As we discussed in class, Mill argued in his essay that everyone, even if they refused to admit it, was utilitarian. He argues that notions of utilitarianism are a part of our nature in that we aim to foster good for the greatest amount of people. Our discussion on Thursday reminded me of a discussion we had earlier this year.
During one of our first classes we discussed the Trolley problem, in which we were given the choice to stop a moving trolley from hitting three children to hit two instead, saving one life, but taking an active role in killing the two children on the other line. The class was split between pulling the turn lever and saving the three, and letting nature take its course by doing nothing. My initial reaction was to argue that I would pull the lever thinking that it was perfectly justified as I would save one life. It seemed as though doing nothing would be as wrong as pulling the lever. As professor Johnson pointed out, this logic (killing two to save three) follows utilitarianism. This was my initial reaction to the problem; however, Thursday's discussion made me think more on the issue. I began to picture myself actively pulling the lever and guessing how it would actually feel to know that while I was responsible for saving three children's lives, I was also responsible for killing two lives. After picturing this, I changed my decision. I don't believe I could actually go through with pulling the lever. Saving three does seem like a rational decision, but this would be using those two other children as a means. Mill emphasizes treating humans as an end and not as a means, so what would he do in this situation?
In contrast to deontology, Mill maintains that the consequences of our actions create the strongest motive. This seems to leave little faith in the morality of humanity as the decisions we make are based on what we fear will happen. He then argues that humans have instincts that tell them what is pleasurable and what is painful, and not in a synthetic sense. Seeking the greatest good for the greatest amount of people could easily disregard the individual and his or her greatest pleasures or displeasures. In almost every situation it is better when there are more people who are happy, but what if in our attempt to achieve the greatest good for a majority, the minority was left out in the cold. Strictly following utilitarianism has the potential of attaining more happiness among a population, but even for those who are happy, it seems this happiness is more of something they would decide to settle for. Although it is in everyone's best interest to attain the greatest amount of good that we can, is it in our nature to always think of humanity as a whole and not on an individual level?
If Mill were in this situation, being that he emphasizes treating humans as an end, he would definitely pull the lever so that less harm could be done to the greatest amount of people. Also, I do not think that it is in our nature to always think of humanity as a whole. It is apparent in our nature that we think on an individual level all of the time. But then again, I disagree with Mill's argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ivy. Mill would pull the lever since he does emphasize the treatment of humans as an end and not as a means. He would not dwell on the feelings that one might have after pulling the lever because in terms of numbers, pulling the lever would result in harm to a smaller amount of people. In terms of thinking about humanity as a whole versus on an individual level, I think it is more typical for people to think of themselves rather then the whole. If the outcome of a situation was the same for the individual whether they acted in terms of goodness for themselves or for the greater good, their actions would reflect the goodness for the greater good but when it came down to one or the other, I think it’s more common for actions to reflect primarily thinking of the individual.
ReplyDelete