In the reading by John Stuart Mill, we are led down a rabbit
hole of political theory on individual happiness called, “Utilitarianism.” This theory begins:
“The creed which accepts as the
foundation of morals, utility, or the greatest happiness principle,
holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (p. 329)”.
Mill
describes a world where people are free to pursue happiness, so long as they
abide by “The Golden Rule” (“Do unto your neighbor as you would do unto
yourself and love your neighbor as yourself (p. 355)”. They never have to worry about tomorrow
because they are so full of happiness today.
They don’t have to fix the world’s problems because Utilitarianism will
make sure that those needs are handled as well.
Laws and social arrangements are enacted only with the best interests at
heart.
However,
he argues that the concept of promoting the general welfare in favor of the
individual happiness is misled. There is
a great emphasis placed on the natural good of people and how we don’t need to
create systems of government that restricts us because people are naturally
moral and only want what’s good and will bring the most joy to people.
But what is “the most happiness”?
How is this defined? Whose happiness is
more important: yours or mine? E. F.
Carritt asked this same question in his selection. How are we to put happiness on a scale? “There is no scientific criterion which would
enable us to compare or assess the relative importance of needs of different
persons, (p. 341)” writes Hayek. Carritt
follows with, “I may be unable to say whether the smell of roasting coffee or
of bacon fried gives me the greater pleasure (mixed with some pain of appetite)
even at two successive moments (p. 341)”.
At this very basic level, we can
already see a flaw in the arguments for utilitarianism. Carritt goes on to discuss two more points.
First, that Utilitarianism doesn’t account for a system of justice, one that is
decided as not necessary since it is better to sacrifice an innocent who
committed no crime than upset more people by convicting the correct killer. Mob Rule. Finally, he discusses how happiness
remains scaled towards the majority, noting that the art of cooking receives
less honors than that of ballet, banking on the idea that ballet will make more
people happy than cooking. By the very
idea of a hierarchy of pleasure and mob rule, Carritt successfully debunks the
main theories of Mill’s arguments for Utilitarianism.
-------------------
Grade: 10/10
Professor comments: None
No comments:
Post a Comment