Utilitarianism
In the Ethics class, we’re studying Utilitarianism; I’m wondering whether doing so contributes to overall utility.
In any case, John Stuart Mill is my favorite dead white guy; I enjoy wandering around the room sharing my affection for his writing, spouting quotes like this one on what philosophers mean by happiness:
“The happiness which they meant was not a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.”
Students, by and large, seem to understand Mill and are sympathetic to his views; our discussions have generally been pretty lively and philosophical.
Still, I always feel a little bad when I read Mill since I consistently fail to live up to the standard of Utilitarianism; I realize that I could do a much better job of contributing to the overall pleasure of people in the world.
We read a profile of Zel Kravinsky, who gave away 45 million dollars to charity and then donated one of his kidneys to a stranger; that’s the Utilitarian ideal.
Mill, of course, points out that the vast majority of our life’s decisions don’t affect anyone nearly as much as they affect ourselves and those immediately around us, so we can maximize utility by being good friends, neighbors, and spouses, but I still wonder whether I ought not to be doing more for the world at-large.
One of my students pointed out that Utilitarianism can’t require us ALL to donate to charity because if utility is increased by my helping someone else then if that person gives away what I have sent their way, then utility won’t be maximized.
I’m not sure I agree, but I do think that, in my case, utility is not maximized by my being a Utilitarian.
In any case, John Stuart Mill is my favorite dead white guy; I enjoy wandering around the room sharing my affection for his writing, spouting quotes like this one on what philosophers mean by happiness:
“The happiness which they meant was not a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.”
Students, by and large, seem to understand Mill and are sympathetic to his views; our discussions have generally been pretty lively and philosophical.
Still, I always feel a little bad when I read Mill since I consistently fail to live up to the standard of Utilitarianism; I realize that I could do a much better job of contributing to the overall pleasure of people in the world.
We read a profile of Zel Kravinsky, who gave away 45 million dollars to charity and then donated one of his kidneys to a stranger; that’s the Utilitarian ideal.
Mill, of course, points out that the vast majority of our life’s decisions don’t affect anyone nearly as much as they affect ourselves and those immediately around us, so we can maximize utility by being good friends, neighbors, and spouses, but I still wonder whether I ought not to be doing more for the world at-large.
One of my students pointed out that Utilitarianism can’t require us ALL to donate to charity because if utility is increased by my helping someone else then if that person gives away what I have sent their way, then utility won’t be maximized.
I’m not sure I agree, but I do think that, in my case, utility is not maximized by my being a Utilitarian.
posted by Professor Dave at 8:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home