The discussions we have had in class this week have been of particular interest to me. When talking about Mill, I don’t have trouble understanding the concept but it is at times challenging for me to wrap my head around the fact that the intention of an action does not matter and determining whether it is good or bad is solely based on the consequences.
How applicable is Mill’s idea of utilitarianism to the society we live in? I am posing this question to everyone regardless of whether they are utilitarian or not. In today’s world, how often are people judged on the consequences their actions yield with no consideration at all for the thought before the said action?
Mill said that we have built in us by nature a guide that judges right and wrong and an instinct that tells us what is pleasurable and what is pain. If a person were to base an action on their innate guide and instinct and in the end the consequences was negative, would they themselves automatically be able to deem their action wrong even if they had good intentions? Yes, one part of Mill’s theory is that the reality of consequences outweighs the theoretical but do people always believe this when they themselves know the thought process that went into the action?
Is it realistic to say that a person can be a utilitarian in this day and age? The old cliché, it’s the thought that counts, comes to mind. So, living in a time where sayings like this carry weight how common are self-proclaimed utilitarian?
An interesting post, Esha. I think you get right to the heart of the question regarding Mill and the (for the lack of a better word) utility of his philosophy.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Utilitarianism is extremely applicable. First, it judges morality based on tangible, easily identifiable results. That is, it isn't concerned with the intentions of the actor (which can be difficult to discern).
So when an action is taken, the consequences of that action are key
For example, let's take the
Marlboro executive cancer donation" example mentioned in class. The effect of that donation is far more important than the motivations or intent of the individual making the donation (whether it's out of altruism, for a tax deduction, or whether its to improve public relations). A donation of 10,000 from someone with an ulterior motive is just as useful as 10,000 from someone with good intentions. If that donation helps to save just 1 life, how can we possibly argue that the donation is not a morally good act? The tangible result, i.e. a live saved, is far more significant than the motivations of the individual making the donation.
Not only can we be utilitarians in this day and age, but I'd argue, as others have in class, that most people are naturally inclined toward this ethical principle.
This is more a comment on Thomas's example than Esha's blog post because I tend to agree with her logic. It's tough to commit yourself to a system in which you can be "inadvertently" immoral, without any intent to create unfortunate consequences.
ReplyDeleteReturning to the Marlboro executive's donation, certainly the act has positive consequences and could be labeled morally good, but shouldn't the morality of the actor also be a factor? An act with good results and questionable motives might be acceptable, but wouldn't an act with good results and a good motive be better?
When judging the actions of others, we might have to settle for utilitarian judgements based on useful consequences since we have no real way of determining others' motives, but as a guide for our own actions, Kant's demand for a good will seems like a far nobler goal.
Esha,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Thomas in that utilitarianism is very applicable in today's society, and even in past societies! I like to think of this example that came to me last week in class, which helped me better understand this principle. Consider a scientist in the lab that inadvertently mixes the wrong chemicals into a test tube, and causes him to fail his test, but once he studies what he created in the test tube, he realizes that it is the cure for cancer. (I know this situation is one that is very unlikely to happen, but bear with me.) People wouldn't care that he mixed the wrong things, they would be too busy rejoicing because the cure for cancer has finally been found!