Christian views on current news, Australian style
Archives
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
February 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
November 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
Atom Feed
Blogs I Frequent
- Evangelical Outpost
- Intelligent Design the Future
- Australian Christian Lobby
- Instapundit
- Verum Serum
- Jivin Jehoshaphat
- Mark Steyn
- Hugh Hewitt
- The Corner
- Iraq the Model
- Prosthesis
- Dawn Eden
- Belmont Club
- Imago Dei
- The Pearcey Report
- Tim Blair
- Powerline
- Opinion Journal
- Life Site news
- Cox and Forkum
- Scrapple Face
- Creation Safaris
- Telic Thoughts
- Right Reason
- Parableman
- Intellectuelle
- Stand To Reason Weblog
- Post Darwinist
- The Pandas Thumb
- He Lives
- Creation Safaris
Sitemeter
2.6.06
More On Utilitarianism
After my previous post on it, I have been thinking more about Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, one of the big names in bringing utilitarianism to the fore, based his support for it on one thing the idea that "everyone in fact does act for pleasure, for themselves or others". There seems to be a couple of obvious problems with this.
Firstly, if we take it at face value, then every act is done for pleasure of the person or other persons. Yet this means that the term 'acting for pleasure' becomes meaningless as it is impossible to not 'act for pleasure' (much the same is the statement that everyone acts out of selfishness).
Secondly, if people all act for pleasure, then why is that a valid reason to define pleasure as the basis of goodness. It is like saying that everyone acts selfishly, so we should all act selflessly. Not only is it an irrational progression, but it also ignores the is-ought problem. That is, just because something happens in a certain way does not mean it ought to happen that way in the future.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, June 02, 2006
Comments:
<< Home
It is strange contemporary trend to say that any universal statement is meaningless simply because it is universal. So, if I say (wrongly) that "everyone always acts for pleasure", it is meaningless; and if Freud says, "the unconscious mind is always at work", it is meaningless; and so on. But these expressions have meaning, and they say things that are significant.
Psychological hedonism might be wrong at times. Sometimes I perform actions which don't produce any happiness, and which are not the result of happiness. (I just turned my head, for instance, with little discernable contentment involved.) But it is right enough for utility's purposes.
You're right to point out that happiness does not have any intrinsic moral value. Rather, it is the tendency of certain acts to produce greater happiness among self and others which has defeasible, instrumental moral value.
Post a Comment
Psychological hedonism might be wrong at times. Sometimes I perform actions which don't produce any happiness, and which are not the result of happiness. (I just turned my head, for instance, with little discernable contentment involved.) But it is right enough for utility's purposes.
You're right to point out that happiness does not have any intrinsic moral value. Rather, it is the tendency of certain acts to produce greater happiness among self and others which has defeasible, instrumental moral value.
<< Home
