View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
Before discussing egoism, it is important to differentiate between two different forms of egoism: psychological and moral
Psychological egoism argues that every act is motivated by self-interest. Humanity doesn’t have a choice – we simply operate this way.
Moral egoism argues that every act ought to be motivated by self-interest. It concludes that acting in self-interest is the best motivator. We have a choice as to whether or not we behave in this manner.
Two key players in egoism – Plato and Thomas Hobbes
Epicurus broke down desires into two main types: natural & vain desires
Vain desires include things such as decorative clothing, exotic foods, etc.
Natural desires break down even further into two subcategories: necessary (food, sleep, etc.) and unnecessary (sexual desires, etc.)
Natural necessary desires must be satisfied and are easy to do so. They result in a good deal of pleasure, and very minimal pain
Vain desires, however, do not need to be satisfied and are not easy to satisfy. Because they tend to have no limits, they very easily become obsessive; resulting in painful consequences
Natural unnecessary desires, such as intercourse, Epicurus advises to stay away from, if possible. While sex is pleasurable, it often leads to a relationship that frequently brings more pain than pleasure
A note: Epicurus’ definition of pleasure is negative. Pleasure is the absence of pain. This helps his philosophy from falling into crass sensualism (which is where some of his followers eventually took it). However, when taken to its logical conclusion, one could rightly conclude that the absence of life is better than any life at all. This is what Freud referred to as Θάνατος (Thanatos), the death instinct ( Θάνατος is Greek for ‘death’).
Utilitarianism is a theory of moral philosophy that is based on the principle that an action is morally right if it produces a greater quantity of good or happiness than any other possible action
It requires us to look at the consequences to determine the morality of an action and claim that the morality of the action depends on the amount of “goodness” that the action produces. In the case of both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, good = pleasure
All utilitarianism involves a moral calculus as follows:
(Amount of Good Produced) – (Amount of Evil Produced) = “Utility” of the Act
Like Hobbes, Bentham assumes that we humans are all governed by the desire for pleasure and the aversion to pain. He seeks to give advice on how one should pursue the goal of pleasure.
However unlike Hobbes, he did not rule out the possibility of altruism
His advice on pursuing pleasure is called the Calculus of Felicity , made up of seven categories intended to provide a rational analysis of pleasure. Whenever one considers performing any action one can analyze its value in terms of the Calculus of Felicity and contrast it with alternatives
Bentham claims that there are seven categories to examine when utilizing the Calculus of Felicity :
Intensity: How intense is the pleasure?
Duration: How long does it last?
Certainty: How sure is the pleasure?
Propinquity: How soon will it occur?
Fecundity: How many more?
Purity: How free from pain is the pleasure?
Extent: How many people are affected?
Note: It is this category that makes utilitarianism a form of social hedonism. One must consider the pleasures and pains of other people. This is what allows for the possibility of altruism in utilitarianism.
Bentham believed that his Calculus of Felicity was actually the schematization of something we do semiconsciously anyway
The 7 th category allows for altruism: if an act will bring a great amount of happiness to a great number of people, then I should perform it, regardless of whether or not it brings misery to me.
In fact, there is even a democratic bias built into it. When it comes to evaluating acts, Bentham subscribes to the “one person, one vote” principle
To quote Bentham, “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnishes more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.”
“ Sam, a basically normal, rather nondescript but ‘nice’ human being, goes to the hospital to visit his only living relative, his senile, sick aunt. His visit coincides with five medical emergencies at the hospital. One person needs a liver transplant, another a spleen transplant, another a lung transplant, another a new heart, and a fifth a new pineal gland. Each of the five patients is a tremendously important, much-loved person whose death would bring a great deal of grief and actual physical discomfort to a great number of people. Sam’s death, on the other hand, would be mourned by no one (except possibly his aunt in her lucid moments). The top members of the hospital administration, all strict utilitarians, lure Sam into an operating room, remove all his vital organs, and distribute them to the other needy patients, thereby operating (literally) in accordance with the principle of utility: the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.” Donald Palmer, Does the Center Hold , pg. 270-71
Many contemporary utilitarians recognize this problem, and have created a distinction between “act utilitarianism” and “rule utilitarianism”
Act utilitarianism is the traditional form. It necessitates that one perform the specific act that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In other words, the Calculus of Felicity is utilized to discover what specific acts should be done
Rule utilitarianism argues that the Calculus of Felicity should be utilized to determine the rules that, if followed would produce the greatest good for the greatest number
Even if a particular self-serving lie may go undetected (and therefore causes no one unhappiness), it is nevertheless not appropriate because lying and deceiving in general cause more unhappiness than happiness
Utilitarians believe that this distinction answers the Case of Sam