philog: philosophie sophiste

 Compare utilitarianism with the moral theory of universal eudaemonism

Introduction: happiness as the “supreme good” and Ethics

From the early times of Greek Philosophy to our times, every philosopher has tried to seek the way for having a “good life”. A good life, according to the overwhelmingly shared conception of the Supreme Good stated by Aristotle in the books I and X of his Nicomachean Ethics, is concerned with happiness: a fundamental hypothesis every philosopher pre-supposes is that every human being seeks happiness. Then, every our actions are aimed in this way even if everyone has its own way to reach it. Furthermore the notions of Good or right are defined in its relation with happiness: what is good is what leads to happiness. What is right is what you are supposed to do to reach happiness and let the other a chance to do so.

Ethics is the field of Philosophy which is concerned with what is right or wrong, Good and Bad. Therefore it asks such question as:

What are Right and Wrong? What determines whether something is right or wrong? What is morality? What is it based on? How can we determine what is moral and what is not? Are goods all moral? Why be moral? Can we live a good life without morality?

 Here we are going to compare two ethical systems: Utilitarianism and the moral theory of universal eudaemonism. But, we will try to argue that although they are two anthropocentric systems of ethics, they differ considerably. One seems to lead to the production of a transcendent morality whereas the other leads to an immanent ethical system not based on a moral norm. Finally, we will ask the relevance of an anthropo / theo-centric division of ethical systems and try to replace it by an immanent – transcendent division.

In order to compare these ethical systems, we have to define such notion as Ethics, morality and see how they are connected to the immanence/transcendence problem.

Morality: a transcendent “ought to”

Morality is the idealistic concept which determines what is right or wrong to do in order to have a good life. Following is that moral have a considerable impact on our actions: we obviously have to decide whether to be moral or not and thus it creates an a posteriori effect on us: it creates the feeling of culpability if we doubt having acted morally. Therefore, it seems to be very important to know what morality is and what it is based on.

Let’s begin with the difference between a moral good and a non-moral good in order to define morality. What is the difference between a moral good and a non moral good?

 <Studying> is good because it provides you with education, some social relations, diplomas…  But you do not have to study. You can choose another option such as <working>. Valuation of these two options depends on time, on persons and on situation. Thus if you do not study, you should not feel culpability for it because you could have chosen some others options such as working.

With this example we can define a non moral good as a good depending on the subject, on time and on situation. Thus it is not universal. In one word, it is immanent that is to say that something good for someone is not necessarily good for someone else. And something good at time T is not necessarily good at another moment. And finally something good in one situation is not necessarily good in another situation. Following is that a non-moral good is not imperative that is to say that you do not necessarily have to follow it because others option exist. Thus, non-moral goods do not imply any feeling of culpability.

On the contrary, for instance, it is always good, for everyone, in every situation, not to kill someone else. Then <not to kill> is a moral good. There must be no exception to this moral statement: Killing is morally wrong for everyone, in every situation and this forever. And if you kill someone, you should feel culpability for it because you know that it is not morally right and you should have act differently.

From an absolute ethical point of view, morality is universal that is to say not to be dependant on situation, on time, nor on the subject. As R. E. Creel says “morality ultimately has something to do with what is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone”[1]. Something universal is something that applies in the whole universe, at every time, for everybody. Thus universal is another word for transcendent. Thus a moral good is something that is generally and always good without exception. Therefore a moral statement is imperative that is to say that you must act morally. It takes the form of an imperative “ought to”. There is no other good option. Then the “good” becomes the “right”. Furthermore, this morality implies the feeling of culpability when you did not choose the moral choice.

To sum up, morality is transcendent, universal, and imperative and thus implies the feeling of culpability in the case of morally wrong actions. Moreover moral is normative, that is to say that it create a norm, something we have to conform to.

But what morality is based on? What makes something to be morally right or wrong?

Fundaments of morality: the source of transcendence

Meta ethics is concerned with the fundament which makes an action to be ethically right or wrong. There are two main theoretical streams in Meta ethics: the theocentric theories of Ethics and the anthropocentric ones.

The former, the theocentric theories of ethics are “God centered” [2]that is to say that what makes something to be ethically wrong or right is concerned with God. Whether moral is a “divine command”[3] or is what a “perfect being”[4] (God) would do, it is obviously transcendent and normative. All religion has its own normative code, its own morality such as the Ten Commandments, the Muslim Charia… And God is perhaps the concept the most transcendent of all concepts.

Therefore, theocentric theories of ethics products a transcendent ethical system: morality.  

But, how can we, as imperfect beings, know his commands and his perfection? Moreover, not everyone believes in God and its existence can be doubted. Thus, in order to have a really universal and accurate ethics, God can not be the foundation of our ethical system. As R. E. Creel says: “Ethics is a human enterprise”[5]. It has to be found on human nature as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham and many others have tried. Here comes the anthropocentric ethics.

 The anthropocentric theories of ethics are human-centered that is to say that they are based on human faculties, humankind nature without reference to a supreme being. Thus it has to apply to all human beings and therefore has to be based on a universal, real and common human quality.

So the point in anthropocentric ethics is to find this quality. And this quality makes the difference between all the anthropocentric theories of Ethics.

Here we are going to compare Utilitarianism and the moral theory of universal eudaemonism.

Asceticism versus Hedonism

Utilitarianism and the moral theory of universal eudaemonism can be considered as a confrontation between hedonism and asceticism. Following is that they are based on very different thought system and lead to two very different ethical systems.

Hedonism and asceticism are the two main streams of philosophy seeking the way to happiness. The former recommends seeking pleasure in order to reach happiness whereas the latter considers virtue as the good way to achieve a good life. In almost all the History of Philosophy, there are such antagonist couples like Plato/Epicure, Descartes/Spinoza or Kant/Nietzsche. Each stream has its metaphysical thought and therefore meta-ethical thought system. Concerning Metaphysics, asceticism stream is mainly idealist and dualist whereas hedonism is mainly materialist and monist. These antagonistic metaphysical thought systems lead to two different metaethical and ethical ways of thinking.

Following is that hedonist and ascetic theories of Ethics are based on different qualities of human kind: the former based its on human being as a pleasure seeker whereas the latter based its on the virtues of human being.

The moral theory of universal eudaemonism: the virtues of rationalism, freedom and discipline

            Universal eudaemonism is the ideal of, literally, everyone happiness. It is shared by almost all philosophers and is the goal of every ethical system.

            The moral theory of universal eudaemonism is based on specific human virtues that are required for this ethical system. The central virtue emphasized by the supporters of this theory is the “ability to conceive of an ideal and conform our behaviour on it”[6]. But this central virtue requires mainly three “sub-virtues”: rationalism, freedom, and discipline.

First, rationalism is required for conceiving an ideal, here the universal eudaemonism. With our reason, we can think, conceive and understand this ideal: we can rationally conceive that as human we all try to be happy and therefore understand that universal eudaemonism is a good ideal. But as Creel noticed[7], rationality is not the virtue of always acting rationally but the ability to do so. Therefore we are able to distinguish which actions are conformable to our ideal and which are not.

Secondly, freedom is another virtue required for the moral theory of universal eudaemonism. It may seem strange to consider freedom as a human virtue but here freedom has another sense. Freedom here is the opposite of determinism that is to say that we are not programmed to act in a way. We can act however we want. Thus, we are free to act according to our principles, according to the ideal of universal eudaemonism.

At last, discipline is the third required virtue for this ethical theory. We have seen that we can through rationality conceive and understand ideals, then that we can through freedom act according to these ideals, but we have now to find the virtue that guide us  to act this way and not another. This is the sense of discipline as a virtue. Discipline guides us to act the way which is according to our principles.

To sum up, mankind, as rational beings, can conceive and understand the ideal of universal happiness; as free beings, can act according to this ideal; and as disciplined beings, ought to act according this ideal.

For instance, if I can steel something that I want, is it moral or not? First, with my reason I can conceive that steeling does not contribute to universal happiness because I steel someone and it does not contribute to his happiness. Then, as a free person I can act according to my principles: if I think that steeling does not contribute to universal happiness I am not obliged to steel something that I want (here it seems obvious, but for example in a war, you may be obliged to kill even if you think that it does not contribute to universal happiness) . At least, as a disciplined person, I can resist to the temptation of steeling something that I want and as such have to act according to my principles.

The moral theory of universal eudaemonism: production of a transcendental conceptual morality

Concepts, in platonic (therefore ascetic) metaphysics, are transcendent that is to say that it exists in itself, independently of whom or when or where it is formulated. Here, the ideal of universal eudaemonism is such a transcendental concept. Therefore the moral principles which proceed from this conceptual ideal are also considered as transcendental.

 Moreover the virtues required by this ethical system also gives these moral principles a transcendence through the fact that rationality, freedom and above all discipline lead to a universal (shared by all), imperative (ought to) and this forever and everywhere (because reason does not depend on time nor on place).

            A least, in case of unmoral actions, this transcendental moral theory involves a feeling of culpability. If you do not act morally, that means that you are not virtuous (whether irrational, or determined or unmoral). Following is that in case of unmoral action, there is a normative judgement (by yourself or others) on you and not upon your actions. Indeed it seems to be the most powerful motivation to act morally of this system. 

            For instance if I steel something I want, this would mean that whether I am irrational and I cannot understand why steeling does not contribute to universal happiness, or determined and I cannot live according to my principles, or slave of my passion (undisciplined) and I cannot resist to the temptation of steeling. In each case I will feel guilty, because I am not normally virtuous (or did not respect the norm of the virtues required).

Utilitarianism: “the sake of the greatest happiness for the greatest number” 

            Contrary to the moral theory of universal eudaemonism, utilitarianism is not based on mankind virtues but on mankind nature. Because the fundament of utilitarianism is the nature of mankind, utilitarianism is an ethical naturalism.

Hedonists consider that mankind nature is to seek pleasure (in Greek, hedon = pleasure). When all our desires are met, we are supposed to reach happiness. But contrary to the overwhelmingly common sense critics that hedonist is to get the most pleasure we can, Epicure, one of the most famous hedonist philosophers of Antiquity, recommended not to increase our goods but to decrease our desires. In this way, Epicure resolved (more than 2000 years before its formulation) Schopenhauer’s “Hedonistic paradox”, according to which the “the more intensely people seek pleasure, the more displeasure they get”[8].

Utilitarianism as a word comes from the notion of utility[9]. A specific activity increases (or decreases) our utility if it provides us with pleasure (or displeasure). Utilitarianism put this notion of utility at the centre of its ethical system: an action is morally right or wrong depending on the utility it provides you and people that are affected by this action. It is right if it provides globally more pleasure than displeasure and it is wrong if it provides globally more displeasure than pleasure. This ethical theory is qualified altruistic because an action is not ethically evaluated just on the effect it has on you alone, but on the effect it has on all the persons it affects. Moreover your interest and the others ones are merged.

John Bentham, one of the fathers of the utilitarianism, developed a hedonic calculus in order to evaluate the ethical value of actions (that is to say their utility), taking into account seven parameters of the utility an action can provide: intensity, duration, purity, fruitfulness, number, probability of occurrence and time lag[10].

Following is that an action is not good (or bad) in itself but it is better (or worst) than another. In this respect, utilitarianism is a relativist ethical system. Actions are not evaluated in themselves but relatively to other actions. They are not good or bad but better or worse. If an action provides more utility than another action, then it is better and it is ethically right to choose this option. In addition, actions are evaluated in situations and not in themselves. Therefore utilitarianism is situation Ethics[11]. Moreover, action is evaluated according to its consequences and not in itself what differs from most of ethical system. In this respect, utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialist ethical system. At least, utilitarianism is egalitarian, because utility valuation does not depend on persons and everybody has an equal right to pleasure and happiness.

            We will take the same example of steeling. We will value the possession of a car 10 credit. If I steel a car it will increase my utility of 10 credits but decrease the utility of the person I stole of the same 10 credits. Finally, the value of this action (: steeling this car) will be 10 credits (that I earned steeling this car) minus 10 credits (that the other person lost) that is to say 0.

But if I buy this car (let say that the cost of the car will decrease my utility of 10 credits), the valuation of this action will be: 10 credits (that I gave to the former car owner) plus 10 credits (I possess the car now) minus 10 credits (the cost of the car) that is to say a valuation of 10+10-10=10 credits. Therefore, I would rather buy the car than steal it.

Utilitarianism and the disappearance of any morality: an immanent ethical system

 All these qualities of utilitarianism lead us to a central point: utilitarianism does not product any morality. As we saw earlier, morality is a transcendent, universal, and imperative “ought to”. It is normative, that is to say that it creates a norm. Utilitarianism does not. The ethical value of an action is not transcendent but immanent.

Immanence, the opposite of transcendence, means literally “remains within”[12] or “existing”. We can interpret it like Gilles Deleuze did, as an imperative to stay in the reality or to philosophize with what we have in reality without setting up transcendental concepts. We can see the hedonist influence (as a monist and materialist stream) on this conception of immanence and on philosophy as a whole.

The fact that utilitarianism is an ethical naturalism makes it to be an immanent ethical system. With utilitarianism, an action is evaluated in each situation, relatively to other actions, and according to its consequences and not by transcendental concepts and virtues. It does not make the difference between moral goods and non-moral goods.

The motivation of an ethical action is not the pursuit of an ideal, some principles, or to avoid the feeling of culpability but it is motivated by common interest. It is not based on human virtue. Thus, in case of non-ethical action, utilitarianism does not involve judgement upon virtuousness of the person who acted unethically. But utilitarianism considers unethical actions whether as errors of calculus (what can happen) or as what Nietzsche would have called “death wish”, that is to say the non-pursuit of one self interest.

Conclusion: for an immanent/transcendent division of Ethics  

            We have seen that happiness is considered as the “supreme good” and that the good and therefore the right are defined relatively to happiness. We have also seen that morality is transcendent through its origins and its absoluteness. We also pointed that Ethics could be divided between the theocentric and anthropocentric streams.

            In comparing the moral theory of universal eudaemonism and utilitarianism, we discovered that the former products a transcendent moral whereas the latter was a totally immanent ethical system without setting up moral norms.

            Now it seems to be more relevant to divide ethics between the transcendent theories and the immanent ones, rather than a division between theocentric or anthropocentric ethical system. Indeed, the moral theory of universal eudaemonism has much more in common with the theocentric theories of Ethics than with utilitarianism.

            First, it is based on a transcendental concept just like theocentric theories are based on the transcendental concept of God as a perfect being or as a commander. Second, it products a transcendental morality, an absolute set of rules, behaviour, “ought to” which required human virtues (rationality, freedom and discipline). The theocentric theories of Ethics also product transcendental morality (whether a divine command or to act as a perfect divine) which also required human virtues of discipline, faith, and obeisance. At last, they both involve a feeling of culpability in case of unmoral actions, as a powerful motivation.

But the transcendence of a concept or a morality can be dangerous. God or Reason or Nature may be transcendent things. But as human beings we are fallible. The moral rules we make, even if it is based on transcendental concepts, may be wrong. And something wrong considered as transcendental is something very dangerous. For example, Spanish Christians arriving on the American continent, considering that Christianity and Christian morality were transcendent, imposed their rules, often violently, to the indigenes. This was maybe the more bloody effect morality have ever had, just because of the thought that Christianity and Christian morality were transcendent and therefore also applied to the indigenes.

            Moreover, we can doubt of the efficiency of principles as motivation, whereas we cannot with self interest. And human virtues are often limited: we are never totally rational, nor totally free, nor totally disciplined. As Hume said, “Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions”. Therefore, an ethical system based on these virtues can easily fail.

To sum up, utilitarianism seems more efficient, less dangerous in case of error because of its immanence, and more motivating. Moreover it seems to be more sensible to base an ethical theory on what human are (pleasure seekers) rather than on what human should be (virtuous).

            Yet, utilitarianism has many weaknesses such as the valuation of pleasure or happiness, or the situation pointed by Creel[13] where making many people a little happy or making few people very happy, have the same valuation, or still acting in your self disinterest when it is the interest of other people. 

            We should now concentrate ourselves in order to resolve these weaknesses. For example, the situation we pointed above, when the global utility of making few people very happy is equal to the utility of making a lot of people a little happy is the same, can be solved quite easily.

Let take Creel application: there are 1000 persons and I can act in order to create utility. The first option is to give an equal utility to everyone, that is to say that it will provide everyone for example 2 credits of utility per person. The calculus of the global utility will be: 2x1000=2000. If I choose the other option that is to say to provide 10 credits to 200 persons, the calculus of the global utility will be: 200 x 10= 2000. The global utility is the same for both options and therefore I cannot choose between these two options.

Let solve the problem. If you are democrat and would rather make a lot of people a little happy, the fact that I provide many people a little utility will increase my own utility (let say a utility of 1). The calculus will be 1000x2 + 1 = 2001. If you consider the other option, the fact that you provide few persons with lot of utility will decrease your utility (because you are a democrat). So the calculus will be 1000x2 -1=1999. Then you will choose the first option because it is globally more valuable than the second option.

To sum up, we favour utilitarianism for its immanence and we have to concentrate our efforts on solving the problems it has.

dimanche 2 avril 2006

mardi 28 mars 2006

Il est très important de bien comprendre les liens qui se tissent entre ces trois fondamentaux, le corps physique, la Culture personnelle et l’espace d’affection mutuelle afin de bien appréhender l’unicité de la Culture personnelle.

On a déjà évoqué les liens particuliers qui se tissent entre le corps physique et la Culture personnelle. La Culture personnelle est la représentation que la personne se fait du monde à travers les informations que son corps transmet. En un sens, le corps particulier détermine la Culture personnelle particulière, il est l’origine génétique de l’unicité de la Culture personnelle. Le corps et la Culture personnelle forment un tout : la personne.

Les liens entre la personne et son espace d’affection mutuelle sont de deux natures mais cette distinction n’est pas fondamentale en cela que tous sont des liens d’affection acculturateurs).

Le premier type de lien d’affection est de nature physique. Les atomes de mon corps affectent les atomes de mon EAM et les atomes de mon EAM affectent les atomes de mon corps. Les lois de la physique montrent une relative constance dans l’interaction atomique et par conséquent, une constance dans l’espace d’affection physique mutuelle.

Les liens qui unissent ma Culture personnelle et mon espace d’affection mutuelle sont de nature plus complexes. Ils sont de nature expérientale, i.e. l’expérience que j’ai de l’élément de mon EAM importe ici plus que l’élément lui même. La culture personnelle peut être représentée par une organisation (culture et organisation étant les utilisations particulière et générale d’un même concept). Cette organisation est forme. Les liens qui se tissent entre l’EAM peuvent être appréhendés en cela que chaque « contact » (qu’il soit expériental, idéal ou conceptuel) affecte, détermine, change, influe à un moment donné la forme de cette organisation particulière qu’est la Culture personnelle. Ces affections physiques et acculturatrices sont la source environnementale de l’unicité de la Culture personnelle.

Plus généralement, chaque élément de mon EAM affecte ma Culture personnelle via mon corps. La Culture personnelle de l’enfant se « forme »  en fonction de son environnement (EAM), et l’EAM déforme, reforme, transforme la Culture personnelle déjà formée, et cela en fonction de la « forme pré contact » de la Culture personnelle. Les éléments de l’EAM sont de toute natures : physique, affectif, sensitif, conceptuels, intellectuel, expériental, idéel, imaginaire, voire spirituel…  De même que des éléments physiques interagissent entre eux, les éléments non physiques ont aussi leurs interactions. Ainsi, les personnes de mon EAM interagissent avec moi, à un niveau physique (toucher, vue, ouie, odorat et goût) mais aussi à un niveau non physique, la forme de leur Culture personnelle affectant la forme de ma propre Culture personnelle.