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.

HCJ - A second year perspective.

To say that the first HCJ lecture of my second year had a specific focus might be dishonest. Yet, if I were to choose one for the sake of this blog, I might say that it was the concept of matter, which hinged around Emmanuel Kant.

Before Kant, the general consensus of educated thought was that our universe consisted entirely of matter in motion, with no consideration toward perception, or an understanding of our own inability to perceive beyond the four dimensions to which we are restrained (length, breadth, depth and time: all of which are relative according to Einstein’s theories. But we’ll come to that later on I’m sure).

Anyway (dragging the wonky shopping trolley of thought process back on track), the idea that nothing exists outside of human perception is central to the theories of scientists such as Newton (1642 – 1727), who was revered for his studies on physical law, which he believed could be applied, without fail, to everything.

Although I have attributed the paradigm shift of perception to Kant, it would be foolish not to recognise the contemporarily ignored George Berkeley (1685 -1753), whose theories can be summarised (though reductively) as; perception is existence. This means that, to Berkeley, not only would a tree not make a sound if nobody was there to hear it, it would cease to exist altogether for the full duration of the tree not being perceived. I feel that Betrand Russell’s inclusion of a limerick by Ronald Knox with reply outlines Berkeley’s theories pleasantly:

There was a young man who said, ‘God

Must think it exceedingly odd

           If he finds that this tree
           Continues to be

When there’s no one about in the Quad.’

Reply

Dear Sir:

         Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about it the Quad.
         And that’s why the tree
         Will continue to be,

Since observed by

          Yours faithfully
God.

Whilst being the first to look at perception as a real influence in the workings of the universe, the idea that the matter just ceases to exist outside of it is solipsistic and impractical as an analysis (besides being disproven by recording equipment). Kant saw this and offered an alternative; that all matter exists in two forms:

The Noumenal form: matter, in and of itself. Beyond our perception, the existence of matter in it’s absolute form, not reduced and simplified by the human brain.

The Phenomenal form: matter, through human perception. Objects as we see them.

This theory seems to fit more modern theories on physics such as dimensional theory in so far as that there are perceptions or dimensions beyond the human perception. This is huge, especially to contemporaries of Kant, as it potentially reduces the understanding humanity has of the universe by an infinite amount.

One step forward, but we can’t even perceive how many steps back.

A short description of 'market based economies' from a Marxist perspective.

Against market/competition/PROFIT driven society (capitalism):

My evaluation of Capitalist, market driven economy:

·         The competitive nature of capitalist society hinders technological progress, as the technology is not made to the best possible degree due to the competition between market leaders for profit, rather than collaboration for the improvement of society. E.g: no product is sold for it’s worth, rather for the maximum profit it can demand without protest. Due to this, Pharmaceutical corporations, rather than sharing their research with other companies, to faster achieve progress in development, will keep their knowledge in order to be the only supplier of a drug or treatment in the future so that they can maximise profits for themselves. Which surely is amoral, yet, in a market/competition based economy, it is the logical decision to restrict resources in order to increase their value, rather than try to attain abundance; which holds no promise of profit (e.g. If a gold mine produces more gold, they do not have more money, just the value of gold is decreased, so by restricting your supply of gold to others gold retains its value and maximum profit can be achieved) .

·         In this sense, corruption and amorality is an inherent part of the economy, as a moral and humanitarian company would be destroyed by those companies that make more profit.

·         This inherent corruption is in turn then applied to society; as due to the suppliers restricting supply to increase their products value, the consumer must compete with one another in order to attain resources for themselves. This is apparent in the ‘Alienation’ that arises between the Bourgeoisie (wealthy) and the proletariat (poor) and the unbalanced distribution of wealth in the population, as we are born into a society whereby hoarding as much one’s self as you can is seen as the only way to progress within society (e.g. the Bourgeoisie).

·         This leads to international scale amorality, with powers such as America etc. feeling the need to invade and dominate other nations for their resources, as competition for profit from resources dictates that nations, corporations and the populace must only share resources for unfair ‘maximum profit’ orientated costs.

·         This even spreads to humanitarian aid, as the investment in poorer countries (who are poor due to the inability of more PROFITABLE countries to fairly share resources) is only done in order to create a perpetual and ever growing debt to the more powerful country.

From this it is apparent that money IS debt and profit IS corruption (corruption being the exploitation of others for personal gain).

Thus, profit kills fair trade.

On Bureaucrasy - Weber.

Bureaucrasy is definable as social rule conducted from a desk through paperwork (or an electronic equivalent). However, it is not the same as democratic or aristocratic powers, as it is but a tool used by such aforementioned powers to rule the populace.

Bureaucrasy is sold as giving power to the prolatariat as it requires a large quantity of civil servants to fuel it's progress. Weber opposes this view, attacking these pretentions found in the Prussian bureaucrasy, stating that it was corrupted by aristocratic influence. This holds many parralels with the disollusion held by many today, with regards to the upper and upper-middle class dominance of high office within todays governments. This is easily identified when considering the attention given when a lower class individual attains a position of high office.

In the past, many attempts to retain this aristocratic power are apparent, with the Church in the middle ages being a prime example, enforcing celibacy upon its 'labourers' so as not to be challenged by patrimony of families.

From this, Weber acknowledges that reliable, and often blind submission to the official rules is an integral part of a bureaucrasy.

Modern bureaucrasy supplies the equipment required by its servants, maintaining control. Due to this, the bureaucrat does not own their job or their equipment, helping to maintain the singular power which the bureaucrasy serves.

Weber states that there are three types of legitimate authority:

Charismatic: A 'gifted' leader who is followed by those who are personally devoted to them.

Traditional: A leader who is followed, as everyone has always obeyed the person in the leader's position and no one thinks  to oppose their authority.

Rational: otherwise known as the 'rule of law'; it exists within communities in which there is a moral attititude of respect for the law. Or where the law appears to have been institued in a way that is considered legitimate.

Weber believed that bureaucrasy is within the framework of Rational authority, stating that it is the most efficient method of maintaining the rule of law.

Weber maintains that bureaucrasy is very efficient and that due to this, there is no system that can compte against it. However, due to the profit/goal orientated nature of bureaucratic rule the populace become wage slaves, who are forced to work boring and unfulfilling jobs. This is enforced by the legitimate fear that, if one was to take time to indulge in what would make them happy, then a more efficient and work-orientated person would claim their job, as their equipment and job are owned by the state.

this is my radio assignment.. needs some background music though..

http://soundcloud.com/shabato/radio-assignment-alex-mason

The Innocence Project: CCRC decisions, was this decision correct?

Did the CCRC make the right decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal?

Mr. Warner was accused of murdering Mr. and Mrs. Pool on the night between the 21^st and 22^nd July 1989. The elderly couple were found dead in the upstairs of the property, with both bodies having received multiple stab wounds. Forensic evidence showed that Mr. Warner had forcibly entered or left the property through a downstairs dining room window, and there were fingerprints found around the draw in which the murder weapon was taken from. The police were alerted by a neighbour, Mr. Bell, who said that he heard a thud and a voice that sounded like a gasp.

Mr warner's appeal to the CCRC was based upon the new evidence, that there was no forensic evidence to show that Mr. Warner had been upstairs. Another defence proposed was that there was no blood found on Warner's clothes, or in the plumbing of his caravan. Along with these pieces of evidence, the defence suggested that there was a consistency between the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Pool's and the crimes perpetrated by the serial rapist known as 'the Vampire', who was at large at the time. A statement from a taxi driver stating that he picked up a bloodied man at around 11.20.

The CCRC decided to launch a section 19 inquiry, the enquiry found that the lack of forensic evidence to show that he went upstairs could be overturned should they allow the appeal on the basis that the scientist that analysed the DNA evidence said that Mr Warner's jumper showed evidence of being in contact with items recovered from upstairs, as well as an incomplete match with the other DNA evidence found upstairs that was not belonging to either of the Pools, to a degree where it was a 1 in 680 chance that the DNA could be someone unrelated to Mr. Warner. In light of this, it was believed that the central tenet of Mr. Warner's application for appeal was undermined.

The accusation included in the appeal, that the forensic evidence was perhaps contaminated, thus making the original trial 'unsafe', was dismissed by Dr. Hutchinson, who believed that there was no evidence to show that the blue pullover belonging to Mr. Warner could've been contaminated during the trial. This left Mr. Warner's appeal no grounds with which to challenge the integrity of the initial trial.

In light of this, the CCRC made the correct decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal, as his defence, no longer had a reason to claim the trial unsafe, which is required to overturn the verdict.

Hegelitis.

The unreality of seperateness: basically, every singular entity that we can see holds a 'spirit' of the whole (spirit being the object in and of itself) and so, is not ever wholly real, with different degrees of reality given to objects that particiate more or less in 'reality'.

So, if you were able to view an object in every perceivable way all at once, then you would see the object in and of itself as the 'real' part of the 'whole'.

The analysis of 'logic' by Hegel is somewhat unclear. Either, Mr A, as an uncle, shows that we can never see him as his real entity which is part of the whole; or that due to the many different views and perceptions of Mr A he is not a part of the whole as he is just a combination of perceptions that is an illusion.

The 'whole' is called the absolute, which encompasses everything that exists. This absolute, in knowing itself, knows reality in it's pure form.

Whether this renders metaphysics as unreal, due to the fact that it is purely generated by thought without perception of other things, e.g. a god. If so, is this not a loophole, as the idea that what we see is not reality and that there is a reality that we cannot see is metaphysical?

Thought provoking stuff...