FOR ESSAY GURU

ESSAY 3- ALTRUISM, EGOISM, AND UTILITARIANISM

PALMER, CHAPTER 7

PROF. LEIB- INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY

(DO NOT DISTRIBUTE; REMEMBER THE SYLLABUS QUIZ)

ETHICS • THE STUDY OF RIGHT AND WRONG

• PUT ANOTHER WAY, ETHICS IS THE STUDY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

• “PEOPLE SHOULD BE FAIR IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH OTHER PEOPLE”

• “PEOPLE SHOULD KEEP THEIR PROMISES”

• ”PEOPLE SHOULD NOT CAUSE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING”

• “PEOPLE SHOULD HELP THOSE IN NEED WHEN THEY CAN”

• DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG RARELY DISPUTE THE CLAIMS OF SUCH GENERAL PRINCIPLES; INSTEAD THEY DISPUTE ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION IN DIFFERENT CASES

• “I WAS BEING FAIR”, ETC.

THE RING OF GYGES (PRONOUNCED GUY-GEEZ)

• AFTER AN EARTHQUAKE, A SHEPHERD FINDS AN UNDERGROUND TREASURE VAULT, AND HE TAKES THE RING.

• AS SOON AS HE REALIZES THE RING MAKES HIM INVISIBLE, HE TRAVELS TO THE PALACE, SEDUCES THE QUEEN, AND KILLS THE KING

The Question: What would you do if your reputation was not an issue?

“MACHIAVELLIAN” ANTI-HEROES

JUSTICE IS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE STRONGER

• THRA-SYM-A-KUS ASKS: • WHAT DOES BEING FAIR GET YOU? : “THE

JUST MAN COMES OFF WORSE THAN THE UNJUST MAN EVERYWHERE.”

• “THE INSTITUTIONS THAT ENJOIN US TO BEHAVE IN WAYS THAT ARE TRUTHFUL, HONEST, FAIR, EQUITABLE, OPEN, HELPFUL, AND MERCIFUL ARE MANIPULATED BY THOSE IN POWER” (PALMER, 260).

• BEING UNJUST IN YOUR AFFAIRS MAKES YOU “SMART.”

“Each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage…And they declare what they have set down—their own advantage—is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds” (Palmer, 259).

JUSTICE IN ITSELF • SOCRATES SAYS THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF ‘GOOD’:

• A ‘GOOD’ IS SOMETHING HUMANS WANT FOR LIFE • 1) GOOD IN ITSELF – PLEASURES; THINGS GOOD JUST

TO HAVE

• 2) GOOD FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES – HEALTHY DIET; ONLY GOOD FOR SOMETHING ELSE

• 3) GOOD IN BOTH WAYS- HEALTH

• GLAUCON WILL GIVE A SPEECH ARGUING FOR 2), THAT NO ONE CHOOSES JUSTICE WILLINGLY, BUT THAT THEY DO SO OUT OF FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES FOR INJUSTICE

1 23

SOCRATES’ COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THE SHEPHERD

• (NOT GIVEN IN PALMER)

• BUT, WHY DOES THE SHEPHERD PROTECT HIS FLOCK?

• THRASYMACHUS: FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY!

• SOCRATES: IS THIS WHAT MAKES HIM A SHEPHERD SPECIFICALLY?

• NO, HE PROTECTS THEM BECAUSE THEY NEED PROTECTION.

EGOSIM, NOT EGOTISM! (PALMER P. 266) • EGOISM: AN ETHICAL POSITION THAT PUTS THE SELF AT

THE CENTER OF ANY QUESTION THAT ASKS, ‘WHAT’S BEST FOR ME?’

• 1) PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM: THE CLAIM THAT ALL ACTIONS ARE MOTIVATED BY THE GOOD TO ONE’S SELF

• 2) MORAL EGOISM: THE CLAIM THAT ALL ACTIONS SHOULD BE MOTIVATED BY THE GOOD TO ONE’S SELF

• THRASYMACHUS BELIEVES IN BOTH 1) AND 2): IT IS A ‘FACT’ THAT PEOPLE LOOK DO OUT FOR THEMSELVES NATURALLY, SO THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING- IS THIS A GOOD ARGUMENT? WHY?

• SOCRATES BELIEVES IN 1) BUT NOT 2) BECAUSE PEOPLE OFTEN DON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR THEM

Moral Egoism is the ‘lowest’ kind of ethics because it does not think of other people at all.

It separates the good of the individual from the good of society.

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A SELFLESS ACTION?

• PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM WILL LOOK AT EVERY KIND OF ACTION AS SOMEHOW BENEFITTING THE PERSON DOING IT

• PALMER, P. 269 GIVES A LONG LIST OF TRADITIONAL ETHICAL EXPLANATIONS THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO EGOISM: • GUILT, REPUTATION, CLEAR CONSCIENCE, SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT,

ACTING IN ORDER TO GET AHEAD, PLEASURE

• IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM IS NOT TRUE

• MAYBE FOLLOWING OUR ‘CONSCIENCE’ SIMPLY = DESIRE TO BE LIKED, OR THE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT

Aren’t most of our actions selfish?

IS EGOISM IS A KIND OF HEDONISM?

• THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) ARGUES THAT EGOISM BOILS DOWN IN ALMOST EVERY CASE TO A KIND OF PERSONAL BENEFIT; THIS IS A NON-FALSIFIABLE CLAIM (P. 270)

• HEDONISM: THE ETHICAL POSITION THAT PUTS PLEASURE AT THE CENTER OF EVERY ACTION; IT IS THE MOTIVATION AND GOAL

• IF IT IS GOOD, OR PLEASURABLE, FOR ME I SHOULD DO IT

This seems quite far from what we typically think of as ethical...

ALTRUISM

• ALTRUISM: THE OPPOSITE OF EGOISM & THE KIND OF ACTION EGOISTS DENY EXIST

• ANY ETHICAL POSITION THAT PUT THE NEEDS OF OTHERS BEFORE THE NEEDS OF ONE’S SELF FOR WHATEVER REASON

OUTCOME-BASED ETHICS: UTILITARIANISM, P. 272

• FOUNDED BY JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832), DEVELOPED INTO ITS BEST FORM BY JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)

• OUR FIRST MODEL OF SAYING ‘HOW’ WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH OTHERS, HOW WE SHOULD USE OUR ALTRUISM

• A FORM OF ‘CONSEQUENTIALISM’ THAT ASK ‘HOW MUCH HAPPINESS THIS ACTION WILL BRING, AND TO HOW MANY PEOPLE?’

• THE ‘PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY’ SAYS: ONE SHOULD MAXIMIZE PLEASURE AND MINIMIZE PAIN FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN A

DECISION

For instance, if you had to save Morgan Freeman or a serial killer from a burning building, how would you decide which? You would apply the principle of utility & ask how many people would receive pleasure and avoid pain (and how deeply) as a result of choosing to save one or the other. Most choices are not so simple....

JOHN STUART MILL, P. 274

• THIS IS EASY WHEN CHOOSING BETTER QUALITY THINGS (SAY, AN EXPENSIVE FOREIGN CAR OVER A CHEAP DOMESTIC ONE) OR WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO GET MORE OF SOMETHING GOOD (TWO BURGERS BRING MORE PLEASURE THAN ONE), BUT HOW DO WE CROSS-COMPARE PLEASURES?

• FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO WE WEIGH GOING TO A MUSEUM VS. EATING A WHOLE CAN OF PRINGLES (YOU CAN ONLY DO ONE)

• SOME PLEASURES ARE DEFINITELY MORE WORTHY OF CHOOSING THAN OTHERS

• PALMER 275: WOULD YOU ’CASH OUT’ YOUR SHAKESPEARE EDUCATION FOR AN EQUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF BEER?

• MILL ARGUES: PLEASURE MATTERS, NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF QUANTITY (LIKE INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY, PURITY, ETC.) BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF QUALITY.

• ONE PLEASURE IS OF HIGHER QUALITY THAN ANOTHER IF SOMEONE WHO HAD EXPERIENCED BOTH WOULD OBVIOUSLY CHOOSE IT OVER THE OTHER

• MILL: “THE UNCULTIVATED CANNOT BE COMPETENT JUDGES OF CULTIVATION” (P. 276)

BENEFITS OF UTILITARIANISM AS A SYSTEM OF ETHICS • ITS IMPARTIALITY: EVERYONE WHO HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME

(IN PRINCIPLE) COUNTS EQUALLY. FOR MOST CHOICES, THE AGENT’S OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCES OR HISTORY DO NOT COUNT FOR MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE’S.

• IT JUSTIFIES CONVENTIONAL MORAL WISDOM: SLAVERY, RAPE, AND HOMICIDE ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY MAKE PEOPLE (VERY VERY) UNHAPPY, SO THEY ARE HARD TO JUSTIFY (THOUGH NOT IMPOSSIBLE).

• IT OFFERS MORAL FLEXIBILITY: UTILITARIANISM CAN EXPLAIN WHY SOME MORAL PROHIBITIONS (AGAINST LYING, STEALING, ETC.) MAY SOMETIMES BE BROKEN. DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES- NO ACTION IS EVER OFF-LIMITS COMPLETELY.