Satyr 1

Hey Lichanos,

I am not a moral philosopher, so I generally defer re this aspect. But I will try to enter that realm for a moment. In my view, reading ‘Utilitarianism’, Mill’s philosophy is essentially ‘do unto others as you would have done unto yourself’ - which after all is said and done is the golden rule pretty much everywhere. Really all he asks is that we treat those in our immediate vicinity with decency - and the measure of this decency is the other person’s happiness. It is really a rule of thumb, as much as anything. If one de-absolutises Mill - philosophy courses tend to demand everything be cemented into place, be hard, and inviolable, and then pour scorn when a philosophy doesn’t reach that high standard (which of course none does) - as I was saying if one de-absolutises Mill one is left with pretty much what we do, or what we might easily see as reasonable to do - that is, treat our family and friends and work colleagues well, and try and keep things chugging along happily.

Mill suggests that few of us have the means to expand that capacity to a broader sphere, but when we do we should also act for the happiness of others.

This should be contrasted with acting to make others virtuous - that has often involved burning people at the stake for violating natural laws or God’s law - the laws of virtue.

Yes, it is possible we have not moved much beyond Plato and Epicurus, but not because we are deficient, but because they represent two key principles of human behaviour. I do not know much of other philosophical traditions, but it would interest me to know whether they have additional fundamental principles to add to this list of two.

That the two ideas meet is probably undeniable - the truly virtuous character will be happy and the truly happy character will be virtuous. The life they lead will also look pretty much identical. Whether that is ‘the good’ I can’t say, but I suppose it is - though good carries with it a moral aspect that might be absent from utilitarianism - it’s just that util takes us to the same place as virtue. In virtue that place is the good, as I understand it. In util, I really don’t know. Anyhow, all said and done, it is more or less the same place, the same kind of life, with the same ambitions.

Where Utilitarianism is strongest, in my view, is in the sphere of political philosophy. I think it is hard to argue against the proposition that the government should act in a way to maximize happiness. What the formula might be for that will differ from one society to another. That is to be decided by the electorate. Where I live it is compulsory for all eligible voters to cast a vote - this is in order to help ensure we get a true reading of the population’s wishes.

Actually my nation was effectively set up by Utilitarians during the 19C, and so, in my view, we are far more Utilitarian at a political philosophy level than eg the US. The Utilitarians wrote our early constitutions, developed our institutions, and were so dominant that, oddly, we here have forgotten there could be another way, and so have also forgotten the influence of their philosophy. One tiny example of their influence is that my nation contains the first polity to give women the vote combined with the capacity to sit in parliament. New Zealand, the other nation set up by Utilitarians, was the first nation to give women the vote. Utilitarians were very strong advocates for women’s representation right through the 19C.

In my nation we tend to look to government to act to remedy problems - we have for example a national health care system which adequately supplements the private one. We encourage private enterprise but accept that things can go wrong and sometimes the pieces need picking up. This is, as I understand it, a different approach from the US where the arms of government - judiciary, exec and legislature are designed to kind of control and restrict each other - in theory a small government, designed to keep out of the way of the virtuous (small-landholding) citizen upon whom is devolved all the responsibilities for self-maintenance, come hell or high-water. The design of our system is to empower government so that it can act in our interests. If they fail we kick ‘em out and get a new one.

Some indicators of success are that we have the second longest lifespan (Japan = #1), are in the top five of the happiest nations, come high in the most livable cities evaluations. The Swiss always beat us, and we are in there with the Scandinavians, but, unlike them we have a very open economy.

Again, thanks for your comments!

Oh, yes, and utilitarianism does not tell you what will make you or others happy, so you and they get to choose that - that is where education comes in, and any other philosophy etc. At the moral philosophy level I see util as a kind of meta-philosophy. The rest is up to you, and me. But util provides the space, and the fundamental rule that whatever philosophy you and I do choose to live by it should not be one that involves harm to those (reasonably) within our sphere of influence. It is true that util goes further than advocating merely avoiding causing harm - with its suggestion that we should act for others’ happiness. This is a little dodgy - a nice sentiment, but perhaps enslaving. However, again, philosophy professors tend to create from this idea a stricture that becomes absurd. if we chill a little bit in its application it becomes much more sensible. If we meditate all day, and this drives our nearest and dearest insane, then maybe its time we moved on, or sought some accommodation of each others’ needs. Anyhow, as I say, I think util is less problematic at the political philosophy level than in its moral philosophy. Every moral philosophy is deeply problematic!

It is worth remembering that the space to choose one’s actions and philosophy freely has not always been available in Western society, I think, and I think it is arguable that it is Util that gave us this space, or at least helped to do so.

By the way, I am not a utilitarian. But I do think it has some good points. The rest I don’t bother about too much. I know of no system of morality that can stand close scrutiny, though to my mind util is more defensible than many. I am opposed to any political system or moral philosophy that advocates or results in doing harm to others as an intrinsic and necessary part of its creed. That includes ones that are too passive in the face of the suffering of others, even where that suffering is not an intrinsic result of the philosophy itself. I very strongly believe both moral and political philosophy should enable people to live as full a life as possible according to their own needs and desires without interference from others. We are back to ‘do unto others…’.

By the way, I am going to Munich in a few weeks, where I will see, for the first time, this incredible sculpture.

Oh, I have just thought, I have in the past proposed to myself a third idea - that is the idea of energy. Blake spoke of reason and energy, but I am not so sure my idea of energy is the same as his. Nevertheless, I have cast around in my mind for what a political and moral system that enhances the expression of human energy would look like. I prefer to think of it in terms of a society (that might be upcoming) where all basic material needs are met. My favourite thing in all the world is human energy, animal energy too, maybe. But human energy is the core of everything. How to liberate that? I think the era of self-interest has done a very good job of it (util is based on self-interest, in tandem with classical and later economics). But maybe there is more? I don’t know. All I know is that ‘energy’ does seem to be a third principle.

Contrary to the idea, morality is, I suppose, the harnessing of energy in particular ways, to prevent it being destructive. Still, I wonder if there is the possibility of finding a higher principle at work here. Again, contrary to the idea, is the energy thing really just Nietzsche anyhow - energy unleashed? If it is, then I guess I can live without that one!! But I am sure there is something in the energy idea, something good. I mean, just look at that faun…!