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 ^_^

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

13 A grand total

12 lectures ago we started a quest in Modern Theories of Ethics. We already have seen a number of ways to deal with ethics and moral judgement and in the first lecture is said:

…... to find any coherence in all this, to find an answer on the question "What should I do?" , not just a personal answer, but a kind of generally accepted and justified answer, that will be a huge enterprise.

And now I feel the need to take stock of what insights we have come to so far. Is there emerging some general conclusion. Is there some growing insight of our heading and will we find a haven?


Just for the record: 'haven' is a nice word expressing exactly what we might be looking for. The nice thing about the word is, that it is a Dutch…. the dutch word for 'port'. Must have slipped into the English dictionary in the 16th or 17th century :-)

I think there is already one interesting thing which may help us defining our position: is ethics an individual responsibility, ethics as conceptually justified or is ethics embedded and defined by the social framework we live in.

Here I think of a contraposition of a philosopher like Kant with his Categorical Imperative against cultural relativism also read as moral relativism.

From the lecture on moral relativism I want to store in memory at least the view of Philippa Foot (1978). She holds that words like 'good' or 'rude' or 'brave' not only have an evaluative content, but also a descriptive content.

That means that moral judgements can have truth-value, which means that they can be rationally evaluated. Here I see a link with the "moral point of view" idea of William Frankena.

In lecture 3 I already mentioned the Golden Rule as an example of a moral judgement, that is found in almost all cultures. In my latest lecture I related that idea with the phenomenon of reciprocity, which you see in social behavior of primates.

So my conclusion was that moral relativism or moral subjectivism was not a tenable option. This means that we have to move on to some kind of objectivism in the theory of ethics. The truth or falsity of a moral judgement is not just depending on one's personal opinion.

Here we have reached the quintessential question of ethics: how can we justify an objective (which means: not entirely depended of an individual mind) base for morality. I have committed myself to that.

This opened doors to sociobiology and evolutionary theory in relation to our understanding of human nature and how morality can be a part of human behavior.

That was the moment that I introduced the idea of the "personal philosophical program". That means, that you adopt a number of theories or arguments and regard them as yours.

You don't question their origin but you take it as your philosophical program to put these theories and arguments as much as possible to the test.

So, while we were heading for a naturalistic ethics, we ran into G.E. Moore, who showed us with his "naturalistic fallacy" that we are completely wrong.

Forget it…. completely impossible to translate ethical terms like "good" and "right" into non-ethical terms like "please", "happiness" etc.

And again Frankena shows up. He nicely pointed out, it cannot be assumed at the outset that what Moore calls the naturalistic fallacy really is a mistake of any kind.

The naturalist proposes a certain kind of definition of some moral term and the non-naturalist then simply asserts that anyone who thinks such definitions are possible is mistaken.

But there is no fallacy here. It is a discussion on semantics and as Moore does, claiming that a concept as "good" is an intuition and can not be defined is unsatisfactory.

Thence as moral realists we face a cluster of explanatory challenges concerning the nature of moral facts (how they relate to naturalistic facts, how we have access to them, why they have practical importance).

In this context there was no room for the emotivism as proposed by Alfred Ayer. The idea that moral judgements have no truth-value but are expressions of attitudes.

So far it has shown us that at least my quintessential question in modern ethics is: Is (rational) justification of moral values possible or not. Or stated more popular, can we transcend the"Well, that is your opinion ..... but this is my opinion!" deadlock?

A first step in the direction of an answer is John Searle's idea about metaphysical objectivism and subjectivism. If you want to refresh your memory on that, reread lecture 9.

Finally I discovered in William Frankena is an inspiring source of support of the idea that justification of moral judgements is possible by taking the moral point of view.

So, what is my position in these ethical discourse now? My opinion is that ethical term like 'good' and "wrong" and "right" can be defined in non-ethical terms.

This means that moral judgements can have a factual content of which we can establish the truth of falsity. Thence moral judgements are not the expression of just personal opinions.

Course is laid in ….. ENGAGE!


The Discussion

[13:24] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:25] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: well, not sure what to say
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: i seem to agree with it
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: and am just making sure i do
[13:25] herman Bergson: No..Is a bit like your course Repose, isnt it?
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: and am not just being pulled along in your wake ㋡
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: my course?
[13:26] herman Bergson: no..we were already on the same ship, I guess ㋡
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: suspect so
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: disagree on particulars upon which the verdict is still out
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: nature of matter, deep things that make the natural world
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: social ethic
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: thought a couple of sessions ago of feral kids
[13:28] herman Bergson whispers: feral kids..what are those?
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: can't separate a social from an individual ethic
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: children raised with little or no human contact
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:28] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: ummm...Truffaut (sp?) made a movie of one
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: wow... that could be me then
[13:28] herman Bergson: never the less these children will display social behavior
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: not much
[13:29] herman Bergson: lol...I didnt want to say it Abraxas... ㋡
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: they don't ever really acquire language
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: its not that bad with me
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: but it shows how much we owe to our social environment
[13:29] herman Bergson: nevertheless simple rules of survival will apply to them too
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: mmm indeed
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes, they do
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think that ethics is a social thing
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: maybe the ground isn't
[13:30] herman Bergson: philosophers my dissect it and analyze it and try to reason about it, but to me it is a social thing
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree
[13:31] herman Bergson: ethics is behavior
[13:31] herman Bergson: what a philosopher does is to make this behavior object of contemplation
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: what else would it be
[13:32] herman Bergson: it could be conceptual Abraxas
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: ah sure
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: and behavior is always relational
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: of course
[13:32] herman Bergson: The rationalist approach...ethics is a discovery of the mind
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: We become ethical beings because of our mind
[13:33] herman Bergson: But I prefer to compare use with a group of chimps in a zoo and observe the behavior
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: that's science
[13:34] herman Bergson: and from there I would begin to try to understand the rules
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: which i just note
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Repose, ethology
[13:34] herman Bergson: or ethology>
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...not heard of either ㋡
[13:35] herman Bergson: what is is called in English..Conrad Lorenz is a great name in that field of study
[13:35] herman Bergson: Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: not really sure
[13:35] herman Bergson: And Dawkins goes even further: The Selfish Gene
[13:36] herman Bergson: Ok...we make it an easy class today...
[13:37] herman Bergson: The teacher is ill...huurraaa!! ㋡
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: so students go ape
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: always
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: without any doubt
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: thatks, Prof
[13:38] herman Bergson: A lot of them stayed in the trees today Abraxas
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: your program/project is clarifying for me
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: they missed this tho
[13:38] herman Bergson: Dont know what is the matter today ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: they'll never evolve that way :0
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: me neither
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: press of the holidays, maybe
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: I guess so
[13:39] herman Bergson: Hasnt happen in three years...except when there was a grid issue or the time shift
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm I can imagine this is strong
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...let's see who shows up next Tuesday
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: wow yes even closer to the hollidayts
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:40] herman Bergson: Ah yes....
[13:40] herman Bergson: I make next tuesday the last class before the Holidays…good idea Abraxas
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes i think that might be a goodplan
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes, sounds like
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes indeed
[13:41] herman Bergson: So than you all for your participation ㋡
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: ok I guess I'll go then
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: Thank you both ㋡
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: bye
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: bye my friends
[13:43] herman Bergson: Das war es fur heute ㋡
[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: heute waren nicht viele da
[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: man merkt eben dass bald weihnachten ist :-)

11 The Moral Point of View of William Frankena

Sometimes in your research yo run into a philosopher, who is not one of the standard textbook philosopher. However, his ideas have been influential and important. In American philosophy curricula of universities you see that the works of William Frankena are been used very often. So in these days he still is an often read and quoted moral philosopher. You'll find his important book "Ethics" at http://www.ditext.com/frankena/ethics.html. William K.Frankena, an American philosopher with Dutch parents, lived from 1912 to 1994. The first thing we learn from him is that the main debate in ethical theory at present is about the controversy Action-Based Ethics vs. Character-Based Ethics. What is the primary concern of an ethical theory: should it focus primarily on WHAT TO DO or HOW TO BE? Action-based theories the "ought", what we should do, are primarily teleological. This means, that what we should do is determined by a 'tellos', a goal. To mention a few examples: hedonism regards as its goal: pleasure for me, utilitarianism seeks happiness for everyone. Or you see a deontological approach, which means that the ethical theory focusses on on 'to deon', what HAS to be done, so on Duty. The categorical imperative of Kant is an example of such a theory. The character-based theories focus on how we should be as a person, on virtue. We are already familiar with this action/character based theories since the Greek. Frankena argues that we should not see the relationship between action-based and virtue-based ethical theories as disjunctive, but as conjunctive. Both moral principles and virtues have important roles to play in a complete theory of ethics. Thus, the two types of theories are complimentary not competitive. 
 In his discussion of utilitarianism he says: -quote- we cannot be satisfied with the principle of utility as our sole basic standard of right and wrong in morality (…). In particular, I have contended that we should recognize a principle of justice to guide our distribution of good and evil that is independent of any principle about maximizing the balance of good over evil in the world. (…) we should recognize two basic principles of obligation, the principle of utility and some principle of justice. The resulting theory would be a deontological one, but it would be much closer to utilitarianism than most deontological theories; we might call it a mixed deontological theory. -end quote- So moral action is focussed on bringing about the greatest possible balance of good over evil in the universe. It seems clear, however, that this principle presupposes another one that is more basic, namely, that we ought to do good and to prevent or avoid doing harm. -quote- We have a prima facie obligation to maximize the balance of good over evil only if we have a prior prima facie obligation to do good and prevent harm. I shall call this prior principle the principle of beneficence. -end quote- But to do good leads to questions like what is desirable, good, or worthwhile in life? what is the good life as distinct from the morally good life? what values should we pursue for ourselves and others? What it is all about now is, can we explain moral terms, like good, right, wrong in terms of nonmoral terms? -quote- For example, if one is asked why that was a good concert, one must say something like, "Because it was profoundly moving," which implies that being profoundly moving is a good-making characteristic, at least from an aesthetic point of view. In fact, all evaluations properly so-called are at least implicitly made by reference to some standard or to some set of general judgments about what is good-making or prima facie good. - end quote- And like there is an aesthetic point of view there is, according to Frankena, also a moral point of view. When we say "X is good" this value judgement becomes an aesthetic or moral judgement depending on the reasons we give. "Good" can mean a lot in a nonmoral sense. But as Frankena says: "We also sometimes say that things are good, desirable, or worthwhile in themselves, as ends, in themselves, as ends, intrinsically." In an extensive analysis Frankena shows that not only pleasureless is intrinsic good. He gives a whole list of concepts which can be used as arguments for the goodness of moral judgements. What is intrinsically good is not truth, knowledge, beauty etc. but what is intrinsically good is the contemplation or experiencing of them. All this is obtained by our morality. As Frankena says: "Autonomy seems to me to come in here, as well as the other things just listed, but I should want to add rationality and related dispositions like objectivity and intellectual responsibility too. And perhaps this is where one should mention love again." And what it is all about is how we are as a moral person:"Virtue, as Socrates says in the Meno, is not the power to achieve the good or obtain good things; it is acting justly, honestly, temperately, and, we must add, benevolently." The Discussion [13:21] herman Bergson: So much on Frankena [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: He is very interesting [13:22] Paula Dix: yes i liked very much [13:22] herman Bergson: if you have any question or remark, feel free ... [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: his chapters were easy to follow [13:22] herman Bergson: Yes it is an interesting approach [13:22] herman Bergson: And readable indeed Gemma [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i will read the whole thing when i have time [13:23] Paula Dix: just to avoid confusion: this expression " maximize the balance of good over evil" means lots of good and less and less evil, right? [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: but as usual there are still the questions of good and what is good [13:23] herman Bergson: What is so interesting is that he combines a utilitarian theory with a virtue theory [13:23] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:23] herman Bergson: Well... in that matter is more or less follows in Moore's footsteps [13:24] Paula Dix: i liked that he gives a general view besides his position, i felt situated [13:24] herman Bergson: He doesnt define good, even talks about intrinsically good [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: YES [13:24] Paula Dix: he gives that list of 5 or 6 ways something can be good [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: that is what i camr out of it all with still not a clear idea of good as we are triying to define [13:25] herman Bergson: However, wiht his moral point of view theory he yet gives nonmoral reasons and arguments for the meen ig of good [13:25] Repose Lionheart: so he just asserts the existence of non-moral intrinsic goods? [13:25] herman Bergson: Yes, PAula, where the last on is intrinsically good [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: the intrinsic good [13:26] herman Bergson: Cant be explained he says...you end up in saying "Try it eand see!" [13:26] Paula Dix: no, the intrinsic is the most englobing, isnt? in total? [13:26] herman Bergson: He grounds his view on human rationality [13:27] herman Bergson: Freedom is intrinsic good, as knowledge is and truth [13:27] herman Bergson: If you would deny that, you have to come up with a rational argumentation [13:28] Repose Lionheart: innocent until proven guilty? [13:28] herman Bergson: to say beauty is not good, sounds irrational [13:28] Paula Dix: lol some will say some knowledge isnt good ( i dont agree) [13:29] herman Bergson: The morality of knowledge is not in its content but in what we do with it [13:29] Repose Lionheart: true until proven false? [13:29] herman Bergson: What do you mean Repose? [13:29] Repose Lionheart: don't like his method much [13:29] Paula Dix: exact, to know isnt bad or good. or no, thats wrong, to know is always good [13:29] idanthology Sandalwood: you mentioned love at the last there...how does frankena tie love into this? [13:29] Repose Lionheart: think he needs to ground his assertion of non-moral intricsic goods [13:30] herman Bergson: to answer your question, Idan, I would refer to chapter 5 of Ethics ㋡ [13:30] idanthology Sandalwood: haven't had time to reach that chapter as yet, but i'll get there ;) [13:30] herman Bergson: He dedicates a whole paragraph to that specific issue [13:31] herman Bergson: neither did I read that specific paragraph ㋡ [13:31] herman Bergson: I just loved other parts [13:32] herman Bergson: I had no time to read the whole book [13:32] herman Bergson: But what about his method Repose? [13:32] herman Bergson: What dont you like in it? [13:32] Repose Lionheart: well, he simply asserts that intrinsic goods exist [13:33] herman Bergson: true.. [13:33] Repose Lionheart: don''t find that very satisfying [13:33] Repose Lionheart: would like to see some justification for the claim [13:34] Repose Lionheart: esp. as he seems to ground moral goods in intrinsic non-moral goods [13:34] herman Bergson: But this intrinsic good is closely related to obtaining a balance of good over evil as goal of moral action [13:34] Repose Lionheart: hmm,ok, but don't understand the significance of that [13:34] Repose Lionheart: hmmm... [13:34] Paula Dix: if its a balance, shouldnt be equal amounts of both? thats bothering me [13:35] herman Bergson: What he calls intrinsic good are things that improve a life, create a good life [13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:35] herman Bergson: Primarily should the balance be in favor of the good [13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: i hope so [13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:36] Paula Dix: so it should be in balance of good over evil :)) [13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh....his notion is descriptive [13:36] herman Bergson: Well, Gemma, that is what makes us moral beings, to make an effort to create such a life for oneself and others [13:36] Repose Lionheart: i think i see [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly [13:36] Repose Lionheart: i always go so ontological on things ㋡ [13:37] Repose Lionheart: things [13:37] herman Bergson: I see ㋡ [13:38] herman Bergson: His idea of goodness is not meant to be a property of something like knowledge [13:38] oola Neruda: when Nietzsche talks about looking inside...recognizing and even embracing what is there... and it is often not good... is he getting into ethics or is it a separate kind of thing entirely [13:38] herman Bergson: We experience knowledge as good, as excellent, satisfactory in life [13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes [13:38] Paula Dix: interesting oola! [13:39] herman Bergson: I dont know oola [13:39] herman Bergson: I would say it is more how Nietzsche interprets being [13:40] herman Bergson: Maybe he refers to weakness there [13:41] oola Neruda: separate issue? i am wanting all the parts of philosophy to match up with the other parts [13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol [13:41] Paula Dix: looks to me he says we should accept our bad things also... not necessarily moral i guess [13:41] oola Neruda: maybe the different questions are isolated [13:42] Paula Dix: or it can be moral in the sense that knowing our weaknesses we can deal better with everything, prevent them of being a problem [13:42] herman Bergson: I'll have a look at how Nietzsche fits in in theory of ethics [13:43] herman Bergson: Well, anyway we can say that William Frankena is a discovery, like time ago Marry Midgley was [13:43] herman Bergson: Or was it Margret ? ㋡ [13:43] idanthology Sandalwood: balance of good over evil...he sees evil as a necessary component to drive the good or he sees evil as, unfortunately, an inescapable part of existense & human nature? [13:44] herman Bergson: I would say the later, Idanthology [13:44] herman Bergson: Besides it is a complete new chapter to talk about the existence of evil [13:44] herman Bergson: Fascinating subject tho [13:45] herman Bergson: But I think Frankena takes evil as a fact of life [13:45] oola Neruda: nietzsche [13:46] oola Neruda: too [13:46] herman Bergson: and regards the virtuous person who sees it as his duty to do good as the one who will fight evil [13:47] herman Bergson: Next time we'll discuss the Golden Rule and dig into deontic ethics, duty ethics [13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ok [13:47] herman Bergson: in fact uses Frankena the Golden Rule too [13:48] herman Bergson: You can find that in chapter 6 where he explains his theory of the moral point of view [13:49] herman Bergson: If no one has any questions or remarks anymore, I thank you for your participation ㋡ [13:49] BrainCrave OHare: thank you herman [13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks Herman [13:49] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor [13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday [13:49] BrainCrave OHare: bye all [13:49] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman [13:49] Abraxas Nagy: bye brain [13:49] herman Bergson: We yet missed Q ㋡ [13:49] Repose Lionheart: thanks for the tree, too ㋡ [13:49] oola Neruda: thank you Herman [13:49] Justine Rhapsody: thank you Professor [13:49] herman Bergson: My pleasure Repose [13:50] Abraxas Nagy: see you all next time :D [13:50] herman Bergson: Bye Justine ^_^ [13:50] idanthology Sandalwood: later y'all