morally right or wrong in a next lecture.
Thank you for your attention.... the floor is yours.
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 100 Philosophers 9 May 2009 Start of
2 - 25+ Women Philosophers 10 May 2009 this blog
3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking 10 May 2009
4 - Modern Theories of Ethics 29 Oct 2009
5 - The Ideal State 24 Febr 2010 / 234
6 - The Mystery of the Brain 3 Sept 2010 / 266
7 - The Utopia of the Free Market 16 Febr 2012 / 383
8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism 5 Sept 2012 / 413
9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist 6 Nov 2012 / 426
10 - Non-Western Philosophy 29 May 2013 / 477
11 - Why Science is Right 2 Sept 2014 / 534
12 - A Philosopher looks at Atheism 1 Jan 2015 / 557
13 - EVIL, a philosophical investigation 17 Apr 2015 / 580
14 - Existentialism and Free Will 2 Sept 2015 / 586
15 - Spinoza 2 Sept 2016 / 615
16 - The Meaning of Life 13 Febr 2017 / 637
17 - In Search of my Self 6 Sept 2017 / 670
18 - The 20th Century Revisited 3 Apr 2018 / 706
19 - The Pessimist 11 Jan 2020 / 819
20 - The Optimist 9 Febr 2020 / 824
21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream 8 Oct 2020 / 872
22 - A World Full of Patterns 1 Apr 2021 / 912
23 - The Concept of Freedom 8 Jan 2022 / 965
24 - Materialism 7 Sept 2022 / 1011
25 - Historical Materialism 5 Oct 2023 / 1088
26 - The Bonobo and the Atheist 9 Jan 2024 / 1102
27 - Artificial Intelligence 9 Feb 2024 / 1108
28 - Why Am I Here 6 Sept 2024 / 1139
The Discussion
[13:19] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:19] herman Bergson: yes indeed...it is because it is just about numbers only
[13:19] 0rd: Is there good without God?
[13:19] herman Bergson: Definitely, Ord
[13:19] 0rd: how
[13:20] Max Chatnoir: Can you define that a little more, Ord?
[13:20] herman Bergson: We first have to establish the meaning of the word god...what does it refer to?
[13:20] 0rd: Without an Absolute Principle, on what basis could you define and judge anything
[13:21] 0rd: And can you have any absolute principle that is not God?
[13:21] herman Bergson: Two things here....
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: Does that principle have to be God?
[13:21] 0rd: If it is defined by us, it is not absolute per definition
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: We're not allowed to have definitions/
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: ?
[13:21] herman Bergson: 1. The belief in some Absolute...absolute truth, absolute vertainty, absolute good is just a digma...an assumption that such a thing is needed
[13:22] 0rd: but they will all be relative to us, by principle
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: Yes, since we are dealing with human behavior.
[13:22] herman Bergson: 2. When you look around in the world you see alot of things you call good without the participation of some god...
[13:22] herman Bergson: food for Palestinians for instance
[13:22] herman Bergson: Medical care for everyone
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: And we should be careful with absolute relativism...
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): god for me is being kind to others and the nature and not hurt others and cause destruction among some things
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats some things i define as beiing good
[13:24] 0rd: What makes you feel good then?
[13:25] herman Bergson: A selfmade definition of a term Bejiita...ok...
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and making people happy and not sad
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybee not defined as an absolute reference but that is what i call being good, there are more things also
[13:25] herman Bergson: To some extent, utilitarianism was right....it followed a basic intuition....
[13:26] Max Chatnoir: But it has pitfalls.
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is nothing better in the world than making as many people as possible happy
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed Herman
[13:26] 0rd: So, if it makes you feel good in your feelings, you define as good?
[13:26] herman Bergson: But indeed , Max, the approach has its limitations in an ethical sense
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): shortly defined: be kind to both people and nature in general = being good
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: So tax breaks for rich people make them happy, so it's a good thing to do?
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): my definition
[13:27] 0rd: Good question Max
[13:27] herman Bergson: No, Ord...just a personal feeling is not sufficient to decide in a matter of ethics
[13:27] 0rd: But is not happiness a personal feeling?
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Max, but those rich are only 3% of the whole population :-)))
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): + there u have greed mixed in and that is not a good thing
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well it CAN get complicated
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but
[13:29] 0rd: I think if we are not a Spirit that is in direct contact with God, the Absolute, everything can be everything and we will never know for sure
[13:29] herman Bergson: Happiness can be a personal feeling indeed, but social welfare is a more than individual feeling....it is a social experience
[13:29] 0rd: or we know in the Spirit, from God, the Absolute,or we never know
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well, to be honest, Ord...look at the ceiling here...there are the names of more than 3000 gods mankind has worshiped so far...
[13:30] herman Bergson: with which god should we be in contact?
[13:30] 0rd: The Absolute can have infinite names
[13:30] 0rd: The one you feel in your most inner being
[13:31] herman Bergson: How do you know that, Ord....I didn't know
[13:31] 0rd: Absolute means it can be anything
[13:31] 0rd: but it is always Absolute
[13:32] herman Bergson: If it is anything it never can be absolute...for an absolute is a well defined something
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): also means that this anything is not guaranteed to have a good definition of good, like what does being good mean ti this particular absolute?
[13:32] 0rd: if you define, it is already relative to your definition
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to
[13:32] 0rd: Being Good is when all the parts are in perfect unity with this Absolute
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well...I am afraid we get a bit off track here and move into theology....
[13:33] 0rd: You can discuss good and bad without discussing absolute
[13:33] 0rd: cant*
[13:33] Max Chatnoir: why not?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well that is yet exactly what we are doing here....
[13:34] 0rd: because it will always be a matter of point of view
[13:34] herman Bergson: investigating which approach helps us most in deciding in ethical matters
[13:34] 0rd: but all approaches that dont consider an absolute will always fall for the relative of each point of view
[13:34] herman Bergson: as I said...it is not absolute relativism nor just a matter of personal opinion
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): still if the absolute can be anything it is not absolute because everyone of them can have their own definition of what being good is
[13:35] herman Bergson: The first observations are based on psychology and the behavior of the social animal homo sapiens is
[13:36] 0rd: I like that Beijiita, that is why the absolute is not defined
[13:36] herman Bergson: The next step is the question....how does homo sapiens manage his social life....
[13:36] 0rd: absolute is always beyond any definition
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: Our laws change as our understanding or our opinions change.
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: sorry but that are just words string together in a sentence without meaning
[13:37] herman Bergson: it has no epistemological justification
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well its a tricky subject in the end
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): seems easy at first but..
[13:37] herman Bergson: To get back to a previous lecture...
[13:37] herman Bergson: to know something means you have a justified true belief
[13:38] herman Bergson: and the core of this point of view is how to justify the truth of your belief....what is the evidence
[13:39] herman Bergson: To say: I know there exists an Absolute obliges you to show the truth of that statement
[13:39] 0rd: i did not say that, i say that it is impossible to know anything for sure is there is not
[13:39] 0rd: if there is not*
[13:40] herman Bergson: How can you show someone else the truth of your statement, like you do with a mathematical proof, or a scientificc experiment
[13:40] 0rd: how can you prove anything at all without an absolute?
[13:41] herman Bergson: impossible to know anything for sure is there is not
[13:39] 0rd: if th, you see....and THAT you know for sure???
[13:41] herman Bergson: that is a contradiction
[13:42] herman Bergson: you know for sure that nothing is sure
[13:42] 0rd: i dont know, its is just logic that to state anything for sure is already to have a absolute
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): But as Herman said, this absolute is not something u can find like u can with say the Higgs boson and a particle accelerator, there is no instrubent for studying/finding this absolute
[13:42] 0rd: yes,Socrates said that
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): instrument
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is not logic, I am sorry to say
[13:42] Max Chatnoir: I think we invoke gods to help support the opinions we attribute to them. it might make enforcement easier.
[13:42] herman Bergson: no,,,that was not what Socrates said.....
[13:43] 0rd: "i know that i dont know"
[13:43] 0rd: if he does not know
[13:43] herman Bergson: He just said oida ouk oida...I know that I don't know
[13:43] 0rd: how can he know he does not know
[13:43] 0rd: it is the same
[13:43] herman Bergson: no...for the sentence is selfreffering here...
[13:44] herman Bergson: He refers to himself and his condition
[13:44] 0rd whispers: if
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: a newborn is an absolute
[13:44] herman Bergson: not to the existence of something outside him...some absolute...
[13:44] 0rd: you are changing the subject
[13:44] 0rd: that is not what we were saying
[13:45] herman Bergson: Not eventhat Bergie....just remeber the movie of Frans de Waal....
[13:45] herman Bergson: some feelings, are in our genes...like a sense of fairness is...
[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: naja :-)
[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: so we never get an answer
[13:47] 0rd: We get in our most inner being
[13:47] herman Bergson: anyway...we may conclude that consequentialism and especially utilitarianism do not answer the basic question of ethics
[13:47] herman Bergson: to some extent it does, but and I agree with Max here....it has serious shortcomings
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: That example you gave of killing one person to give his organs to six others is particularly striking.
[13:48] herman Bergson: so we need to see what homo sapiens has thought of next to overcome these shortcomings
[13:48] 0rd: i have to go, byebyeee thaaaanks ❤
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok Ord
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes that was one of the most killing critics of the greatest number theory, Max
[13:49] herman Bergson: Utilitarianism has no answer to that....
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well....next lecture better, I hope :-))
[13:50] Max Chatnoir: Oh, that was a good one, Herman!
[13:50] herman Bergson: Thank you Max :-)
[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's always good Max :))
[13:51] herman Bergson: Thank you all again....
[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed,,,,
[13:51] Max Chatnoir: Yes, it is. That's why we keep turning up. :-)
[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:51] herman Bergson: Today it was a little debate about knowledge and belief :-)
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaah
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and class :-) my head is smoking
No comments:
Post a Comment