Mostly utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham on Utilitarianism.

As a Utilitarian, Bentham felt that humanity naturally seeks to maximise pleasure/happiness. That is to say pleasure or happiness as the individual perceives it, rather than an Aristotelian or Platoian definition, which Bentham thought unnecessary.

Bentham, rather than concentrating on the meaning of the terms used, sought to discover how we decide which pleasure to choose and how we assign merit to each. From this research, Bentham came to the conclusion that individuals apply, what he called, the ‘felicific calculus’.

Felicific calculus involves analysing the potential intensity, length, certainty and immediacy of pleasure or pain created by each choice. However, this internal calculation doesn’t end there; once we have analysed the characteristics of the aforementioned pleasure or pain, we also judge the fecundity and purity of a pleasure.

Fecundity is the analysis of the potential of a subsequent series of pleasures following the initial decision, an example of which being attendance in further education, as we go with the intention social and educational experience that should cause pleasure. However, the acquisition of a degree will also mean an increase in employment options as well as potentially leading to a higher salary.

The purity of a pleasure is measured through the likelihood that the initial pleasure will be subsequently followed by a series of pains. A good example of which being the partaking in intercourse, which could lead to the contraction of a sexually transmitted disease. Therefore, a pure pleasure is one without any negative consequences.

Whilst an individual uses the felicific calculus to analyse the potential pleasure of a decision or action, in order to apply this to politics or society, we must use what Bentham calls ‘extension’. Simply put, extension is taking into account the potential pain or pleasure caused by an action, but on a larger scale, so a government uses extension when contemplating change in national law, anticipating the effect it will have upon the population as a whole.

Flaws in Bentham’s system.

‘The greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is an evocative phrase, but it is ambiguous (unless by ‘number’ it’s meaning is to consider all those affected by an action). ‘The greatest number’ of what? Utilitarian’s since Bentham have been divided. It is likely that Bentham would have said that it is the greatest number of human beings, although most modern utilitarian philosophers would now consider animals as having the right to be included. An example of which being recent animal rights laws and charities such as the RSPCA.

The consideration of animal welfare seems appropriate under Bentham’s system, as the sensation of experiencing pain and pleasure is the main moral criteria considered and science has shown that animals do indeed feel pleasure and pain, so it seems that animals are facilitated by the theory. Although Bentham rejected the idea of animal rights.

Another question that can be raised is who should control this system? Although the answer is a matter of opinion based more on politics than ethics. That being said, the current control is the monetary system, with those of a wealthier nation or upbringing receiving the highest potential for pleasure.

Beyond this, if an individual is bound to serve their own happiness, how can anyone be expected to maintain the extended ramifications? Theoretically democracy should fill this void, by bringing together the individual felicific calculus’ to find a solution to better suit everyone, however, in modern society this continues to prove difficult for humanity.

John Stuart Mill.

Mill agreed with criticisms of Bentham, that making decisions entirely based upon pleasure is animalistic , however, Mill then argued that humanities ability to differentiate and rank pains and pleasures as well as predicting the consequences of actions is what ultimately separates the Utilitarian ideal from being animalistic.

Mill also states that dignity has an effect upon our happiness, due to a lack of appreciation for most pleasures if our dignity is taken. Although, whether or not dignity is merely a label for a complexity of actions causing a specific form of happiness.

Schopenhauer on the Will and Renunciation.

Schopenhauer’s ‘The world as Will and Representation’ sees the individual as only individual in their perception of the Will or everything in and of itself, but states that we are still under the influence of the Will in our actions.

Schopenhauer believed that our free will is an illusion. We think ourselves free to choose on the basis that we unknowingly come across decisions, yet Schopenhauer states that this is merely that our perception, limited within time, cannot understand the infinite perception of the Will.

Schopenhauer expands on this in relation to the individual character:

Intelligible character: This is Schopenhauer’s ‘reality’ – the infinite portion of ourselves, directly linked with the Will and in complete control of our actions.

Empirical character: The part of us that analyses our living experience of the Will.

Acquired character: A part of the self, only reclaimed through the renunciation of our desire to live. The Acquired character must be learned through the understanding of the individual nature and limitations, tailoring their ambitions accordingly.

Schopenhauer believes that there is no escape from the Will, only an increased understanding of it through the development of Acquired character.

Schopenhauer also defines good and bad people:

The good man: Recognises others’ Will to live, but not their own.

The bad man: Recognises only their own Will.

The just man: Individuality doesn’t partition them from others, they recognise their own Will on the same level as others’.

Nietzsche and the Transvaluation of Values.

Nietzsche saw the call to Christianity as without reason, but unlike Kierkegaard (‘So much the worse for mere reason’), Nietzsche saw reason as the enlightening path: ‘so much the worse for the call to Christianity’. He saw Christianity as the rebellion of the lower classes, turning the aristocratic stereotype that they were vulgar, cowardly and untruthful and turning it on its head, setting up their own value system valuing traits such as humility, sympathy and benevolence, which benefit them. Christianity in Nietzsche’s view, sought to set the aristocracy as characteristically bad. Nietzsche said that Christianity put itself forward as a religion of love , yet it was based in weakness, fear and malice. However, he felt that the strongest characteristic was ‘ressentiment’ which he defined as the desire of the weak to take revenge on the strong, but they disguised this as a wish to punish the sinner. Even in exalting compassion, Nietzsche believes that they are exerting power over them.

Nietzsche thought Christianity was so sinister that it degraded the human race  through humiliating sufferers through pity; infecting a compassionate person with the suffering of others. From this, Nietzsche felt that we should allow the weak to perish so that they, or humanity might better themselves. It is these theories and his close relationship with Wagner that has caused critics to affiliate him with Nazi Germany.

Likening to a later Karl Marx, Nietzsche applied a Hegelian dialectic, with master and slave forming the thesis and antithesis to form a superhuman or Ubermensch. These supermen would become the next stage in humanity.

‘Humanity is something that must be surpassed: man is a bridge and not a goal’.

Analytic Ethics.

Opposed to Nietzsche, G.E.Moore’s Principia Ethica (1903) doesn’t see ethics as involving the development of the species, and sees good as the topic of ethics. How is good to be defined? Before we can act, we must define good, and it is good that we must try to create in abundance according to Moore.

The naturalistic fallacy was confusing good as a natural property. Nor is it to be associated with pleasantness; however it can be a property of natural things. Moore believed that the only non-natural things that were intrinsically linked with good were friendship and aesthetic experience.

Moore’s work was influential with the Bloomsbury group, in particular; Keynes, Lytton Strachey and F.M. Forster. They thought of Principia Ethica as a charter for lifestyle, throwing away the norm of respectability and rectitude.

However, the rise of Logical Positivism meant that philosophers doubted and even denied ‘good’ as a property at all. A.J. Ayer said that ‘Stealing money is wrong’ holds no factual meaning, as it is neither true nor false. It is instead an expression of their individual moral disapproval.

R.M. Hare wanted ethics to be included in logic, believing that there is logic of imperatives no less than a logic of assertion. Hare distinguished between prescriptive and descriptive meaning:

Prescriptive statement: telling oneself or another, often in conjunction with a descriptive statement, what they ought to do based upon moral inclination.

Descriptive statement: One relying upon factual conditions in order to be true.

Like Hume, Hare was of the opinion that you cannot derive an ought from an is. He sought to distinguish ethics from morals; ethics being the study of morals, and morals actions based upon ones ethics. However, Hare is overly concerned with the way in which we define the term ‘good’. We apply good with different meaning in different contexts, so attempting to pin a singular meaning to it is futile.