Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Defense of Utilitarianism
Many on Ricochet think utilitarianism is bad. I understand. I’ve been there myself. But I’m not there anymore.
Now, don’t worry–I’m still Baptist. I still dig virtue ethics, Kant, Confucius, Augustine, and all that. I like Tolkien. I like C. S. Lewis. I like Batman. I’m nearly everything we think is not utilitarianism. But there’s at least one version of utilitarianism that doesn’t deserve most (or all) of the objections people have (or think they have) to utilitarianism.
Now say what you like about Peter Singer–his philosophy likely enough deserves it. Say what you like about Jeremy Bentham–his philosophy probably doesn’t deserve it, but anyway, it is flawed. Don’t say anything about Henry Sidgewick, unless you actually know something. I don’t. I haven’t got around to studying him yet, although I hear wonderful things about him–and what a great philosophy beard!
No, I’m talking about Mill. John Stuart Mill! Before you diss utilitarianism, you should know a few things about Mill. But let’s keep it simple. Nothing too systematic. Let’s just do a few pointers, and a quick question.
Pointer 1: The Golden Rule
Mill said that in the Golden Rule “we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” He says, “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”
Pointer 2: Intellectual pleasure
Mill said that intellectual pleasure is more important than physical pleasure:
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
Pointer 3: Honesty
Mill said that honesty matters in one enormous and wonderful sentence. (I analyze it in a YouTube video below.)
Pointer 4: Liberty
Mill said that, as a rule, liberty and taking care of yourself serve the greater good.
Enough pointers. Now for that question.
A quick question: Don’t you want the greatest happiness?
Utilitarianism says the right thing to do is the thing that leads to the greatest happiness. Now will you do something for me, please? Please think of some principle, some policy, or some course of action in some tricky situation where you think the utilitarian answer is wrong. And then think of what you think is the right answer.
And my question is: Do you think that that right answer is not the one that leads to the greatest happiness in the long run?
I talk about philosophy on YouTube and Rumble. Here’s where you can subscribe to me on Rumble, and here’s my YouTube playlist on Mill’s book Utilitarianism. Some sample videos are below. But the book is better than the movies!
.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
What is worse than the fact that other people might pursue virtue poorly is that some people might become more virtuous than me, and that is intolerable!
Actually, if talking about transcendent truth, the Bible says, For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
This sounds like unbelievable happiness to me.
Autonomy in the usage I was referring to meant being able to direct one’s own life, according to his own conscience and his own values, as opposed to being forced to live contrary to his conscience and values. It also meant to be productive as he sees fit, to work, to gain, and to own and enjoy the fruits of his labors.
If this isn’t autonomy, then I’ll consider a different word.
I can tell the difference but I have no way of convincing a full-moon libertarian or pure utilitarian that my view is any better than his. What do I point to? As the culture fragments under sustained attack, the common referents and consensus disappear. Like you, I have an intuition that there is a shared common-sense sensibility among people but the project here is how to present a formal, defensible philosophical basis for what that intuition tends to select.
When there is no shared understanding, the choice between all-against-all chaos or tyranny is forced on us. The Founders explicitly believed that the freedoms they sought to protect with their constitutional project could not be sustained if we were not a moral people with shared ethical criteria.
It is precisely that shared moral perspective that the left knows they need to destroy and they are doing it. Americans have tacitly admitted that they no longer have a common moral ground to object to drag queen story hour for toddlers or look down on any sexual activities that are not expressly involuntary. Instead of supposed greater freedom in that moral vacuum, we got tyranny–we must applaud “coming out” as whatever and we cannot even express a contrary personal opinion without the threat of sanction.
So even at the risk of moralistic tyranny, we appear to need something more formal than an appeal to gut intuition to reestablish a functioning moral consensus. Reformatting the old Goldwater slogan “In your heart you know he’s right” may not be the winning approach we need to bring our fellow Americans back into a more common-sense moral consensus.
Even in the first half of the 19th century, Americans did not have a consensus view on something as fundamental as chattel slavery.
Some read the Bible and determined that God endorsed slavery and racism. Others found biblical support for the abolition of slavery.
It will be difficult to get a large majority of Americans to listen to various moral arguments if they are preceded by the assertion that if you don’t believe that the God of the Bible that commanded genocide is a perfect moral sage, well, you aren’t a moral person.
If you try to stand on the principles of slavery, genocide and “kill everyone except the virgin women, whom you can take as wives,” don’t be surprised if others start to look elsewhere for moral guidance.
The current approach clearly isn’t working. There’s definitely something wrong with abandoning the shared morality of the past. You can tell by the results.
The above was written by HW.
And he is right in that much of the population of the US has inoculated itself against the Bible and, without wanting to be rude, their all-or-nothing approach mirrors that of some fundamentalists (for all that one man’s fundamentalist is the next man’s cafeteria Catholic).
The thing about the wokinistas is that they are trying to fashion and codify a new list of laws and sins. In the game of neo-religioning, Secular Humanism is small potatoes.
I think many people think the Bible contains both moral wisdom and moral error. I think that is an accurate evaluation of the Bible.
When someone reads in the Bible where God commands people to kill nearly everyone, but to keep the virgin women as wives, they can be forgiven if they think that the Bible doesn’t have a perfect batting average when it comes to morality.
When I ask students if they have any objections to utilitarianism, one of the standard responses is to give a variation of “Utilitarianism tells us we can sacrifice the rights of a minority to make the majority happy, and that’s bad.”
My standard response is some variation of this:
And, if so, how is that “utilitarian”? (Thus endeth the lesson.)
While giving feedback to student paper drafts, I find another utilitarianism-is-for-abortion-rights paragraph. I ask: