Utilitarian Ethics, Empiricism: Mill and Hume’s Philosophy
Utilitarianism: Ethical Foundations
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory suggesting that the purpose of human action is linked to achieving useful outcomes. An action is considered ethically good if it contributes to happiness. It seeks to reconcile the diverse and often contradictory desires of individuals by using practical outcomes (utility) as the criterion for evaluating reality. The primary goal is to produce the greatest amount of happiness possible for the greatest number of people.
Characteristics of Utilitarian Ethics
- Teleological: Believes human actions derive meaning from their purpose. The ultimate aim of human action is happiness. Utility itself is not the final goal but an instrument to achieve happiness. An instrument is useful, and therefore good, because it leads to happiness.
- Consequentialist: Considers that the morality of an action must be evaluated by its consequences. We determine if an action is useful (and thus good) by assessing the outcomes it produces. Utility can be defined as the satisfaction of an individual’s preferences, even if this satisfaction doesn’t necessarily lead to a life defined purely by pleasure.
- Prudential: The primary condition for achieving happiness is prudence or careful consideration. The first criterion is usefulness aimed at achieving happiness. This emphasis on context and outcome sometimes leads to utilitarianism being considered relativistic.
- Aggregative: Utilitarians believe it’s possible to perform some form of calculation or summation of pleasures or happiness to determine the best course of action.
Types of Utilitarianism
- Act Utilitarianism: Evaluates each individual action based on its specific consequences and its ability to produce utility.
- Rule Utilitarianism: Seeks to establish universal rules or criteria. An action is judged based on whether it conforms to a rule that, if generally followed, would maximize overall happiness or pleasure for the maximum number of people.
John Stuart Mill: Liberalism and Utility
Mill aimed to establish an ethical foundation for a liberal society. He accepted the greatest happiness principle: an action is good if it is useful, meaning it produces happiness. Mill emphasized that we must not prioritize only our own happiness but should actively promote the happiness of others. He distinguished between higher pleasures (intellectual, cultural, spiritual) and lower pleasures (sensory, physical), advocating for the pursuit of higher pleasures, which satisfy a wise person more than a fool. Mill strongly defended the total freedom of the individual, provided their actions do not infringe upon the rights or cause harm to others.
Principles of Freedom (Mill)
- Principle of Individual Freedom: The individual has the right to do whatever they wish, and society is not entitled to limit this freedom unless the actions harm others.
- Principle of Specific Circumstances: In certain situations, the best outcome is achieved by non-intervention, allowing individuals to act freely rather than being directed, as they are often the best judges of their own interests.
Empiricism: Knowledge from Experience
Empiricism posits that all knowledge derives from sensory experience, including sensations of the external world and internal mental states. At birth, the mind is considered a tabula rasa (blank slate), which experience gradually fills with content.
David Hume: Empiricist Philosophy
Theory of Knowledge
The basic materials of knowledge are perceptions, which Hume divided into:
- Impressions: Vivid, direct experiences from senses (external) or feelings/emotions (internal reflection).
- Ideas: Fainter copies or reflections of impressions in thought and reasoning.
Hume identified two types of knowledge or reasoning:
- Relations of Ideas: Knowledge derived from the relationship between ideas (e.g., mathematics, logic). These are certain but do not necessarily describe the external world.
- Matters of Fact: Knowledge based directly on impressions and experience. This knowledge pertains to the world but lacks absolute certainty.
Critique of Causality
Hume argued that the connection we perceive between cause and effect is not an inherent property of the phenomena themselves but a psychological construct. We observe events constantly conjoined (like smoke following fire) and develop a habit or custom of expecting the effect to follow the cause. This connection is based on belief, not logical certainty or direct observation of a necessary link.
Critique of Substance
Hume contended that the idea of ‘substance’ (a permanent underlying reality holding properties together) is merely a collection of simple ideas (qualities or properties) united by the imagination. We perceive a consistent bundle of qualities and mistakenly infer an underlying, unchanging substance. Substance is an assumption formed from recurring patterns of sensory impressions and internal reflections, not something directly experienced.
Phenomenalism
Hume’s philosophy leads to phenomenalism: the view that we can only know phenomena – things as they appear to us through our senses. We cannot definitively know or affirm the existence of an underlying reality beyond these appearances. Consequently, Hume argued we cannot affirm the existence of God, as God is not something we can directly perceive through impressions. Our knowledge is limited to the content of our experiences (impressions and ideas) and the observed contiguity and sequence associated between perceptions.