Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham.

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher born on the 15^th of February 1748 and passed away on the 6^th of June 1832. Amongst Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham was an influential figure in many other social issues at the time, as he concerned himself with politics, animal rights, and helped develop ideas such as welfarism (the view that the morally significant consequences are impacts on human welfare), and panopticon (an idea which allows observers to observe subjects without the subjects’ awareness that they are being watched)[1]. Perhaps more notably, Jeremy Bentham is also famous for being the teacher of the moral philosopher: John Stuart Mill. [2]  

Jeremy Bentham’s aim was to have a code of law ruled by utilitarianism. Bentham is, perhaps, perhaps most well known in his contribution to utilitarianism is in his theory of pleasure and pain “weights”[3]. Jeremy Bentham developed an idea known as felicific calculus. Felicific Calculus is a law developed by Jeremy Bentham that produces a degree of pleasure attained based on the amount of pain or pleasure from the corresponding action[4]. As a result of this, Jeremy Bentham contended that one can measure the amount of morality given in any act, based on the amount of pleasure it produces. According to Bentham, this is measured by seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, propinquity/remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. According to Bentham, this was achieved through simple mathematics, which the pleasures would be weighed up for one party, and then the pain, and if the pleasure exceeded the pain, it would be considered moral, and likewise if the action produced an overall pain than it did pleasure.

However, in Bentham’s theory, we find ourselves at a dilemma. What is to happen in the case of hypothetical events such as Schadenfreude? What is to happen in events where the society finds immense pleasure from the pain of another? Is the pain of the single individual (or party) to be allowed to continue as it normally would, due to the overall pleasure it produces for the majority?

---

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/panopticon

[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/

[3] Philosophy ½ Notes 2009: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham.

[4] http://www.utilitarianism.com/felicalc.htm

But what is The Good Life?

I present the following ideas of the Good Life, with a semi-Aristotelian basis. Humans are able to rationalize. This is what separates humans from other animals and forms of life. As a result of this, other animals and forms of life are unable to achieve their own personal “Good life” through reasoning, because they lack the skills to reason, in the way humans do. It is because humans are able to reason, that humans are able to discuss such ideas, like the Good Life. Without reasoning, and without thinking in general, how are humans supposed to grasp the idea of “The Good Life”? Is it therefore fair to assume that in the pursuit to acquire the Good Life, one must use his/her ability to reason, to rationalize?

Unlike envisioning a new color, or a new animal (that is not a hybrid of animals perceivable to humans), The Good Life, is a concept that humans are able to grasp (to an extent). Reductio Ad Absurdum aside, it is entirely possible for the human consciousness to build an idea of what the Goof Life is, and to live out these ideas, in pursuit of an individual “Good Life” that will vary from person to person.

The Good Life is defined; in the Aristotelian sense, as “a term for the life that one would like to live, or for happiness, associated (as eudaimonia) with the work of Aristotle and his teaching on ethics.” [1]

I propose a guide to living the good life, a guide that encompasses what I believe are the essentials to living a good life.

1.       Each individual has their own personal maxims on what encompasses the good life.

2.       So long the belief can be logically attained by means of deduction and not values that the belief can lead to a succession of a good life. That is to say, that the belief must be a factual statement, as opposed to a value statement. Only then can the beliefs lead to living a “good life”.
For example:

P1. The good life is defined as a “philosophical term for the life that one would like to live”.
P2. People declared medically dead lack the ability to want, or to live for that matter.
Con. One cannot achieve the good life while one is dead.

This is opposed to a value statement, for example;

P1. There are many poor people in the world.
P2. The wealthy nations have the financial means to end world poverty.
Con. Therefore, the wealthy nations should end world poverty.

3.       As a result of this, it is indeed difficult to find a maxim that will actually lead one to a good life.

4.       Following these maxims will ultimately lead to a good life.

5.       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.

6.       The good life is an activity, not an achievement in the material sense. One does not own a good life, one lives a good life.

7.       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.

---

[1] In Nicomachaen Ethics Book II, Aristotle reaches the conclusion that he who performs his function well can choose his mean, and consequentially, may live out the Good Life [Eudaimonia] as an activity. 

The First Reflection.

I find it difficult to talk about the Good Life, let alone discuss my arbitrary views on it. Similarly put forth by Aristotle[1], I’m feeling a reluctance to discuss such a worldly applicable matter due to a lack of worldly experience, and a lack of life experience. I’m not just saying that out of sheer respect for the philosopher, or for any other people who have lived twice the length that I have, but I feel it is the truth. Looking at it from a biological perspective, when one begins to conduct an experiment, there are many things that must be taken into consideration. There must be an acknowledgment of the variables, and there must be a sample size of a sufficient amount to yield results that make the original hypothesis plausible and agreeable. Likewise, having only lived sixteen years, about 8 of which are able to be recalled, I feel as if such a sample size lacks the sufficiency to allow for any credible reading material.

The Good Life, evidently, is an individual subject matter. One may be wealthy, healthy, but unhappy on the inside, masking it with different shades of joviality. Someone who is worse off would look at him and say, “now that is a good life!”. But an outsider doesn’t see all, an outsider doesn’t see everything, sometimes the individual doesn’t see everything, but that is what makes us only human, and nothing more. The unhappy man thinks to himself in the meantime, “what life is this, this is not a good life. I have money, I have my health, but I am alone in a loveless marriage, I own a company that profits off victims of society. I feel dirty.” Of course, this is purely hypothetical, but it brings out an important aspect that must be considered in the discussion of the “Good Life”; the good life is not a universal standard; the good life is purely arbitrary and subjective.

---

[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I. Haileybury Philosophy Text pg 3 - 4.

Introduction.

The notion of The Good Life has been a question that has been plaguing philosophers since its dawn. What is it? How does one achieve it? Does such a thing exist? Is it universal? Does it matter? This report will attempt to seek out some sort of explanation for the Good Life, and in the process answering some questions such as: what is it? How may one achieve it? This report will attempt to answer such questions by drawing upon personal reflection, knowledge of a key philosophical constructs (in Utilitarianism), an example of utilitarianism in the Superhero, and general background knowledge of other philosophers who had their own ideas on how to live The Good Life and perhaps on how they would respond to Utilitarianism. Finally, this report will be concluded by a personal perspective on the Good Life, and whether it is achievable or not.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical construct most famous for its positing of the “greatest happiness principle”.[1] The greatest happiness principle states that one should aim for the greatest happiness possible for the most amounts of people. However, utilitarianism has varied over time, and as a result, there are many schools of thought beyond the greatest happiness principle with regard to how one should act for the greater good, for the greater amount of people. Such examples include: negative utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and consequentialism. Consequentialism is the idea that only the outcome matters with regard to moral decisions, and not the motive. Rule utilitarianism is essentially act utilitarianism, but rule utilitarianism acts under an unequivocal law that must be followed. Negative utilitarianism seeks to try and minimize sadness, rather than try to maximize happiness[2].

This report will also discuss some philosophical theories put forth by Aristotle and Friedrich Nietzsche. On the Aristotelian front, Aristotle will be sized up against the idea of utilitarianism, and his idea of the mean will be analysed and compared against with respect to utilitarianism. Most of the information provided from Aristotle is derived from Nicomachean Ethics Books 1 and 2. This report will also investigate what Nietzsche believes to be the Good Life briefly, before going into depth on why he holds utilitarians to be “boneheaded”.

A contemporary example of the utilitarian ideal will then be analysed, in the form of a discussion about the modern day superhero, and how he/she has incorporated utilitarian ethics into his/her work. This idea of the superhero then will be put in an Aristotelian view with regard to the mean and achieving Eudaimonia, and then by comparing the modern day superhero to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch.

Ultimately however, the function of this report is to discuss with personal reflection on whether or not happiness can lead to the Good Life, whether it may be morally through arbitrary deduction, or whether one can logically support whether Happiness can lead to the Good Life.

---

[1] Hruschka, J. The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory, Utilitas, 3: pg 165-77.

[2] Philosophy ½ Notes: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Negative/Act/Rule.

Abstract.

This report investigates the nature of the Good Life, to see what it is, to see whether it is more than anything abstract. This is achieved by putting under the microscope a series of philosophical traditions and concepts (utilitarianism and happiness respectively), comparing the concepts against more modern philosophical views (Nietzsche and the idea of the “Overman/Superman”), and putting the concepts and traditions into a contemporary aspect (superheroes and if they can achieve a Good Life), in the attempt to make some sense out of “the Good Life”. It is also questioned to see if the Good Life can be argued for (through happiness among other things) through only strict logistics, without the reliance of moral value statements to interfere. This report finds that it is difficult to even argue logically (thus truthfully) whether happiness (or maybe anything, aside from being alive) can lead to the Good Life.  This report, consequentially, finds that the Good Life must be arbitrary, and it could be suggested that the Good Life may be achievable by following a set of life rules, but on the other hand, the Good Life may be a little absurd[1]. 

---

Philosophy Unit 3: Area of Study 3: SAC 3: The Good Life.

I'll be updating this every day for the next week or two. 
Comment button is there for a reason, criticize at will.