TPQs (9/26) Group 3 Posts, Group 4 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[ma...@lclark.edu]

Questions

1. Bentham argues that the principle of utility should be used in government as tool to decide what is best for the community.  Bentham describes specific circumstances and steps in order to discern what action would bring the most happiness.  This process may hold up for individuals deciding what would bring them the most happiness, but would the same process for the same action result in the same conclusion for different people?  It seems very possible that people could have different opinions about what brings more happiness, or good to themselves and to the community. Does the principle of utility guarantee that all members would agree over what course of action would result in the most happiness for the whole community? 

2. Mill makes the distinction between higher and lower pleasures stating that higher pleasures are of a greater quality.  The higher quality can be seen simply through the fact that most people would rather choose the higher pleasure over a greater quantity of the lower pleasure.  Are there any generalizations we could make about higher pleasures that define what about them makes them of a better quality besides the simple fact that more people desire them? 

[jshaw]

1. I thought we already went over the idea of relativism..

2. Would "a sense of dignity" be a "more appropriate appellation"?

[co...@lclark.edu]

1. I don't think the principle of utility guarantees consensus. But it does offer a clear response to anyone who is upset. ie: the aggregate happiness of the community is increased, even if yours is decreased. But i do think you make a good point that this response wouldn't be very compelling to person who is forced to fight in the Colosseum for the pleasure of everyone else.

2. The definition of higher pleasure probably needs to stay pretty vague. In order to capture a concept as nebulous as "pleasure" the definition has to incorporate a lot of differing hard cases. However, Mill does offer some specific tests to judge a higher pleasure, such as a person knowledgeable in the field in question has more insight into higher pleasures than the layman.

[estanbro]

I also do not think the principle of utility guarantees consensus if you look at it from the narrowest view possible, the individual person. While most of the community may be in favor of hot dogs, you yourself (as a community member) may be in favor of hamburgers. What if we change the way we define things though? Let's say that 10 girls form a basketball team. They vote on wearing long or short socks. 6 of the 10 vote for long socks. At the individual level you may say there is no consensus, but as a team compared to another team, a consensus about long socks has been reached. Another example would be an individual deciding whether he should drink water or soda for lunch. While his stomach says water, his brain says soda. He then turns to his heart, which says soda, so he drinks a soda. Although different parts of the man wanted different things, eventually his body came to a consensus if you will, and the man as an individual (made of many different parts) drank a soda. Therefore it depends on how lose you are with the term consensus.

[leep...@lclark.edu]

Bentham, in the very last section of The Principle of Utility, sets up seven criteria by which happiness can be evaluated. Given that he talks about happiness in terms of duration, intensity, and certainty, he operates under an understanding of happiness as quantifiable. This mathematical approach, by which a person could go down the list of the seven criteria if she were trying to decide between two things and assign a number to each, seems to take away the relative nature of happiness. Does a person whose favorite flavor of kool-aid is grape receive the same quantity and quality of pleasure as a person whose favorite flavor of kool-aid is cherry, when they are both drinking cherry? Can happiness be quantified in terms of numbers?

[Maggie McQueston]

How can we asesss utilitarianism in terms of detirminacy, consistency, aplicability, internal/external support, explanatory power, and publicity? What are it's weakest points? Do Mill and Bentham address these issues in a useful manner? How does utilitarianism compare to egoism? How can we apply thought experiments to utilitrarianism? Are these effective?

[hwhi...@lclark.edu]

1. I don't believe Bentham necessarily calls for a consensus to determine the overall happiness of the whole community. Instead I believe that he asserts there will be an objective overall good for the community it will simply be difficult to determine and require long analysis of the overall state of the community. Perhaps this theory insists that there be a strong obedience to or at least dependence on authority (something many of us may find unappealing and risky in a moral theory). Nonetheless it wouldn't depend on a completely authoritative assertion of the greatest good because such a thing could be democratically determined and still wouldn't require complete consensus.

2. Mostly the distinction between a hedonistic pleasure and a "higher" pleasure rests in the duration and degree to which good arises from an action. It includes the several factors that apply to Bentham's definition of Utilitarianism. In essence a lower pleasure will most likely take a toll on the individual (independent of its effects on others), taking for example shooting up a ton of heroin, whereas a higher pleasure will take a lesser toll on the individual. However one may argue that studying through the night for a philosophy exam will take a severe toll on the human even though it appears to give a higher good than sleeping.

[nse...@lclark.edu]

Bentham seems to use happiness quite liberally in his explanation of the Utility Principle. When Bentham defines utility at the beginning of the passage, he argues utility to be "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this in the present case comes to the same thing)" and goes on to describe the avoidance of the opposite of happiness. The relevance of this quote to the question at hand is this: happiness seems to encompass anything, or any means, that will eventually lead to pleasure or happiness as an end. The way I understand Bentham's mathematical approach, the value of each person's pleasure would be calculating using the seven circumstances at the bototm of page 113 because the situation involves more than one individual. Bentham himself does not address quantity and quality, however, taking Mills' argument into account, the more desirable pleasure would be determined by the majority having a preference for one kool-aid flavor. In this sense, happiness is quantifiable more for argument's sake than for the purpose of comparing two people's pleasures in drinking something if one person happens to like it more. Utilitarianism deals with the net of the pleasures or pains whatever group of individuals to determine whether an act promotes happiness or unhappiness.

[gru...@lclark.edu]

In reading Bentham's argument for Principle of Utility, I could not help but receive a temperamental tone expressing knowingly false conviction. The chapter begins with fairly concrete definitions, guiding the reader through the properties of utility and distinguishing attributes amongst pain and pleasure, but so quickly jumps to criticize those who may be critical. He is applying a mathematical formula to pleasure and pain that are not necessarily so concise, which he briefly acknowledges as a possibility, but only as a means of eventually discrediting the perception and awarding it to only those who are extreme in their disregard of consequences.