17 A defense of consequentialism

J.J.C.Smart, an Australian philosopher born in 1920, works in ethics and philosophy of science. His defense of utilitarianism in Utilitarianism: For and Against (1973), co-authored with Bernard Williams.

After distinguishing various types of utilitarianism, (and there are a dozen or so at least) Smart opts for actutilitarianism. He hopes that our widely shared desires to promote everyone’s happiness may lead others to become actutilitarians too.

I wondered what makes utilitarianism and consequentialism so popular among empiricist philosophers. The answer is quite obvious. It makes the notions of good and bad in fact 100% empirical.We all can see the consequences, don't we?

"Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, i.e. on the effect on the welfare of all human beings (or perhaps all sentient beings).", is Smart's thesis.

He rejects the idea that act-utilitarian principles could be known to be true by intellectual intuition and holds the view that ultimate ethical principles depend on attitudes or feelings.

This is his first argument: ethical principles depend on attitudes or feelings and thus have no truth-value. This is what is called the non-cognitivist position in metaethics.

Smart: "In adopting such a metaethics, I renounce the attempt to prove the act-utilitarian system. I shall be concerned with stating it in a form which may appear persuasive to some people, and to show how it may be defended against objections."

And then he formulates his goal: "In setting up a system of normative ethics, the utilitarian must appeal to ultimate attitudes which he holds in common with those whom he is addressing.

The sentiment to which he appeals is generalized benevolence, the disposition to seek happiness or good consequences for all mankind, or perhaps for all sentient beings."

This is the quintessence of his position: he regards generalized benevolence, something like the attitude that eventually we would love to see everybody happy, as an empirical fact of being human.

And then he makes an remarkable statement about the defender of actutilitarism: "He will not be able to convince everybody, but that is not an objection. It may well be that there is no ethical system which appeals to all people."

Bentham evaluated the consequences just by their plain pleasantness, which is a hedonistic utilitarianism. Mill made a distinction in qualities of pleasantness: playing darts isn't just as pleasant as reading poetry for instance.

Moore believed that some states of mind, such as knowledge, had intrinsic value independent of their pleasantness. As if you could say that pleasantness combines with act of acquiring knowledge is a higher quality of pleasantness than winning a game of darts.

Smart: "I shall now state the act-utilitarian doctrine. (…) Let us say, then, that the only reason for performing an action A rather than an alternative action B is that doing A will make mankind (or, perhaps, all sentient beings) happier than will doing B.

This is so simple and natural a doctrine that we can expect that many readers will have some propensity to agree. For I am talking, as I said earlier, to sympathetic and benevolent men, that is, to men who desire the happiness of mankind.
(…)

The utilitarian’s ultimate moral principle, let it be remembered, expresses the sentiment not of altruism but of benevolence, the agent counting himself neither more nor less than any other person."

Smart: "The utilitarian position is here put forward as a criterion of rational choice. We may choose to habituate ourselves to behave in accordance with certain rules, such as to keep promises, in the belief that behaving in accordance with these rules is generally optimific (productive of the best outcome),

and in the knowledge that we often do not have time to work out pros and cons. The actutilitarian will regard these rules as mere rules of thumb and will use them only as rough guides. He acts in accordance with rules when there is no time to think.

When he has to think what to do, then there is a question of deliberation or choice, and it is for such situations that the utilitarian criterion is intended."

I almost hear David Hume say: "Custom is the great guide of life."

And here the final stand. Smart: "Among possible options, utilitarianism does have its appeal. With its empirical attitude to means and ends it is congenial to the scientific temper and it has flexibility to deal with a changing world.

This last consideration is, however, more self recommendation than justification. For if flexibility is a recommendation, this is because of the utility of flexibility."

Let me draw the picture: We live in an empirical world, in which is no such thing as an objective moral truth. What we have at the best is the empirical observation of the human attitude of generalized benevolence and the quality of rationality, since the utilitarian position is according to Smart a rational choice.

Based on that we have to keep a sharp eye on the consequences of our actions for them to stay in tune with our benevolence. If we do so we act morally right.

And here I rest my case………


The Discussion

[2010/01/19 13:26] Repose Lionheart: !
[2010/01/19 13:26] herman Bergson: And this leads to a room full of actutilitarians?????
[2010/01/19 13:26] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:27] Repose Lionheart: not me
[2010/01/19 13:27] Alarice Beaumont: i find this quite difficult today... my head is bursting
[2010/01/19 13:27] Abraxas Nagy: same here
[2010/01/19 13:27] herman Bergson: why not you Repose, what is missing in this argument?
[2010/01/19 13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: to many big words lol'
[2010/01/19 13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice, I understand
[2010/01/19 13:27] Repose Lionheart: i think the weakness is in making attitudes and feelings the basis of ultimate ethical principles --
[2010/01/19 13:27] Adriana Jinn: sorry i mist lots of it
[2010/01/19 13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and ideas
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: why is benevolence compelling
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: ?
[2010/01/19 13:28] oola Neruda: is it really enough to "mean well"?
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: why not disgust?
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to agree with that, Repose
[2010/01/19 13:28] Adriana Jinn: my english is not good enough today
[2010/01/19 13:28] Corona Anatine: what would you have as the basis instead
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: before that is
[2010/01/19 13:28] herman Bergson: I agree Repose..
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: recall someone tried "disgust" once
[2010/01/19 13:28] Abraxas Nagy: it looks good to me Adriana
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: the whole thing sounds very convoluted as ethics
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: Well..there is an empirical basis for that Repose
[2010/01/19 13:29] Repose Lionheart: oh
[2010/01/19 13:29] Adriana Jinn: nice for you abraxas
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: Humans all have the same facial expressions for instance when disgusting something
[2010/01/19 13:29] Adriana Jinn: yes
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: for instance ... offering them to eat dog shit..
[2010/01/19 13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[2010/01/19 13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[2010/01/19 13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, but the things that disgust them are culturally variable
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: some things not all
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: Or have them play with the idea that they have a mouth full of dogshit......
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: there are things that are of universal disgust
[2010/01/19 13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yuck
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: There seems to be a general feeling of disgust
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: related to biology mostly
[2010/01/19 13:30] Repose Lionheart: don't feel it sufficient to found an ethics upon though
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: yes Corona...and we are biological beings
[2010/01/19 13:31] Repose Lionheart: or benevolence
[2010/01/19 13:31] Corona Anatine: in vedic lore they present the student with a human turd on a dinner plate
[2010/01/19 13:31] Adriana Jinn: what is benevolence ?
[2010/01/19 13:31] Corona Anatine: to help contemplate the human condition
[2010/01/19 13:31] herman Bergson: I think I have the same feeling, Repose..... the missing of that something special of being human
[2010/01/19 13:31] Repose Lionheart: brb -- just got a tornado warning in rl
[2010/01/19 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[2010/01/19 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[2010/01/19 13:32] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[2010/01/19 13:32] herman Bergson: benevolence is the feeling of the wish that everybody should be happy\
[2010/01/19 13:32] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: it is a feeling of kindliness adraina
[2010/01/19 13:32] herman Bergson: a tornado warning????
[2010/01/19 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:32] Adriana Jinn: thanks you
[2010/01/19 13:32] Alarice Beaumont: omg
[2010/01/19 13:32] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/19 13:33] Corona Anatine: the problem then falls down to the fact that not everyone finds happiness in the same things
[2010/01/19 13:33] herman Bergson: yes....kindness...and isnt that a universaly recognized feeling?
[2010/01/19 13:33] Corona Anatine: gay sex for example
[2010/01/19 13:33] herman Bergson: No..Corona, but is that an objection to the general theory
[2010/01/19 13:33] Repose Lionheart: back, all ok
[2010/01/19 13:33] Paula Dix: i dont know... if parents are "benevolent" toward children, the children wont grow being egocentric without responsebility?
[2010/01/19 13:34] herman Bergson: Here we have the problem Paula....an endless discussion about the meaniing of benevolent
[2010/01/19 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is an expression of helping the child grow to mature understanding
[2010/01/19 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: of right and wrong
[2010/01/19 13:35] Paula Dix: then benevolent will also be a emotional moral idea?
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: happiness is such a low goal, though
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: why is that compelling?
[2010/01/19 13:35] herman Bergson: But Smart explicitely states that there are no absolute moral standards
[2010/01/19 13:35] Corona Anatine: what would a mature understand of right and wrong be ?
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: what about joy
[2010/01/19 13:35] Corona Anatine: why do you consider happiness to be a low goal
[2010/01/19 13:35] herman Bergson: Here again Repose.....
[2010/01/19 13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: tht is the problem here lol
[2010/01/19 13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: ethics
[2010/01/19 13:36] herman Bergson: the problem with all such theories is the meaning of the concepts
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: in my experience joy is so much better
[2010/01/19 13:36] Paula Dix: i cant accept the dismissal of emotions. Throw out half of you and use the rest to be happy? makes no sense
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof
[2010/01/19 13:36] Corona Anatine: if you were happy all th e time would it have any meaning
[2010/01/19 13:36] herman Bergson: that is one of the reasons why this whole debate in literature on consequentialism is littered with casuitic
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh
[2010/01/19 13:37] Corona Anatine: surely part of happiness lies in the contrast with when you are not
[2010/01/19 13:37] herman Bergson: when you take position A, there always is someone who comes up with a case in which position A leads to odd results
[2010/01/19 13:38] herman Bergson: same with pleasure and pain Corona
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:38] Paula Dix: exact, corona mentioned it, you cant never be sure of where will it end
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: a, not a
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: maybe duty and consequestialist ethics are two parts of a whole
[2010/01/19 13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest...that is what makes me so tired of all these debates between consequentialists
[2010/01/19 13:39] Paula Dix: well in this sense of happiness, i guess the idea would be to raise the lower limit, like you will never remove completely poverty, but the lower limit can be raised
[2010/01/19 13:39] Corona Anatine: you find them inconsequential ?
[2010/01/19 13:39] herman Bergson: Worth a thought Repose..indeed
[2010/01/19 13:39] Paula Dix: lol corona
[2010/01/19 13:39] Corona Anatine: : )
[2010/01/19 13:40] Repose Lionheart: hehe Corona
[2010/01/19 13:40] herman Bergson: maybe you are right Corona
[2010/01/19 13:40] Corona Anatine: raising the flow limit would be one answer
[2010/01/19 13:40] herman Bergson: What I completely miss in the utilitarian approach is man himself
[2010/01/19 13:41] Corona Anatine: but first you would need to define how that could be done
[2010/01/19 13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes, a strength of duty ethics though right?
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: Like you find since Aristotle....virtue, duty, conscious
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: things like that
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: Like Moore already stated... knowledge isnt just pleasure
[2010/01/19 13:42] herman Bergson: knowledge or love have an intrinsic value, other than pleasue
[2010/01/19 13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:42] herman Bergson: Like the example I gave in a former lecture
[2010/01/19 13:43] Corona Anatine: they might have value but it would be a vector not a scalar
[2010/01/19 13:43] herman Bergson: When my wife falls ill seriously and I need to offer a lot of care, (which is not always pleasant) that doesnt change the value of my love for her
[2010/01/19 13:43] Repose Lionheart: :-)
[2010/01/19 13:43] Paula Dix: exact, emotions must be part of the equation
[2010/01/19 13:44] herman Bergson: I can still lov eher or even love her more because what she has to endure
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:44] Adriana Jinn: yes sure
[2010/01/19 13:44] herman Bergson: so I think, pleasure and pain are an unsufficient ground for moral choices
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:44] Paula Dix: true
[2010/01/19 13:44] Corona Anatine: indeed
[2010/01/19 13:44] Adriana Jinn: surely
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: and you've used love to demonstrate that
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: in your example
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: you lower your happiness to increase her
[2010/01/19 13:45] Repose Lionheart: more than a coincidence i believe
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: there are some who might argue that would that be right if the sum total of happiness overall was less
[2010/01/19 13:45] herman Bergson: yes....I think that is the missing part in utilitarianism and consequentialism....these specific (human) attitudes/traits.
[2010/01/19 13:46] herman Bergson: I have no idea how to calculate with happiness
[2010/01/19 13:46] Corona Anatine: nor i
[2010/01/19 13:46] herman Bergson: Bentham did it in absurdum...
[2010/01/19 13:47] Corona Anatine: how then to be certian of raining it
[2010/01/19 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: some would calculate it being alive at this point after being under concrete for 6 days
[2010/01/19 13:47] Corona Anatine: raising
[2010/01/19 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: with not water or food or anything
[2010/01/19 13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, Gemma
[2010/01/19 13:47] herman Bergson: yes happiness is just that then
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: but that misses the point slightly
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: that is adding context
[2010/01/19 13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[2010/01/19 13:48] herman Bergson: Well, according to Smart, the moral debate is context related indeed
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: it can only really be said that for each person there are condiitons that will increase or decrease happiness
[2010/01/19 13:49] Corona Anatine: to state what condition they are is to value judge
[2010/01/19 13:49] herman Bergson: Yes and the moral debate is about the cosequences of my actions related to this increase or decrease
[2010/01/19 13:50] Corona Anatine: which make action difficult
[2010/01/19 13:50] Corona Anatine: because you can only be sure of the coseqquens to happiness if the other person was the same as you
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: Here we go again...
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: This is not necessarily so...
[2010/01/19 13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:51] Corona Anatine: partly why we have religious wars
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: stealing somene's food is independent of his bein glike me
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: yes
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: but
[2010/01/19 13:52] herman Bergson: there are things that transcend personal feelings....like killinfg for instance
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: if you stole an anorexics food you would increrease their happines in the short term
[2010/01/19 13:52] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:53] herman Bergson: here you could say, and that is suggested with the idea of generalized benovolence, we are all the same
[2010/01/19 13:53] Paula Dix: like forcing children to school lower happiness at first
[2010/01/19 13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[2010/01/19 13:53] herman Bergson: yes but for real happiness you have to look at the longterm effects of course
[2010/01/19 13:53] Corona Anatine: the way forward might be to envisage happiness asa circle - the closer tot eh centre the more universal and important the things are
[2010/01/19 13:53] Paula Dix: consequences? :)
[2010/01/19 13:53] Alarice Beaumont: but there can be a common happiness..... look at the football world champion chip in germany
[2010/01/19 13:54] Corona Anatine: the ones at the outer edge ar e thoese less universal or fundamental
[2010/01/19 13:54] herman Bergson: But footbal (soccor) doesnt make me happy Alarice
[2010/01/19 13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: me either
[2010/01/19 13:54] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:55] Paula Dix: or me
[2010/01/19 13:55] Abraxas Nagy: me neither
[2010/01/19 13:55] Adriana Jinn: hihiih
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: nor does it a lot of the fans
[2010/01/19 13:55] Alarice Beaumont: lol.... but the whole spirit here did... even ppl who usually do not look football or are interested in it
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: as is it the football
[2010/01/19 13:55] herman Bergson: but maybe it does for the greatest number
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: or the sense of belonging
[2010/01/19 13:55] herman Bergson: so we are the succer minority
[2010/01/19 13:56] Paula Dix: wouldnt the first moral rule be survival?
[2010/01/19 13:56] herman Bergson: against the soccer majority
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: i found out they have it in sl now and i have to do a story about it lolollo
[2010/01/19 13:56] Paula Dix: lol football in sl should be funny
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: i saw a little this morning
[2010/01/19 13:56] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:56] Abraxas Nagy: HUH ??
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: Yes....there was a soccerfiled in the next sim in 2005
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: just practice
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: football in sl?
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:57] Corona Anatine: easily done
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: o no
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yep
[2010/01/19 13:57] Corona Anatine: you just need aprim sphere
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: Pulsia sim ... now it is gone
[2010/01/19 13:57] Paula Dix: physical ball...
[2010/01/19 13:57] Adriana Jinn: i have a friend that plays football on sl
[2010/01/19 13:57] Alarice Beaumont: well.. wasn't actually talking about soccer... lol more about the happiness all the ppl felt during that time^^
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes and some script
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: yes a physical prim sphere...
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: not even script Abraxas...
[2010/01/19 13:58] Abraxas Nagy: oh?
[2010/01/19 13:58] Paula Dix: maybe gestures to kick
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: just a goal and a ball
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: could help...a gesture...
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: wel i think they are scripted
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: somehow
[2010/01/19 13:58] Corona Anatine: or instead we coild dicuss paint drying
[2010/01/19 13:58] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: I guess so too
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:59] Abraxas Nagy: a sphere wont act like a (foot)ball
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: Well I think it is time to look at the consequences of our debate and dismiss class
[2010/01/19 13:59] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[2010/01/19 13:59] Alarice Beaumont: lol sorry Herman about the distraction i caused lol
[2010/01/19 13:59] Paula Dix: lol paint drying is a cool theme :)
[2010/01/19 13:59] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: paint frying?
[2010/01/19 13:59] Paula Dix: :)))
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: drying I mean
[2010/01/19 13:59] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman sorry not to participate more
[2010/01/19 14:00] herman Bergson: Dont worry Adriana
[2010/01/19 14:00] herman Bergson: I thank you all for your participation
[2010/01/19 14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[2010/01/19 14:00] Corona Anatine: well many people spend hours dicussing art
[2010/01/19 14:00] Abraxas Nagy: thank you herman
[2010/01/19 14:00] Repose Lionheart: yes, thank you
[2010/01/19 14:00] Alarice Beaumont: have a good evening all.... thanks Herman.. and bye for tonight :-)
[2010/01/19 14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: btw feathers boa has a wonderful exhibit
[2010/01/19 14:00] Paula Dix: yes, im not joking when i say paint drying is a cool theme
[2010/01/19 14:01] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Alarice
[2010/01/19 14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: i can give you a lm i f you like
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: when will the next project start?
[2010/01/19 14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: it is worth the trip
[2010/01/19 14:01] Paula Dix: i want Gemma!
[2010/01/19 14:01] Abraxas Nagy: see u all next time (i hope) :D
[2010/01/19 14:01] Adriana Jinn: next course ?
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 14:01] herman Bergson: In one or two weeks max.
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: ok ^_^

16 Consequentialism

Before we pay attention to a defense of consequentialism, we fist have to get clear what exactly is consequentialism. We have a nice -ism here, so we also are inclined to think that it refers to a clearly defined theory. If that were true...

Any consequentialist theory must accept the claim that certain normative properties depend only on consequences. If that claim is dropped, the theory ceases to be consequentialist.. So, it is all about consequences. Let's focus on that.

Our starting point could be thus: whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act.

But you could narrow that down to for instance the actual consequences as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences.

You also could say that moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo.

We also could take into account that the consequences should effect to ALL people, not just yourself or your family or your tribe or the present people.

And then, how to evaluate the consequences? The Hedonist utilitarian says, that the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on.

But who decides on the quality of the pleasure. In the debates on consequentialism the idea emerged that whether some consequences are better than others should not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent as opposed to an observer.

In other words one way or another the consequences should be evaluated by some kind of ideal observer: impartial, not involved , rational, etc.

And then there is the other issue that not only the consequences have to be counted for but also the act. I mean, when I blow up the tax office, killing a number of people in the process,

the consequences might be that you don't need to pay taxes for a whole year. Aren't we happy then? At least the greatest number of people.

The philosophical floor is littered with dozens of (counter)examples to show that focussing on consequences to morally justify an act, is not coherent.

Take the "sheriff example": a sheriff in a small town knows that there will be riots in which dozens of people will be killed. He can prevent this massacre by convicting an innocent person: a scapegoat.

What about the consequences? The death of many people on the one hand, injustice to an innocent person on the other hand. If people would find out, their belief in the justice system might be shocked.

You may say I am biased and I'll immediately admit it, but the more I dig into consequentialism, the more I feel lost. Take this example for instance from IEP…

-begin quote
For a more extreme example of meddling (into other people’s business.), suppose that by using your grandmother’s pension to contribute to efficient and thoughtful charities you can develop permanent clean water supplies for many distant villages,

thus saving hundreds of people from painful early deaths and permitting economic development to begin. You need only keep her bound and gagged in the cellar and force her to sign the checks.

Consequentialism would seem to say that you should do this, but moral common sense says that you should not. Hence consequentialism is opposed to common sense and is probably wrong.
- end quote

You might reply to such odd and extreme cases: Moral common sense is shaped by and for the demands of ordinary moral life and so common sense may not be very reliable in odd cases.

Hence the fact that consequentialism disagrees with common sense about odd cases is no disproof of consequentialism.

Maybe true, but I am not convinced. However, I still have the article of J.J.C. Smart on the shelf, in which he defends consequentialism. WIll he convince me, you, are you already convinced?



The discussion


[2010/01/12 13:08] herman Bergson: The situation is becoming more and more interesting.
[2010/01/12 13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds like going around in circles the cat chasing the tail
[2010/01/12 13:19] BrainCrave OHare: re: pension example, a moral wrong does not make a moral right - simple
[2010/01/12 13:19] Adriana Jinn: not evident to me
[2010/01/12 13:19] herman Bergson: you could say that Gemma
[2010/01/12 13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i did
[2010/01/12 13:19] Paula Dix: :)
[2010/01/12 13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/12 13:19] freereed Freenote: ummm... i got a true story bout morality and consequences....
[2010/01/12 13:19] herman Bergson: ok freereed
[2010/01/12 13:19] freereed Freenote: from Sumatra round 1921
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: a missionary... christian
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: who was also a zealot
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: attracted crowds upwards of 15,000 people
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: riots ensued
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: 10,000 people lost their lives
[2010/01/12 13:20] Paula Dix: wow
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: i know the son of this missionary
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: who was killed and made a martyr
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: is also recounted in the book on ghandhi
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: from which the film was made
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: end story
[2010/01/12 13:21] BrainCrave OHare: your discussion here reminds me of a book called Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html). he says this: "...the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
[2010/01/12 13:21] herman Bergson: dont do that Brain
[2010/01/12 13:21] BrainCrave OHare: give a quote?
[2010/01/12 13:22] herman Bergson: check the rules behind me.
[2010/01/12 13:22] Paula Dix: freereed, whats the point on consequentialism on the story? i dont get it
[2010/01/12 13:23] herman Bergson: My problem with consequentialism is that it is about consequences and not about the person as a moral subject
[2010/01/12 13:23] Paula Dix: also, you cant ever be sure of the final consequences of anything, right?
[2010/01/12 13:23] freereed Freenote: the missionary;'s intention and christian morality... thru his being a zealot... resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 lives
[2010/01/12 13:23] Repose Lionheart: perhaps you could give more moral weight to the consequences of keeping your grandmother bound in the basement than to the effects of a redevelopment project, however many lives it might (or might ot) save
[2010/01/12 13:23] Repose Lionheart: not
[2010/01/12 13:24] Paula Dix: oh i see it freereed, thanks
[2010/01/12 13:24] herman Bergson: Well as the consequences are weight in respect to the happiness the bring...
[2010/01/12 13:24] Paula Dix: (on my anti-catholic thin king for geographical reasons there was no contrast on the story :))) )
[2010/01/12 13:25] Repose Lionheart: don't know how you judge between moral consequences, except perhaps deontologically
[2010/01/12 13:25] herman Bergson: IS any of you convinced that indeed only the consequences of our acts can determine the moral rightness or wrongnes of our actions?
[2010/01/12 13:25] Repose Lionheart: not me
[2010/01/12 13:25] Paula Dix: no
[2010/01/12 13:26] Aya Beaumont: No.
[2010/01/12 13:26] freereed Freenote: not me
[2010/01/12 13:26] Adriana Jinn: not either
[2010/01/12 13:26] Paula Dix: that would be the same as telling the ending is all that matter, not the in between
[2010/01/12 13:26] Aya Beaumont: The ends do not justify the means.
[2010/01/12 13:26] herman Bergson: Yes it seems to be a big chapter in present day debate on ethics
[2010/01/12 13:26] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[2010/01/12 13:26] Paula Dix: yes, you said it better Aya :)))
[2010/01/12 13:26] herman Bergson: it is opposed to deontological ethics
[2010/01/12 13:27] Paula Dix: and again, you can never the sure what the end is
[2010/01/12 13:27] herman Bergson: That Aya refers only to the result of consequences
[2010/01/12 13:27] Aya Beaumont: The more I think about it, the more I feel that several criteria are necessary to make a good act...
[2010/01/12 13:28] Paula Dix: and in the end we are never sure? :)
[2010/01/12 13:28] herman Bergson: Yes...if you talk about ends for instance there has to be intentionality too
[2010/01/12 13:28] Aya Beaumont: You need to have a good goal for it. You need to be a rather accurate judge of the consequences, and they need to be reasonably good in your eyes.
[2010/01/12 13:28] freereed Freenote: i have seen it played out many many times in real life and in history "beware them who come to do good"
[2010/01/12 13:28] Aya Beaumont: Making most actions morally neutral, of course.
[2010/01/12 13:28] Paula Dix: whats the difference between the consequence and the result of the consequence??
[2010/01/12 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[2010/01/12 13:29] herman Bergson: the consequence can be a fire..the result is ashes
[2010/01/12 13:29] Aya Beaumont: Ends presuppose a goal, yes. Not necessarily one that is reached either.
[2010/01/12 13:29] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/12 13:30] herman Bergson: Yes and I miss all these ideas in consequentialism
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: Indeed.
[2010/01/12 13:30] Paula Dix: herman, that wouldnt be a consequence of a consequence? you shouldnt take that into account when planning? all the line of consequences?
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: You can't. Your every action has consequences, an infinity of them.
[2010/01/12 13:30] herman Bergson: As you may have noticed..the very concept of consequence is already a candidate for long debates
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: Your responsibility ends somewhere.
[2010/01/12 13:31] Paula Dix: i dont know, i feel i would never do anything if i would consider consequences only, because of this infinite progression
[2010/01/12 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: well you can try to see what you will accomplish
[2010/01/12 13:31] herman Bergson: Yes GEmma and the balance in the debate could be
[2010/01/12 13:31] herman Bergson: should we evaluate your intention
[2010/01/12 13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes, if consequence is so imprecise, perhaps it is not a primary category of moral understanding
[2010/01/12 13:32] herman Bergson: or ignore that and just evaluate the consequences of your action
[2010/01/12 13:32] Paula Dix: yes i liked that Repose
[2010/01/12 13:32] Aya Beaumont: You need to do both.
[2010/01/12 13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Repose... I feel pretty uncomfortable with the consequentialist approach
[2010/01/12 13:33] Repose Lionheart: consequentialism seems to work best with large numbers, public policy?
[2010/01/12 13:33] Repose Lionheart: messy things
[2010/01/12 13:33] Aya Beaumont: No. That they use it is the reason we're losing our liberties today.
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: Of course we always think about the consequences...
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: but is that the moral evaluation of our action?
[2010/01/12 13:34] herman Bergson: the complete evaluation?
[2010/01/12 13:34] Repose Lionheart: interesting point, Aye
[2010/01/12 13:34] freereed Freenote: well... gramma's rights were ignored when ye tied her up...
[2010/01/12 13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/12 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: no one gets that pension!!
[2010/01/12 13:34] Aya Beaumont: Consequentialism is very closely related to pragmatism, or as it's also put, Realpolitik.
[2010/01/12 13:34] herman Bergson: That is the point freereed....
[2010/01/12 13:34] freereed Freenote: thank you, herman
[2010/01/12 13:35] Paula Dix: yes i still like ethics more as reference
[2010/01/12 13:35] herman Bergson: And indeed we end up with Real politics
[2010/01/12 13:35] Aya Beaumont: If you're a politician, it's comfortable.
[2010/01/12 13:35] Aya Beaumont: For everyone else, it's probably less than optimal.
[2010/01/12 13:36] Paula Dix: there are politicians that work for things like "common good"? I feel not...
[2010/01/12 13:36] herman Bergson: My problem is the evaluation of consequences.. using the pleasure /pain criterium
[2010/01/12 13:36] Paula Dix: that would be *the* consequence, isnt?
[2010/01/12 13:37] herman Bergson: The common good could be the greatest happiness of the greatest number...
[2010/01/12 13:37] freereed Freenote: hmmm... i thought was plato said the good government, just society based on Community of pleasures and pains
[2010/01/12 13:37] Paula Dix: yes, but i dont see politicians doing it. at least not here
[2010/01/12 13:37] Aya Beaumont: Plato is also one of the greatest enemies of the free society.
[2010/01/12 13:37] Paula Dix: its always acting for the party, for their group...
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: or themselves
[2010/01/12 13:38] herman Bergson: That is because the politicians think that they are the greatest number I guess
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/12 13:38] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: why Aya??
[2010/01/12 13:38] Aya Beaumont: Did you read his view of what the perfect society should be like?
[2010/01/12 13:38] Aya Beaumont shudders.
[2010/01/12 13:38] freereed Freenote: when mario cuomo ran for president he used plato's community of P&P and said the citizens are a Family
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: lol ok
[2010/01/12 13:39] Aya Beaumont: Cute ideas like "the state's first priority is to do what's best for the state"
[2010/01/12 13:39] herman Bergson: ANd who is the state?
[2010/01/12 13:39] Paula Dix: yes! would he like Machiavelli??
[2010/01/12 13:40] Aya Beaumont: Machiavelli was quite a bit too liberal for Plato, I would say.
[2010/01/12 13:40] Repose Lionheart: probably not, but you'd have had it made if you were a Philosopher „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:40] Paula Dix: he was more practical than plato?
[2010/01/12 13:40] herman Bergson: Anyway... this is al I can make of consequentialism today
[2010/01/12 13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: the cat is still running
[2010/01/12 13:41] Adriana Jinn: lol
[2010/01/12 13:41] herman Bergson: When you read the articles...for every example is a counter example of consequences...
[2010/01/12 13:41] Paula Dix: for machiavelli i guess was easier to answer who is the state, it was the prince...
[2010/01/12 13:41] Aya Beaumont: No, oddly I mean that seriously. I read the Prince recently. I was quite surprised to see that the BEST society he could see was one where a democratic parliament held the king's power in check.
[2010/01/12 13:41] Paula Dix: nice!
[2010/01/12 13:42] herman Bergson smiles
[2010/01/12 13:42] Paula Dix: i never read him, only read a nice book about him and da Vinci, i liked the image of him there
[2010/01/12 13:42] herman Bergson: political philosophy might be a nice subject
[2010/01/12 13:42] Aya Beaumont: Machiavelli also (probably without noticing it) lays down principles for leadership that include a very strong tone of predictability.
[2010/01/12 13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, political philosophy
[2010/01/12 13:43] Aya Beaumont: A precursor to the views of the violence monopoly of the state and some principles of the rule of law.
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: WEll...
[2010/01/12 13:43] Paula Dix: thats what i got from that book, he was a practical thinker
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: next time I'll present a defense of consequentialism by JJC Smart...
[2010/01/12 13:43] Repose Lionheart: „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: His approach is interesting from a scientific/philosophical point of view
[2010/01/12 13:44] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/12 13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe he will convince me (tho I already read his etxts „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:44] herman Bergson: texts
[2010/01/12 13:45] Paula Dix: lol its curious that someone thinks it can be defended, cant wait for that
[2010/01/12 13:45] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[2010/01/12 13:45] herman Bergson: I would suggest to get together next Thursday and see what will happen then
[2010/01/12 13:45] Aya Beaumont: A philosophy that can tell you it's right to kill a healthy person to donate his organs to help three ill ones... nice...
[2010/01/12 13:45] Abraxas Nagy: sounds like its gonna be interesting
[2010/01/12 13:45] Paula Dix: yes, like that movie Brazil :)))
[2010/01/12 13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Aya..that is one of those dilemmas they struggle with
[2010/01/12 13:46] Aya Beaumont: Can't think why. =)
[2010/01/12 13:46] herman Bergson: I'll give JJC Smart a fair chance to make his point
[2010/01/12 13:47] herman Bergson: So I would say...enjoy your day and see you next class:)
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
[2010/01/12 13:47] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.
[2010/01/12 13:47] herman Bergson: and thank you for your participation
[2010/01/12 13:47] Abraxas Nagy: thank you
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: thursday hope so
[2010/01/12 13:47] Ze Novikov: yes, ty Herman
[2010/01/12 13:47] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Prof. Great stuff!
[2010/01/12 13:47] Abraxas Nagy: as always
[2010/01/12 13:47] Paula Dix: hope i can be here thursday, this is great!
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[2010/01/12 13:47] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman
[2010/01/12 13:48] herman Bergson: My pleasure
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: thank you
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: nice to be back
[2010/01/12 13:48] Adriana Jinn: have a good evening
[2010/01/12 13:48] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana

15 What is pleasure?

What has intrinsic value…is it eventually only pleasure? Hedonism claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. And as we learnt last time: hedonism is the basic assumption of utilitarianism.

You are easily inclined to say: What is the big deal? Pleasure is just a feeling of enjoyment or content. However, if it were that simple. The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as the Stanford Encyclopedia have both an extensive article on pleasure.

Since pain is most commonly used as a term for a kind of bodily sensation, it is natural to think of pleasure as having the same status. And indeed there are uses of the term pleasure in which it seems to stand for a kind of bodily sensation.

But hedonist have often insisted that pleasure means more than a localized bodily sensation. You also have to include states of the following sort:

(1) Enjoying (taking pleasure in) doing something, such as playing tennis.
(2) Getting satisfaction out of something, such as seeing an enemy humiliated.
(3) Having a pleasant evening; hearing pleasant sounds.
(4) Feeling good, having a sense of well-being.
(5) Feeling contented being.

It seems clear that phenomena of these sorts do not consist in localized bodily sensations of the same type as headaches, except for being of an opposite quality. So this is a first problem with pleasure that can give you a headache.

Suppose you play a game of tennis. It is in fact too hot and you feel an oppressive humidity, you also enjoy the game, Apparently a mix of unpleasant and pleasant sensations.

Yet, afterwards you qualify the game as extremely pleasant. The pleasure sensation occurs in consciousness at the same time as all these cognitions. Therefore the sensation theory implies that I must be enjoying the oppressive humidity and the plane just as much as I am enjoying playing tennis.

But this is contrary to the facts. A person knows immediately which of the various things he is aware of at the moment he is taking pleasure in; and the sensation theory can give no account of this discrimination.

Then we choose to drop the view that pleasure is a (nonlocalized) sensation and choose for the idea that pleasure is not some kind of stand alone feeling but that pleasure is a quality that can attach to any state of consciousness.

However, listening to a symphony is pleasant as is kissing my wife and more, but we are unable to isolate a felt quality that they share, in the way in which we can easily isolate a quality of redness which a number of different visual sensations share, or a quality of painfulness that a number of different bodily sensations share.

When experiencing different shades of red we have outside support of our sensory qualities. We can tie down the quality to a certain kind of stimulation; people ordinarily get red visual sensations when and only when their optic nerves are stimulated by stimuli of a certain physical description.Nothing of the kind applies to pleasant sensations.

We can raise an even wider issue about motivational hedonism, about the idea that pleasure is the only value which justifies our actions.

Is it a contingent claim, about an aspect of our psychology that could have been otherwise? Or does it posit a law of our psychological nature, or a necessary truth about all metaphysically, conceptually, or logically possible worlds? We won't deal with these questions here, but think about them….

Some critics argue that not all pleasures are valuable, since, for example, there is no value in the pleasures of a sadist while whipping a victim.

Other opponents object that not only pleasures are intrinsically valuable, because other things are valuable independently of whether they lead to pleasure or avoid pain. For example, my love for my wife does not seem to become less valuable when I get less pleasure from her because she contracts some horrible disease.

Robert Nozick (1938–2002) came up with the idea of the experience machine, in fact the situation which you see in the movie The Matrix. Assuming that the machine is reliable, it would seem irrational not to hook oneself up to this machine if pleasure and pain were all that mattered, as hedonists claim.

Since it does not seem irrational to refuse to hook oneself up to this machine, hedonism seems inadequate. The reason is that hedonism overlooks the value of real friendship, knowledge, freedom, and achievements, all of which are lacking for deluded people on the experience machine.

These are just a few arguments which question the meaning and usability of pleasure / pain as the sole explanation and justification of morality. J.J.C Smart wrote a Defense of Consequentialism.

We might have a look at that next lecture. Maybe there is a consequentialism that leans less heavily on the hedonistic justification.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: It was a pleasure.... ㋡ Thank you.
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:23] Saxon Beresford: lol
[13:23] BrainCrave OHare: seems pretty basic to me: there are objective standards for pleasure and subjective
[13:23] Izana Magic: : )
[13:24] herman Bergson: what are objective standards for pleasure, Brain?
[13:25] Alarice Beaumont: ppl experience pleasure differently, no?
[13:25] herman Bergson: that is why I ask
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:25] BrainCrave OHare: pleasures that would be required for life - e.g., freedom
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ah ok
[13:26] Adriana Jinn: it should be but not so evident
[13:26] herman Bergson: freedom is a condition of being...maybe accompanied with pleasure...it is not equal to pleasure
[13:26] herman Bergson: freedom and the desire of freedom can be a source of great anxiety...
[13:26] BrainCrave OHare: i might buy that
[13:27] herman Bergson: for instance in Iran
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: or Russia over most of its history
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and again it depends on what the idea of freedom is at a certain time or a certain place
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes
[13:27] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: how about this one as objective standard: eating when you're hungry
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: so i guess it will all fit into subjective
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: gives that pleasure?
[13:28] herman Bergson: That too Gemma, unless there is an absolute definition of fredom, which there isnt I would say
[13:28] oola Neruda: i work with a lot of blind people.. and a young blind man assured me once that he knew what red is... listing fire trucks, lights and cherries among his understanding of red.... he INSISTED that he knew what red is... i am an artist so i have my own ideas about red.... HOW CAN WE COMMUNICATE ABOUT PLEASURE
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: pleasure would be with nice music and a glass of wine and nice company ,-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: I guess we could agree on that Alarice ㋡
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: ;-)
[13:29] Saxon Beresford: but nice is also subjective
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: yes..
[13:29] herman Bergson: But playing a game of tennis means also pleasure...
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: not to me lol
[13:29] Adriana Jinn: the pleasure can be just waking in the morning and feel free to organize your day
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: probably not to everyone
[13:29] Izana Magic: ...to people who loves tennis?
[13:29] Izana Magic: : )
[13:30] Adriana Jinn: just take your bath in the morning
[13:30] herman Bergson: most important thing is that tho we have a general intuition of pleasure, we cant identify a common factor
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: he had an idea of red that was pleasurable...
[13:30] Adriana Jinn: the pleasure is a feeling or a sensation ?
[13:31] Saxon Beresford: well there is an objective and measurable physiological reaction that matches pleasure
[13:31] herman Bergson: And what has become clear to me is that the pleasure / pain feature isnt a sufficient basis for justifying acts as good or bad
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: pleasure must not be as fundamental to the good -- yes, agree
[13:31] herman Bergson: There is a lot of debate about that Saxon
[13:32] herman Bergson: There is a lot of neurological research on pleasure experiences...
[13:32] Saxon Beresford: mm well seratonins and endorphins do correlate somewhat to pleasure
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes with new machinery to locate the pleasure in the brain
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: actually see it
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes that all is possible, but they are not able to locate 'pleasue' as such
[13:33] Saxon Beresford: yes you can see it on a pet scan
[13:33] herman Bergson: they can correlate certain observations with certain externa stimuli
[13:34] herman Bergson: but the dont know if it is a specific part of the brain or a combination of a lot of neuron networks
[13:34] Adriana Jinn: pleasure is not necessary good for every one
[13:34] herman Bergson: besides that....
[13:34] herman Bergson: what does it say "I had a pleasant evening' and on the scan we see part X iin the brain fire
[13:35] herman Bergson: does it mean when we are technically able to fire part X in the brain I will say "I had a pleasant evening'?
[13:36] Saxon Beresford: good point
[13:36] herman Bergson: So far I believe that the motivational or normative hedonism isn't a sufficient explanation of our moral behavior
[13:37] Ellla McMahon: maybe it does .. take people who like to lie on nail beds .. to most of us that would be a painful experience but to those that enjoy the experience, perhaps partX in their brain is being fired
[13:37] herman Bergson: There definitely is a relation with pleasure /pain, like in all living organisms
[13:38] herman Bergson: Oh yes Ellla, there is a lot of research on brain activity during meditative states
[13:38] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: But is the brain activity the total picture
[13:39] herman Bergson: personally I am eager to believe that, but I still have a feeling we are missing here something
[13:40] herman Bergson: The experience of a pleasant evening is not just identical with brain activity
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: memory
[13:40] herman Bergson: All scienfiction computers show the opposite
[13:40] Adriana Jinn: in singing
[13:41] herman Bergson: all electronic activity is identical with their performance
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: the activity is much involved
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes.... making music and enjoying that
[13:41] Saxon Beresford: maybe maybe we all understand pleasure because the consequences of whatever the stimulus (dinner tennis etc) are the same like red
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: I think one only sees that there is action in the brain.. but not possible to identify if good or bad
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i wonder if those machines can see brain activity indicating pleasure when one recalls a past event
[13:42] herman Bergson: Good point there Alarice
[13:42] Adriana Jinn: it seems that with the scanner they can
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: really?
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: i read something about that lately
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Gemma...we identify brain activity as pleasure, because the scanned person says so...indeed
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: would be interesting to test it
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: "mind" then seems to be more than the simple sum of the parts of the brain
[13:43] herman Bergson: otherwise we never could conclude it from the scan
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is a huge Chapter repose...!
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: need to understand consciousness to develop an adequate ethic?
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hope not :(
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes...maybe so Repose
[13:44] herman Bergson: I think ..at the end...
[13:44] herman Bergson: it will lead to a philosophical antropology....a vision on man
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:45] herman Bergson: I have a vague notion that the concept of virtue will become important in our discourse
[13:45] oola Neruda: i do not think we can agree on a sensation (like red) because of the differences we have in our experiences...
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:45] oola Neruda: people near the equator think of cold differently than canadians do
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes, or even not in experience, as you noted above ㋡
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:46] herman Bergson: but they may agree on not killing fellowmen
[13:46] Adriana Jinn: same for the notion of plesure
[13:46] Adriana Jinn: pleasure
[13:47] oola Neruda: some societies do not stop at the idea of killing and even eating their fellow man
[13:47] herman Bergson: well I dont know Adriana...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Some people experience pleasure in eating insects....
[13:47] Adriana Jinn: yes
[[13:48] herman Bergson: I dont...so what pleasure experience is that?
[13:48] Adriana Jinn: that is why i say that the notion of pleasrue is different for people
[13:48] herman Bergson: ok
[13:48] herman Bergson: but maybe not of murder and theft
[13:49] Adriana Jinn: of course yes i agree
[13:49] herman Bergson: We''ll pursue our course in the direction of consequentialism and see if there still is a defense
[13:49] Adriana Jinn: the romans seems to have pleasure seeing people eaten by lions
[13:49] BrainCrave OHare: i've gone over every possible example i can think of that could be considered an objective standard of pleasure and i've come to the conclusion that it's likely all pleasure is subjective
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: oh good brain
[13:50] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: ok Brain..
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: could be...
[13:50] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: Again...what we call pleasure.... we have no common feaure
[13:51] herman Bergson: Like the word game...
[13:51] herman Bergson: think of Wittgenstein's idea about that
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ;he has become a favorite go to person
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:52] herman Bergson: Like A has a feature in common with B and B one with C but C not with A and yet we call A,B and C examples of pleasure
[13:54] herman Bergson: I hope I have kept my promise to 'explain' what pleasure means as basis for moral justification
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: will have to read an digest it all again
[13:54] herman Bergson: I guess you are now enjoying the pleasure of thinking about that ㋡
[13:54] Adriana Jinn: it is quite interesting
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lololl
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:55] BrainCrave OHare: well, if pleasure is all subjective, then it is moral to let each person decide what is best for their own pleasure/happiness
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: lots to do with that
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:55] Saxon Beresford: thanks Herman
[13:55] Izana Magic: thank you very much : )
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: thank you, Professor
[13:55] Izana Magic: was enjoyable class!
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Brain and then we are back to moral relativism which we declined as an answer
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: was great!
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: thanks so much herman
[13:55] Saxon Beresford s brain hurts
[13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure ㋡
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: thx very much Herman :-))
[13:55] Izana Magic: lol
[13:55] BrainCrave OHare: thanx herman
[13:56] Izana Magic: i might have activated a few new cells...
[13:56] Izana Magic: chuckles
[13:56] herman Bergson: See you all on Tuesday....maybe consequentialism will be saved
[13:56] Saxon Beresford: lol

14 A first step to consequentialism

Epicurus (341—271 B.C.) developed an unsparingly materialistic metaphysics, empiricist epistemology, and hedonistic ethics.

Epicurus taught that the basic constituents of the world are atoms, uncuttable bits of matter, flying through empty space, and he tried to explain all natural phenomena in atomic terms.

Epicurus rejected the existence of Platonic forms and an immaterial soul, and he said that the gods have no influence on our lives.

Epicurus also thought skepticism was untenable, and that we could gain knowledge of the world relying upon the senses.

It is almost unbelievable. More than 2000 years ago some man combined views on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics in a way, I try to do myself today. He saw an intrinsic relation between materialism, empiricism and hedonism.

If you know me philosophically because you've attended more than one lecture, you'll certainly know that I value the relation between materialism and empiricism.

What about hedonism. What is it? Epicurus’ ethics starts from the Aristotelian commonplace that the highest good is what is valued for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else, and Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good.

Why elaborating on hedonism? The reason for this is, that it is the basic presumption of utilitarianism and later of consequentialism.

Or to quote Jeremy Betham 's (1789) ringing passage that opens his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation:

“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”

Thence, if we want to continue our planned route, we have to have a close look at this basic assumption of consequentialist theories of ethics.

We can distinguish between motivational hedonism and normative hedonism. Motivational hedonism is the claim that only pleasure or pain motivates us.

Normative hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has worth or value, and all and only pain has disvalue.

And then in 1863 we hear the words of John Stuart Mill, who was the founder of consequentialism:

begin quote -
Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness.

By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends;

and all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. (…)

The utilitarian standard is not the agent’s greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether.
end quote-

Especially this last statement is important. Morally good is not just what creates individual happiness (motivational hedonism), but what creates the greatest amount of happiness altogether (normative hedonism).

We have before us a long and winding road, which we will have to follow to figure out what the basic concepts mean: what is pleasure? Can we calculate amounts of pleasure?

What consequence do we have to take into account? Foreseen, unforeseen, short term, long term and so on?


I think we'd better leave these issues for another lecture . Thank you.
And I wish that 2010 will be good year for all of us.


The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: So far the start of 2010 ㋡
[13:19] BrainCrave OHare: i do not think you can consider the morality of pleasure without considering the pain it might infllict on someone else
[13:19] herman Bergson: You mean the pleasure of the sadist, Braincrave?
[13:20] BrainCrave OHare: to some extent - e.g., what brings pleasure to one might cause pain to another
[13:20] BrainCrave OHare: e.g., a terrorist who gets pleasure from hurting others
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes that might be one of the problems to face
[13:21] herman Bergson: But 'pleasure' as such isnt defined yet
[13:21] herman Bergson: is it a sensation, a mental state, a prolonged condition?
[13:21] BrainCrave OHare: pleasure is an individual feeling - not communial
[13:21] Jeb Larkham: come from desire
[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Jeb...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Epicurus made a distinction between two pleasures
[13:22] herman Bergson: One is when you feel hungry and eat a hamburger...
[13:22] BrainCrave OHare: my point is that morality can't be looked at in terms of good or bad based on pleasure alone
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: Brain has a good point -- how is group pleasure or happiness determined?
[13:23] BrainCrave OHare: no such thing as group pleasure or happiness
[13:23] herman Bergson: The other is what he called the static pleasure...the satisfied feeling, the absence of hunger
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: if the goal is to maximize it?
[13:23] BrainCrave OHare: that's pure collectivist thinking
[13:24] herman Bergson: I can tell you that we'll have a tough time with the concept of pleasure.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: necessary for a ultilitarian ethic, though?
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: it is all difficult lol
[13:24] herman Bergson: In my readings I almost drowned in a swamp of arguments about what pleasure is
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: !
[13:25] herman Bergson: In my next lecture I'll try to clarify on that concept
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:25] herman Bergson: It really is a chapter of its own
[13:25] BrainCrave OHare: i don't see a need to define it more than a personal preference from a morality standpoint
[13:25] itsme Frederix: pleasure is simple ... being content, falling together with your doings, play a piano piece (not being a master but still feel you mastered some things)
[13:25] Jeb Larkham: There is a series of documentaries by a guy called Adam Curtis called Century of the Self on this subject
[13:25] herman Bergson: I hope to give you arguments to reconsider that point of view Braincarve
[13:26] BrainCrave OHare: i will look forward to it
[13:26] herman Bergson: There is the short term pleasure and the longterm pleasure
[13:27] herman Bergson: and the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not just private pleasure
[13:27] BrainCrave OHare: now that's pure collectivism right there herman
[13:27] itsme Frederix: that greatest happiness divided by the greatest number might be a very small piece - considered to less for an individual => there is the problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: Up to this moment I did not get any further that pondering about the pleasure/pain assumption
[13:28] Jangle McElroy: Sounds Vulcan (Hi all, apologies so late)
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: might just be the initial development of a social ethic, brain ㋡
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: IDIC
[13:28] BrainCrave OHare: no such thing repose - pure orwellian if you ask me :)
[13:28] herman Bergson: I mean...as a starting point it is plainly assumed that we are just driven by pleasure/pain motives
[13:29] herman Bergson: Is that the right assumption about the human organism?
[13:29] Jeb Larkham: driven by desires that come from the marketing companies :)
[13:29] BrainCrave OHare: i think it is
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well, Jeb...desire is indeed another feature
[13:30] itsme Frederix: maybe we are to human to find a pleasure in such thoughts
[13:30] herman Bergson: Are desires just motivated by the pleasure / pain mechanism?
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: no
[13:30] BrainCrave OHare: n
[13:30] Jangle McElroy: Doesn't explain the drive of Curiosity perhaps?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Take for instance self sacrifice to save your friends?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Jangle, you could say that
[13:31] herman Bergson: But hedonists try to reduce all other drives to a pleasure motive
[13:32] herman Bergson: so they translate self sacrifice also as actually motivated by the pleasure to be a hero (be it only for a second)
[13:32] herman Bergson: I am still not ready with these ideas
[13:33] herman Bergson: On the one hand I am willing to accept that we are pleasure/pain driven organisms
[13:33] herman Bergson: and on the other hand I have a feeling that I miss something in this picture
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is one of the tenents of religious life
[13:33] itsme Frederix: .. be it only for a second .. might give the clue - no history or future .. just being there .. falling together with your own ideas
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: yes agree
[13:34] Laila Schuman: self sacrifice is a pleasure to many mothers
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true too
[13:34] Laila Schuman: and it is not momentary
[13:34] herman Bergson smiles
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: but is "pleasure" the primary motivation of such mothers?
[13:34] herman Bergson: you got a point there Laila...what about the fathers?
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: no but its effect
[13:34] itsme Frederix: mmm or maybe a lack of momentary, just given up
[13:34] BrainCrave OHare: self-sacrifice i driven by low self-esteem and thedesire to reduce the pain caused by low self-esteem. ergo, it's pain avoidance
[13:35] herman Bergson: that is very quick psychology, Braincarve
[13:35] herman Bergson: Kind of begging the question
[13:35] Laila Schuman: i shall let men speak for themselves... although i know some fathers or even just men...who sacrifice for others...family or not
[13:35] Laila Schuman: soldiers for example...
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:36] Laila Schuman: not so sure that is a pleasure tho
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...we'll keep this idea of self sacrifie in mind for the next lecture....
[13:36] BrainCrave OHare: it's not a sacrifice - a parent values the child more than the other preference
[13:36] herman Bergson: Is it reducible to pleasure/ pain avoidance?
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: no
[13:37] herman Bergson: If you say 'no' repose, that is another quality in a human that plays a role in morality
[13:37] Jeb Larkham: Speaking as a farther, if my kids are happy... I'm happy
[13:37] itsme Frederix: mmm in a way, life ends, but children just propagate life, the selfish gen idea
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: got to think about what it might be ㋡
[13:38] Laila Schuman: not just values the child... hold a baby to your breast and have it fall asleep in your arms..... it is also great pleasure that you are getting for making that choice
[13:38] herman Bergson: We really need a detailed analysis of this concept of pleasure
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: On Thursday I'll have it ready
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:39] itsme Frederix: Laila I know, but it seems yourself just does not exist anymore, self reduction. But indeed grat moments
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: "Love," I think
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: and its many analogs
[13:39] Laila Schuman: isn't that part of pleasure... those great moments
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: i resist reducing "love" to "pleasure"
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...one thing that is missing in the utilitarian idea ....well not missing exactly is the concept of virtue
[13:40] herman Bergson: courage, prudence....things like that
[13:40] itsme Frederix: sure, but these are holy moments where the universe just collapses to a point of all and nothing (whow that not philosophical but I meant it)
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes!
[13:41] herman Bergson: To be honest,
[13:41] itsme Frederix: so Herman try to get that in a philosopical consistent logical rational idea
[13:41] herman Bergson: in the reading for preparing this lecture I was surprised by the abundance of complex argumentations on pleasure and consequences
[13:42] herman Bergson: It was not really encouraging...
[13:42] itsme Frederix: because its not complex, ist just one whole undivided thing
[13:42] herman Bergson: for every point of view there was an argument against it ㋡
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: Ockham's Razor?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Might help Repose...
[13:43] herman Bergson: For now I am only thinking about this basic assumption of hedonism as startingpoint of consequentialism
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: or maybe "pleasure" can't bear the weight?
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes Repose.... that feeling of missing something....
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thursday I'll come up with some ideas... ㋡
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:45] Qwark Allen: ;-^)=)
[13:45] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: can't wait ㋡
[13:45] herman Bergson: Besides that..... implicitely...this your homework too of course !
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:45] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:45] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: ohoh
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:45] herman Bergson: You mean I should do all the work myself, while you sit back???
[13:46] herman Bergson: That is not how 2010 gonna work ㋡
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: if thats possible
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:46] itsme Frederix: I guess the point is that hedonism tells you you have to have pleasure and avoid pain, so askes for a move. I'm convinced we have to move BUT only in the moment the motionesless (differential) is the pleasure found
[13:47] itsme Frederix: so if we do some calculus we are there
[13:47] herman Bergson: That was Jeremy Benthams idea...he had elaborate pleasure calculations
[13:48] herman Bergson: Which brings up the next question..is pleasure measurable? Can it be quantified
[13:48] itsme Frederix: Herman be aware calculus has the mythical limit idea in it
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: that seems very personal
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: nope cuz its relative
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: Pleasure can also be a quality
[13:49] itsme Frederix: the same idea behind the tortue and Achilles running
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: but incividual don't you think????
[13:49] BrainCrave OHare: i don't think you can look at hedonism excusively. a man standing on tracks watching an oncoming train does not move just to avoid pain. it's survival
[13:49] herman Bergson: like redness is a quality
[13:49] itsme Frederix: turtle
[13:49] Jangle McElroy: Surely pleasure can;t be measured accurately, as we all experience different triggers and intensities for pleasure? :)
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: but can it be a quantity to?
[13:49] herman Bergson: That is the problem of the utilitarian point of view...
[13:50] itsme Frederix: as soon as you try to quantize pleasure you talk about ... "fun"
[13:50] herman Bergson: I mean ..what means the greatest happiness....what is the zero point for instance?
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: wow there is none
[13:50] itsme Frederix: thre is no greatest happiness, you are happy or you are not
[13:51] herman Bergson: You also can be more happy Itsme
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:51] itsme Frederix: greatest happiness implies more happiness and so a lacjk of happiness - so a disere not fullfilled - contradiction to happiness
[13:51] herman Bergson: a kid is happy with one candy, but more happy with two ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...thank you all for the good first discussion in 2010...good start
[13:52] itsme Frederix: a kid is not more happy with two candies if he knows he can get three, and after that he is sick!!
[13:52] herman Bergson: Next class is for Pleasure and Happines ㋡
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: a psychological element here
[13:53] BrainCrave OHare: ty herman
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: thank you, Professor!
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[13:53] Adriana Jinn: thank you
[13:53] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye gemmaaa
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:54] Adriana Jinn: i did not talk tonight not so evident for me in english
[13:54] Jeb Larkham: thks Herman...
[13:54] Adriana Jinn: but i will try nex time
[13:54] herman Bergson: That is Ok Adriana
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Apologies I arrive late and have to leave. Time online much reduced. Be good and thanks Herman
[13:54] Qwark Allen: cya tomorow
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:54] itsme Frederix: Adriana .. there is a greater virtu in listening (i've to learn a lot more)
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok jangle ㋡
[13:54] Qwark Allen: happy new year
[13:54] herman Bergson: I appreciate your presence anyway
[13:55] Qwark Allen: abraxas
[13:55] Qwark Allen: m8
[13:55] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: yes i would like to explain myself also
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: ty prof hey my friend :D
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: oops
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: have a good evening all
[13:55] Qwark Allen: so tired today from work, omg
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well Adriana..reread the blog
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: hey my friend
[13:55] Qwark Allen: going to bed soon
[13:55] Qwark Allen: tomorrow again
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: yes i will
[13:55] Qwark Allen: soon to work
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: u better do that yes m8
[13:55] herman Bergson: Maybe then you can prepare a question
[13:55] Qwark Allen: drives me mad
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: I must also go, see you thursday
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: DANKE herman
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: c ya m8
[13:56] Adriana Jinn: the next course is on thursday is it ?
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: sleep well
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bitte Bergy ㋡
[13:56] Laila Schuman: i don't talk much either Adriana
[13:56] Adriana Jinn: i am not sure to have the blog herman
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye class :-))
[13:56] herman Bergson: You are free to participate here the way you like
[13:56] Laila Schuman: but listening to herman has taught me a lot
[13:57] itsme Frederix: Laila but if you do you speak
[13:57] Adriana Jinn: surely
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: bye bye guys c ya all next time
[13:57] Adriana Jinn: i will come for sure
[13:57] herman Bergson: you are most welcome Adriana
[13:57] Adriana Jinn: the next course is on thursday is it
[13:57] herman Bergson: yes..same time ...1 PM PST
[13:57] Adriana Jinn: can you give me the blog herman
[13:57] itsme Frederix: well it was a pleasue being here, see you next time
[13:58] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:58] Laila Schuman: nice to have you Adriana
[13:58] Adriana Jinn: ok thanks