Utilitarianism -
A response from Aristotle.
For
Aristotle, in order for one to live the Good Life, one must abide by his idea
of the mean. The individual “mean” is what one ought to aim at in all
situations. The mean is not what’s contrary to the mean; the mean is not
excess, and the mean is not defect. For example, on the subject matter of
courage, the mean is the courage, while the excess is rashness and
foolhardiness, while the defect is cowardice. Essentially, acting by the mean
(and ultimately, virtuously, as far as Aristotle is concerned) is acting in
moderation with regard to any subject matter. [1]However,
Aristotle admits that following the mean isn’t for everybody. He contends that
the achievement of the mean is for the “rare, noble, and laudable”. Aristotle
doesn’t fail to provide an alternative though, positing that though the two
vices aren’t the mean itself, one should aim at the lesser of two evils, that
one should aim to avoid the vice (whether it is defect or excess) that is
closest to the mean, and thus being able to get closer to the mean, and
ultimately achieve Eudaimonia, or happiness.[2]
Like many
other philosophers, Aristotle held his own views about the conceptions of a
“Good Life”. The basic Act Utilitarian principles are that one should aim at
the greatest possible happiness for the greatest amount of people, through
morally righteous actions. When analyzed and compared to Aristotle, many points
of agreeance and disagreeance can be made. Firstly, in Book I of Nicomachean
Ethics, Aristotle proposed that the flourishing, or the happiness of the state
is more important than that of an individual, so certainly in that sense,
Aristotle would agree with utilitarianism. Aristotle also proposed that we
should aim at actions which are intrinsically good in themselves, rather than
actions whose worth are instrumental to something else. For Aristotle, such
actions will bring more “Good” than the latter of the mentioned.[3]
Of these actions that are good in themselves, Aristotle believed that such
actions included that which is virtuous. Essentially, utilitarianism aims at
the greatest total happiness for the greatest amount through virtuous actions.
However, for Aristotle, an agent is to be only considered virtuous if the man
knows what he is doing, if the man is able to choose what he is doing, if the
man is doing them for their intrinsic worth, and if the man is following the
“five rights”.[4]
In
relation to Utilitarianism, Aristotle’s idea of the mean can apply to living
the Good Life, but if only for the reason that utilitarian involves the
greatest total amount of happiness for the most people through morally
righteous [virtuous, for Aristotle] actions.
Utilitarianism: A
response from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche
holds that throughout the ages, all philosophers have attempted to furnish a
rational ground for morality, they have been trying to depress the emotions,
trying to dull them. Nietzsche posits that moralities should be taken as a
given, that they are the products of circumstances inside various societies,
and should be seen as such. Nietzsche also holds that moralities are not
immutable and not universal, meaning that moralities everywhere aren’t cut in
stone, they are flexible, and are susceptible to change, and even then, such
moralities may not apply to certain societies, because morality is a product of
a particular society[5].
What this means is that while morality may apply and serve a function to a
society at one point in time, there will come a stage where said morality will
be subjected to outlive its purpose in society. Moralities in this state will
be found to be more detrimental to the society than constructive. As a result
of all of this, one can begin to fathom the problem Nietzsche has with
utilitarianism.
Among
many things, Nietzsche described Utilitarianism as naïve and boneheaded. This
in itself already sets up any reader to get a general idea of what Friedrich
Nietzsche thinks of Utilitarianism. A quintessential aspect of utilitarianism
is the notion that everyone being influenced by utilitarianism must be treated
equally. In response to this, Nietzsche claims that this unequivocal rule put
forth by utilitarianism is nothing more than what he would consider “herd
morality”.[6]
For Nietzsche, herd morality is that which is for the weak, for the many, for
the sheep[7].
Like in Christianity[8],
Nietzsche holds Utilitarianism to the same standard, claiming that they are
both “tools for the sheep”, and reduces everyone to the “lowest common
denominator”. Nietzsche was highly against this as this caused a repression for
the few, for the superior, to accommodate for those who are weak, for the many
sheep.
It can be
possibly inferred then, that Nietzsche would criticize utilitarianism for the
idea that it aims to keep the majority in a state of contentment, in a state of
happiness. As a result of this, the herd, or those affected at the very least,
lose what Nietzsche refers to as the will to power, or the “strong and dangerous
drives”. Nietzsche believes that without these “strong and dangerous drives”,
there cannot be any human progress, as the herd is stuck in their delusion of
happiness; the herd is restrained into being “mediocre”.
Utilitarianism -
Personal Response.
Each
individual has their own personal maxims on what encompasses the good life.
The idea
of utilitarianism does not happen to breach this guideline. It is entirely up
to an individual whether to use utilitarianism as an ideal in which to aim at
the Good Life; that is to say, that if one believed that the pursuit of
happiness for the greatest amount of people through morally righteous actions
will lead to a Good Life, then so be it. However, practically, there is a
problem that arises here. The term “morally righteous actions” is nothing but a
mere arbitrary statement, what is morally righteous for one, may be considered
immoral, or even amoral to another person. This is an entirely different debate
in itself though, but in all essence, to claim to act under morally righteous
actions is to claim to act under arbitrary ruling. This causes a problem,
because while the guideline proposes (and encourages) that the maxims be
unique, utilitarianism holds that each individual’s reason for aiming at The
Good Life should be the same, as they are all worth the same [impartiality].
As a
point of reference, this also coincides with Aristotle’s theories when one is
aiming for the Good Life, as Aristotle believes there are many virtues that are
in themselves intrinsic and of noble worth, like courage and honesty (provided
they aim at the mean). As a result of this, utilitarianism can work in the
Aristotelian sense because acting by morally righteous actions are all “good”
in themselves, for the greatest amount of people to achieve the greatest total
happiness.
So long as
the belief can be logically attained by means of deduction and not by means of
values, the belief can lead to an attainment of a good life.
In this
sense, utilitarianism fails because in dealing with utilitarianism and, more
specifically, moral issues, one can only aim to understand them from a
subjective level rather than an objective level. This means that ultimately,
all justifications for “morally righteous actions” are based on value, rather
than truth. This is, perhaps, where I feel that utilitarianism fails the
hardest in application for living the Good Life. That one lives one’s life
according to a set of value judgments, judgments which may potentially be as
far away from the logical truth as possible, and how can one really call living
a life of lies a “Good Life”?
There are
only two states of the good life, one that is a good life, and one that isn’t a
good life.
This is because “the good life” is purely subjective, and it would be fallacious to argue that one’s life is better than another, because the standards are not the same.
This is because “the good life” is purely subjective, and it would be fallacious to argue that one’s life is better than another, because the standards are not the same.
It is
possible for utilitarianism to coincide with this ideal, because utilitarianism
is only a means to live a life, a means to the end that is ultimately, The Good
Life. Utilitarianism also coincides with this ideal, because utilitarianism
aims to be impartial, so that one’s happiness isn’t worth more than another
man’s happiness, and that no man gains priority to attain happiness. However,
utilitarianism only aims to maximize happiness for the maximum number of
people, and this does not imply that all men will experience the same levels of
happiness. Consequentially, this ideal fits as levels of happiness cannot be
compared because each individual is an individual, and their happiness cannot
be compared, because their standards would be different.
For instance, say the maximum happiness
obtainable for two men, called x and y are 80 and 70 arbitrary units
respectively. Given that the two men are different, and have different
standards, it would be fallacious to say that man x has more happiness than man
y (from this information only anyway). This is because man x may have a
personal happiness meter that goes up to 160, whilst man y’s happiness meter
only goes up to 70, and thus man y could be completely happy, while man x is
only half happy. However, even this is not enough, and this may be completely
wrong because the numbers measuring happiness for man x and man y are only as
correct as man x and man y allow them to be. This is because the amount is
purely arbitrary, and it would be fallacious to even conduct this thought
experiment because each man has different terms and conditions for measurement
of happiness (each man’s happiness is arbitrary to that man, and that man
alone).
The good
life is an activity, not an achievement in the material sense. One does not own
a good life like a possession, one lives a good life.
Utilitarianism
can co exist with this ideal, for utilitarianism is, as mentioned before,
simply a means in which one can achieve a Good Life. Utilitarianism is certainly
not “The Good Life”, nor can utilitarianism be owned by somebody like a
possession, it is simply a method in which the “Good Life” may be achieved and
prospered.
In
achievement of the Good Life, an individual cannot interfere with the
achievement of the Good Life for another. Such activities will not lead one to
the good life.
This is
the other flawed area with utilitarianism in terms of living “The Good Life”.
Utilitarianism involves maximizing happiness for the “greatest amount of
people”. This conflicts with the above ideal, as the above ideal implies that
one should not interfere with the attainment of an arbitrary good life of
another person. Acting in a utilitarian sense means acting in a way that
maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Yet, to do so, one must
first understand everyone’s sense of happiness. More problems arise out of
this, as then the question of priority comes up, and in order to attain an
individual happiness, one must obviously perform different actions; an action
that makes one person happy, may very well have the opposite effect on another.
Conclusion
I find that utilitarianism is a practical ideal to look up to in pursuit of the Good Life. However, utilitarianism is flawed in that it is only based on arbitrary views, and that utilitarianism is only a product of value judgments/statements, rather than truth/factual statements. But even when a seemingly convincing argument is put forth by John Stuart Mill supporting the legitimacy of utilitarianism as an ideal, it seems that we are skeptical still, as we question further, in an attempt to try and find a rational solution for something [The Good Life] that may not be humanly possibly at all.
Furthermore, it must not be ruled out that
Utilitarianism isn’t a manual on how to live a Good Life, utilitarianism is “not a simplistic moral principle to be mechanically
applied, it is a long term social project”. This means that utilitarianism
cannot be applied to everyone as an idea to be used like a method, due to the
arbitrariness of everybody. But it is a long term social project, that so long
as everyone acts in a way that maximizes the greatest total happiness, it is also
possible that everyone at the same time develops a flourishing of happiness.
It, however, works the other way as well, as it may also be completely possible
that living a life of utilitarianism will not necessarily lead one to living
the Good Life.
It is also certainly difficult to argue a
logical case for utilitarianism without resorting to the value judgments. A
logical case for a contemporary idea on how one should live the Good Life is
important as it is simply logical. As a result of the logic, one can confirm
that what they are following is the truth, and nothing more. This is opposed to
subjective views. One cannot argue with logic and truth and reasoning like one
would with subjective views, with biased opinions. As a result of this, it is
indeed very questionable whether utilitarianism even leads to a Good Life. Because
then the question arises, can one actually deduce logically and not morally,
that happiness is the means in which to live the good life?
Case Study: Heroes.
The Superhero Reflection.
When one
gives mention to a “superhero”, there are only two thoughts that initially come
to mind. The first being Marvel comics, and the second, complementary so, being
DC comics. And I think it’s funny, because I’m feeling as if I have a very
limited knowledge of superheroes, am I forgetting some ancient superheroes? But
they’re all the same aren’t they? Their drives, their back story, their
inevitable need to follow the utilitarian principle of saving the lives of the
innocent, their need to uphold justice to prevent injustice.
But what
defines a superhero, in the contemporary context?
In the
past decade, contemporary society has been littered with examples of
superheroes. Not just through typical comic books, but the coverage spread
through different mediums. In the past decade, contemporary society has seen
such examples of superheroes most prevalently through the mediums of television
and film. However, it is very important at this stage to define what a
superhero is.
For the
sake of this piece, a superhero is defined as those who are “possessing "extraordinary or superhuman
powers" and dedicated to protecting the public.” As such, examples then of superheroes are; the
friendly neighborhood Spiderman, the entire mutant cast of X-Men, and the cast
of the Watchmen comics. At this stage in time, I would like to state with full
confidence that all superheroes require superpowers. One requires a superhuman
power, rather than an excess of a human ability, to be considered something
“super”. This eliminates conceptions of superheroes such as the Batman/The Dark
Knight as a superhero, as he lacks anything beyond that of a human. Batman is
simply, a vigilante with glorious amounts of wealth. It is also quintessential,
that for a person to be called a superhero, he/she must actually be a “hero”,
in the sense that he/she must be defined by exceptional nobility.
Superheroes
and Utilitarianism/Happiness.
Superheroes,
generally speaking, use their superpowers to serve the general public with
regard to safety issues, and with regard to social protection issues. With this
in mind, it would be a fair assumption to make that superheroes act In order to
serve the greatest number of people; his/her city (or even the World, at some
stages). In saving the citizens, a superhero manages to not only rid the saved
place of danger, but the superhero potentially saves all of the lives of the
people residing in the, now saved, town. As a result of this, would it not be
fair to say that the superhero has extended the life span of the saved
citizens? And consequentially, this extended lifespan can lead to two more
things: happiness (arguably), and a potential to fulfill a “good life”.
In this sense, it
can be argued that a superhero who fulfills his role in saving the citizens of
a city acts in a utilitarian manner, as the superhero can either save cities
with two things kept in mind: “the greatest happiness principle”, or
potentially: the negative utilitarian principle. And, taking a page out from
Immanuel Kant, I do believe that while the superhero is in possession of
his/her power, he/she must perform his/her duty to utilize his/her powers in
order to save the citizens when it is required. It is the superheroes’ duty.
However, while the superhero saving the city may bring upon the happiness for
the majority of the people saved, one falls trap to the fault mentioned earlier
before with regard to utilitarianism: Who is to say that saving the day will
make the superhero happy?
What proof is
there that the superhero’s happiness is in direct correlation of the happiness
acquired by the saved citizens? That is to say: what proof is there that a
superhero gets a proverbial kick out of saving lives?
Nietzsche
on the Superhero From an Aristotelian Stance & The Ubermensch.
Certainly,
the idea of the superhero is one that exists only in imagination and in
fictional movies, but the concepts are still applicable for something (albeit,
something that may not exactly be realistic) that perhaps humanity can aim for
as an end, either morally (or amorally) and evolutionary. However, in
recognition of what a superhero is, with regard to his intentions and the
nature of his actions, his drives, one can certainly discern that Friedrich
Nietzsche holds views that may be in opposition to what the general superhero
stands for.
One of the
key focuses of Nietzsche in attainment of the good Life is the need to go
beyond society and beyond morality, as he posits in Beyond Good and Evil.
Nietzsche’s idea of the “Superman” or the “Ubermensch” is the person who lives
at a standard that is outside of what is typically coined “Good and Evil” by
society[9]. Perhaps for Nietzsche, the average
superhero means next to nothing because the average superhero fails to
understand self overcoming, and while he provides physical safety for his
citizens, the superhero is bound by society’s sense of morality; for, if the
superhero did not agree with the morality posited by society, how can the
superhero even begin to comprehend the reasons behind his apparently noble
actions?
From an
Aristotelian sense, the superhero should be classified as beyond human, should
he not? Generally speaking, superheroes possess powers that are beyond that of
humans. Aristotle posits that in order for one to achieve the Good Life
[Eudaimonia], an individual must exercise his/her unique function. A superhero
has something, has a power that is inherently beyond humans. As a result of
this, a superhero’s function cannot be to reason, because to reason is the
unique function reserved for humans. However, the superhero does have the
superpower. This superpower is unique to the superhero, and to no other
organism on the face of the Earth, based on the correspondence theory of truth,
which bases knowledge on what has been perceivable so far in reality. As a result
of this, we can develop that the superheroes unique function is to use his/her
superpower, and according to Aristotle, to use it well. Generally speaking,
this means that in order for a superhero to achieve a Good Life, the superhero
must use his/her power to help as many people as he can. But in order to help
as much people as he can, the superhero must rely on society to tell him what
is helpful, what is good (so he can promote it) and what is bad (so he can
avoid it and prevent it, remedy it). In this sense, this is where a Nietzsche
may have problems with the superhero.
As a
result of this, what would Nietzsche say about the Superhero under an
Aristotelian context? Certainly then, the superhero, ironically, is very unlike
the idea of the Ubermensch posited by Friedrich Nietzsche. For Nietzsche’s Ubermensch
is one who “forgoes transient pleasure, exercises creative power, lives at a
level of experience beyond standards of good and evil, and is the goal of human
evolution”. Perhaps out of those four criterions, the superhero may only
achieve transient pleasure, exercises creative power, and is very arguably, the
goal of human evolution[10]. However, the superhero does inherently
fail to go beyond the standards of Good and Evil, as the superhero can only apply
societal standards of good and evil to carry out his function. In order for the
superhero to exercise his function well, he must help his society, and this
cannot be done on the superheroes’ terms in the event that what the superhero
perceives as good may cause more damage and detriment to society than what
society thinks of Good and Evil.
For
Nietzsche, perhaps the superhero has the means in order to achieve an
Ubermensch status, but due to their inherent lack of self-overcoming and their
enslavement to the society that they are being held to save. However, perhaps
for Aristotle, it is possible for a superhero to achieve “the Good Life” so long
as he exercises his function well. For Aristotle, one who exercises his
function well is one who is able to choose the mean, and one who manages to
choose the mean can achieve Eudaimonia/The Good Life.
The modern
day general superhero certainly applies some utilitarian perspectives when
acting out, that we can be sure of. However, the big question is still yet to
be answered.
The big question that asks, “What is the Good Life?”;
this big question that seems, hitherto, to only be a myth, an ideal as false as
Kevin Rudd’s Prime Ministerial campaign. There is no question by now that it is
very likely superheroes function under the utilitarian principles, but whether
this leads to a Good Life for anybody, or even happiness for anybody, is yet to
be answered through logical deduction.
Happiness
and The Good Life.
Final Reflection: Happiness and The Good Life, a logical improbability.
Previously in this
report, in this document, it has been touched on before that in order for one
to live the Good Life, one must follow an individual set of rules that are
devoid of any subjectivity. In this particular document, I attempted to use
happiness as an example of a subject matter that one can follow as an ideal to
lead up to the Good Life. But apparently, it is much more difficult than I had
initially anticipated to develop a strictly logical argument linking happiness
and the Good Life. Perhaps in hindsight, it was ridiculous to even suppose such
a thing would be possible. But I will not dismiss it that quickly; I still hold
that it is possible to develop a maxim for a good life that can be argued
through strict logic without falling victim to moral value statements. However,
I think I may have failed in the aspect that I tried to find a logical link
between two subject matters that impose nothing but arbitrary views. Perhaps I
was a bit too ambitious in my pursuit of logic, perhaps, as noted by Aristotle;
I should have just stuck to being as correct as I possibly can, rather than
trying to argue more than the subject matter allowed me too. In a mathematical
context, I feel as if I’m trying to find solutions to equations whose
discriminant is less than zero. Except in the case of mathematics, that would
be unequivocally impossible, because equations whose discriminants are less
than zero cannot possibly have any solutions for the given unknown term.
Some failed attempts.
P1. The Good Life
is the life that an individual would like to live.
P2. Happiness is defined as the state of well being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.
UP1. Satisfaction is a form of contentment.
Con. One cannot attain the Good Life without happiness in some way, shape, or form.
P2. Happiness is defined as the state of well being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.
UP1. Satisfaction is a form of contentment.
Con. One cannot attain the Good Life without happiness in some way, shape, or form.
This has failed,
simply because it has not properly addressed happiness in leading up to the
Good Life, but rather, it has gone the other way and addressed The Good Life
and how it may cause happiness. This is also faulted for the reason that it is
based on a moral value statement, and not a logical statement.
P1. Everything can
be made better by adding happiness.
P2. Happiness cannot be made better by adding happiness.
Con. Happiness is an end upon itself, and we ought to aim for it.
P2. Happiness cannot be made better by adding happiness.
Con. Happiness is an end upon itself, and we ought to aim for it.
This argument is
faulted because it also fails to address happiness in relation to the Good
Life. Also, one can just as easily conclude by saying that happiness is and end
upon itself, and therefore we must avoid it! This is as a result of the
subjective nature of the argument put forth.
The obvious real
problem I’ve found in trying to link happiness to the Good Life logically is
that I’m doubtful whether I will ever succumb to a logical argument where a
reader will find that he will be inclined to believe that happiness is related
to the Good Life. It is at this moment, at these erroneous slices of drivel,
that I realize that perhaps it may be a logical improbability to claim that
happiness can lead to a good life indefinitely.
Conclusion:
The Good Life.
The big question that asks, “What is the Good
Life?”; this big question that seems, hitherto, to only be a myth, an ideal as
false as Kevin Rudd’s Prime Ministerial campaign. There is no question by now
that it is very likely superheroes function under the utilitarian principles,
but whether this leads to a Good Life for anybody, or even happiness for
anybody, is yet to be answered through logical deduction.
In this report, I
have endeavored to find some possible (maybe impossible) meaning in what it
means to live the Good Life. But I arrive, regrettably, at the conclusion that
The Good Life is not some human construct that can be carried out without any
means of thought. How does one even begin to wonder how the Good Life can be
achieved, or how can one even begin to judge what a Good Life is, when the Good
Life is evidently, something that exists only in the eye of the beholder. Even
then however, it is very questionable as to whether one really believes if one
is in a state of living the Good Life? Does someone just know, or is there a
tell tale sign that allows them to accept their life as “The Good Life”?
The idea of
utilitarianism in many forms was analysed in depth to see if it could be a tool
in order to attain a maximal happiness, which would perhaps lead to a Good
Life. Utilitarianism was then put under the microscope from an Aristotelian
perspective, and then a criticism by Nietzsche. The findings on utilitarianism
have been conformational in the sense that it certainly seems like a practical
way to achieve happiness, but it really does fail to address the idea that
happiness may lead to the good life in the logical sense. But nonetheless, it
is certainly an idea that promotes wellness and goodness in that happiness
breeds wellness and goodness.
A case study was
then issued into a contemporary idea that utilizes such a philosophical
tradition: the superhero. The superhero is defined as one who would have powers
beyond humanity, and through Aristotle’s mean, a superhero acting justly with
his powers for society is able to achieve the Good Life, as he is utilizing his
function well, and is thus able to choose his mean. This idea was challenged
against Nietzsche’s idea of the Superman/Ubermensch. Theoretically speaking,
Nietzsche would have seen a superhero as nothing short of a slave, snared by
the morality of his society at the given time, due to the hero’s lack of will
to power, and due to the hero’s lack of going “beyond good and evil”; qualities
possessed by the Ubermensch.
Initially, I had
thought that happiness would lead to the Good Life, but this came across much
more difficult to argue for, strictly speaking with regard to logic. If I am
able to conclude anything, it is this: that the Good Life is arbitrary, and
each person will have varying ideas of the Good Life. As a result of this, it
would be unreasonable to try and assume a logical argument, as opposed to a
moral based argument, because one cannot assume precision in an idea that lacks
any means of potential precision. Like Aristotle suggests, and this is no
different, it would be unreasonable for a mathematician to provide a probable
answer, and it would be just as unreasonable for a moral philosopher to be
expected to argue with more precision than the subject allows for. In this
case, it is the Good Life which is the subject that is lacking in any means of
arguable precision. And thus the Good Life stands, as an ideal still, as an
arbitrary view, a potentially false view to look up to as an ideal. While there many ideas out there that may
support one to achieve the Good Life, it is very questionable whether they can
actually lead to the Good Life or not.
Tony Nguyen
[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 1. Haileybury Philosophy Text
[2] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 9. Haileybury Philosophy Text
[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7. Haileybury Philosophy Text
[4] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 6. Haileybury Philosophy Text
[6] Jackson, R Teach Yourself Nietzsche. London: Bookpoint Publishing, 2008. Pg 61
- 63.
[9] Victorian Association for Philosophy in
Schools Website. http://www.vaps.vic.edu.au/vceresource/nietzschevceresource2008.doc
[10] Victorian Association for Philosophy in
Schools Website. http://www.vaps.vic.edu.au/vceresource/nietzschevceresource2008.doc
No comments:
Post a Comment