Let me unpack what I mean here. Happiness is standing in for Utilitarianism [as you can see 'Happiness' is comparatively user friendly] – Bentham the great grandaddy of this school defined it as the greatest total sum of happiness which has been rather cheaply reduced to the phrase ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ [see Note 2 on Chapter 8: The Greatest Happiness: Is that the goal? in the slim volume Happiness: Lessons from a new science] on the other hand ‘a good life’ is standing in for an even older way of looking at the world – the ancient greeks and romans used to ask themselves just what made a good life…
Socrates championed being true to yourself and your values. If you think that’s an argument for Happiness he took the poisoned cup prescribed for him as not to do so would have broken his own values – hardly something that made him, his followers or even his detractors happy. Socrates thought that a good life was about living to standards – ethics and the one work we see this sort of thing [Plato's Republic] at work – those who cannot live a good life need to be controlled…
Orwell, in one of his essays, attacked the supposed utopia of Swift’s Houyhnhnms as totalitarian of a very dark shade – that those peacefull beasts had to impose constrictions on their very thoughts and speech. Given that utilitarianism had not risen above communism and was still [I believe] a defence of liberty when he wrote his essay he would not have criticized it per se. Now we are leaving utilitarianism behind as a defence for liberty – let folk seek their own happiness as long as it does not harm others to a more pro-active ‘happy’ agenda… where we can discover what would make us happy and then legislate towards that end…
I prefer the idea that we should construct what is a good life built on principles – sometimes the decisions we make which make us grieviously unhappy are the ones we ‘know’ are right. How does that sit with the ‘happy’ agenda? How could you so formulate a world where there are no unhappy choices or to ask another question- how meaningless would that world be?
Just recently on the run up to the Euro and the local elections we’ve had clergy telling us to go out and vote… but what if we don’t like the political reality enough to more than hesitate over the voting slip – and what if we know that before we even get up in the morning… Now I’m sure that Lord Layard [that guru of New Labour] would want us to be happy to vote as much as the clergy.
But to take this as the nutshell to crack the the arguments about with…
I doubt the clergy would expect you to change your internal reality for the sake of the electoral process whereas Layard’s view is much more to do with our internal motivators – in short he would want us to have an internal reality that gave us a kick for expressing our views on the ballot paper…
Now I doubt either of these schools of thought would appreciate my deliberate spoiling of the ballot papers I was given yesterday [Yes - I did vote 'Liberty!' even though I had to write that myself... you'll be gald to know, Dear Reader.] the questions I’m trying to get to are who would be the most displeased with my disposition? why? and what does that mean about how we should live?
In the end various members of clergy would have different views on how I behaved… so I’ll try to stick to the mentality that declared I should get out and Vote! and I’m sure they’d be dissapointed but understanding that I decided my own path despite the diferent values meant a diferent course of action to the one proposed. Perhaps Layard would be happy to know I was happy enough to vote against the entire status quo of the political situation. Perhaps not as it says that positively voting is meaningless in a world that should be seen as meaningful – boxes are to be ticked or crossed.
Layard does argue for electoral change in a world of diminishing turn out – so let’s stop being gentle and take the ideas he promulgates full on. My protest vote would be wrong. I was not happy, for whatever reason, to vote for anybody. In Layard’s world we should either change the choice until I am happy to vote or we should change me until I am happy to vote. Perhaps a mixture of both. What freedom then?
We return to the Houyhnhnms – do we want a society where we cannot express things which disturb the minds of others around us? In this sense I prefer the idea that we should be able to decide what pursuits make us happy but that we should seek to live a good life… We may not be happy but we can be right – not only in our own minds but that we can be acknowledged as having the right to decide what we think that is.
Call me hopelessly romantic [and I'll reply with a very hard nosed reply made from a mixture of anthropology and game theory to defend my view] but I think if we were developped as individuals with a sense of our own responsibility we would not seek to harm those around us. As opposed to the current state of affairs where we are taught there have to be losers and they are to be trampled by the system until they reach a certain low point in which case the government will look after them – so we don’t need to worry our little heads about them…
Well… in a nutshell…
I proscribe to the view that we should endeavour to contribute as much as possible to the entire Happiness Quotient of the universe…
This may perhap make *me* unhappy…
..although I would hope not.
Is Spock my God…?? (the “Mr,” not the “Dr”!)
Is Spock your God… ??
Do you think that Spock would think that happiness is equally worthy to goodness?
Hmm, perhaps not…
Or… well…
Why not?
If I remember the classic sci-fi programme correctly Spock used to say some thing on the lines of this -
For the greater good of the many, few must be willing to be sacrificed…
My problem old bean is that I do not believe that ‘good’ is equalled by ‘happy’ and that was kind of the point of the post – the difference in seeking happiness from goodness… Would Spock have counselled Socrates to take the poisoned cup and be true to his beliefs or would he have wished, like Plato, for Socrates to save himself and continue his life elsewhere?
In short do you believe that happiness is a moral imperative or a nice thing to have but not something you should live by?
Ahh but to clarify my point above…
I believe in working towards increasing the **HAPPINESS QUOTIENT** of the universe… meaning that I believe every individual should work towards the overall increased happiness of all individuals, which may or may not result in any particular individual acheiving the goal of attaining personal happiness.
“the greater good of the many” could be interpreted (IMHO) as being “what makes the majority most happy” – could it not?
That does not necessarily mean that Spock, or any adherents to his philosophy, achieves happiness…
Similarly, was Jesus happy? Are Christians happy? Irrelevant perhaps, but… does following the teachings of Jesus/Christianity result in an INCREASED HAPPINESS QUOTIENT of the Universe…??
Then, Pepsoid, you should take heart in knowing you are an utilitarian… Please check your principles in at the door and take away whatever pragmatic solutions fit your time frame for results…
Jesus talked about joy and how we would know joy from serving him – it was a secondary condition; first follow what you see me do and then, well then you’ll see The Kingdom of God… It was something we could bring into the here and now by our actions.
I believe that Jesus was one for the ‘good life’ in the sense that he did not say that he was to bring happiness to everyone, yes there is comfort to the grieving but what about the ill needing a doctor… a doctor does not do things to make his patients happy – he gets them well, whole.
If you want a good long discussion about whether christianity can be interpreted from a utilitarian point of view or not – then fine – say so and we can dig in… It might be surprising what we find.
Utilitarian…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Yes, you are probably right!
But…
Is “Utilitarianism” not a “principle”…?
Your link is perhaps to a fuller exploration of utilitarianism than mine but I don’t think it differs from what I said at the beginning…
As utilitarianism is concerned with the outcome rather than any particular process or deed I don’t think it is a principle. You can hold it as a principle but that does not make it one.
Take honesty – it is an old fashioned principle it says what you should do and what you should not. Being truthful is good, telling lies is bad… from an utilitarian point of view being honest or deceitful is good depending on outcome. It is this which, in my view, denies it the status of a principle – I’m not saying that utilitarians are wicked but that to say it is the best way of deciding what to do is treacherous in the sense that given a request for your opinion one minute you could be honest and the next lie… and feel morally upright in that you’ve contributed to the greatest quotient of happiness… Of course if you take a long view you might say that being dishonest will always cause unhappiness sooner or later – the two questions I can think of off the top of my head are: Firstly, this is one of time frame – how quickly do you think your responsibility is up? And secondly, how can you decide which answer will cause the greatest amount of happiness over that time frame?
Back to good old Wikipedia! …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
Specifically the 2nd definition…
“It can be a rule or code of conduct.”
So I stand by my assertion that Utilitarianism is a principle!
Moving on…
Yes, I personally take the long view, as may be indicated by my subscription to this blog…
http://blog.longnow.org/
Although I admit it is difficult to answer this question…
“how quickly do you think your responsibility is up?”
I suppose the answer is, “Never!” – but then your 2nd question…
“how can you decide which answer will cause the greatest amount of happiness over that time frame?”
…is very difficult to answer if one is dealing with infinity! I suppose, though, like many issues related to morality, principles, ethics, etc, one has to combine pragmatism with intuition…
(PS. thanks for making me analyse my core “principles”!
)
[...] “To Happiness or a Good Life?” [...]
Well, I’m glad to hear I gave your ideas a good brushing down and clearing out… What a way to move. And, Pepsoid, I’m also glad that you’ve come back on my arguments, but there are one or two points I’d like you to consider and I’ll do this in a very roundabout and depressingly obvious way.
My room is a mess, the table is full – I have to go and I’m still holding the important letter that came in the post [no - nothing important comes in my post] I see a stool. It has a nice user friendly flat top of a traditional stool. I leave the letter sitting on top of the stool and make my way outside…
Just because the stool can function as a table – does it become one? Merely because something can be used for something else does not make that thing.
If you were to go here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
then you’d see that ‘principle’ can be split for utility or morality, and a slight dosing of my queries over the whole utilitarian stance…
Given chaos theory and quantum mechanics it is impossible to determine the effects of an act and the act itself – you can measure an objects position perfectly or its speed but you can’t do both. In this age of globalisation I think acts can be said to have the same curious life in terms of measurability – this reduces utilitarianism to the best guess at the time for the best outcome perceived…
What happens if your idea of happiness wanted you to do something which would make me unhappy [given there is no other harm involved] – who trumps who?
“Just because the stool can function as a table – does it become one?”
Yes! Who labelled the “stool” a “stool”? Labels are arbitrary and contextual. If I label a stool a “table” and I use it as such, then it is, in my perception, a table.
Similarly… (which I think is the point you were making)… if I call my Utilitarian “principle” a “principle,” then I would also say it is one… doing *good* is (in my opinion) *all important*… only I personally equate *good* with *increasing happiness*…
“What happens if your idea of happiness wanted you to do something which would make me unhappy [given there is no other harm involved] – who trumps who?”
No one trumps anyone! Again, it’s subjective and contextual. I – in my mind, according to my *principles* – “trump” you… but you – in your mind, according to your *principles* – “trump” me… it’s all relative! There is no ultimate, absolute, universal, non-contextual “trump”!
But then…
Does religion (generally, or Christianity, specifically) allow for relativity…??
I don’t think Jesus left much room for utilitarianism – and that’s were I’ll leave that [a provocative jab...]
But you aren’t going to get away from ‘trumps’ that easily…
To wit we have a sad person A who in a moment of weakness takes advantage of person B. Afterwards A feels much better and goes off to find their right partner and then has children which are well cared for and happy. B, on the other hand suffers from the encounter and the shock it leaves behind… but eventually most folk tell B to get over it and so nurse their hurt privately…
A has become happier – A’s partner has become happier and so are their children.. therefore = lots of happiness
B has become depressed – but is depressed on own… therefore = less unhappiness than created by A’s imposition….
Note – either gender can ‘take advantage’ of either gender… and this little scenario was inspired by a film which was less wholesome than any of the Resident Evil films for it included the idea that ’sex was a right’… do I therefore have a duty to allow others to take ‘their joy’ when they wish?
Is self defence a ‘trump’ over violent gratification of another? or does it come down to how much happiness over all is created? To put it another way – modern democracy rests on an utilitarian base and when enough republican terrorists were ‘too’ unhappy with the way Northern Ireland was going they blew their top and Omagh’s centre… Was it wrong to lower their happiness quotient by that much?
Labelling objects can be from their use or for their design – neither is necessarily arbitrary. If I have a comfy chair with wide arms and a welcoming seat and because I haven’t tidied up and have some more papers to put down – I put them on the ’seat’ of the chair – does it then become a table? or is it merely being used as a table… how far does something have to be designed for a purpose that it cannot be ‘labelled’ as something else – when it is useless as anything else?
I must confess, I am getting somewhat confused! If you don’t mind, I think I shall direct you to my [“Good” Vs “Happy”] post for further commentary on this topic…