Philosophy Argument

What is the hedonism argument?

Happiness is understood as pleasure and the absence of pain as the only thing desirable as an ultimate end. (Pleasure is intrinsically good and only pain is intrinsically bad. The more pleasure you experience in your life the better off you are.)

What was the objection to Hedonism?

1. If Hedonism is true, then the good life for a human is just the same as and no better than the food life for pigs.

2. But it is not true that the good life for humans is just the same as if no better than the life of pigs.

3. Therefore, Hedonism is false.

This is the swine argument.

How does Mill respond to the swine argument?

Mill says that the second statement (that the good life for a human is not the same as the good life for a pig) is true, those two lives are completely different and that human experience higher more intellectual pleasures that as pig could not experience.

What are the two different types of pleasure that Mill talks about and how do they differ?

Mill says that there are higher pleasures, like intellectual pleasures (the appreciate of a poem, elegance of a mathematical proof). These are higher level pleasures because a pig could not experience these cognitive abilities.

Mill says that higher pleasures are better in the sense of welfare.

Which individuals can understand the value and appreciate higher level pleasures?

Competent Judges

What is the competent judge argument?

We’re looking at our own experiences and we need to look at people who have experiences with higher and lower pleasures and they are experiencing certain, reflective attributes they can say which pleasure is better. In Mill’s words, a competent judge would prefer the higher level pleasures.

“It is better to be Aristotle dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied” - Even a horrible experience with a high level pleasure, is better than having joy with a lower level pleasure.

Where does Mill concede when talking about a competent judge and their choosing of lower level pleasures?

Mill states that if there is a circumstance in which a person is dealing with outside factors that could impair their ability to be a competent judge, then Mill says that they have not lost their status as judge, they are simply impaired. (We are weak willed and therefore, that person’s inability to choose what was right, was not completely up to them)

However, if the conditions were not a problem and a person still chose the lower level pleasure then their status as a competent judge is revoked because they are not able to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.

What is Mill’s desirability argument?

1. What is desirable as an end is what we do upon presentation, desire as an end (basically, desire is evidence of desirability, much as seeing something is evidence that it is visible)

2. The only thing that people desire as an end is pleasure (or happiness)

3. Therefore, only pleasure (or happiness is desirable as an end)

What is special about Mill’s second argument in the desirability argument? (Restate the second premise)

The second premise states that: The only thing people desire as an end is pleasure or happiness. When looking at the first premise and how he is saying that the desire for something shows desirability, the second is saying that because everything that we desire whether it be happiness or something else are at the means to happiness therefore, the only thing we desire as an end is happiness.

Mill’s defense is that when we examine what people ultimately want, the things they pursue are connected to their happiness.

For example:

• Money: We often desire it because it helps us get things that make us happy.

• Friendship: We may initially seek companionship because it brings pleasure, but eventually friendship itself becomes part of our happiness.

• Virtue: Someone might first practice being virtuous because it brings rewards, but eventually they may value virtue for its own sake. Mill argues that virtue can then become part of that person’s happiness.

Mill’s key distinction is between something we desire as a means to happiness and something we desire as part of happiness itself.

What is some criticisms that could be had about Mill especially regarding the second premise?

It is probably the most controversial premise. Mill argues that even things like virtue, money, and friendship can become parts of happiness. What if we value something for its own sake, even when it doesn't make us happy?or instance, someone might tell the truth even though doing so makes them miserable, because they believe truth matters independently of their happiness.

Furthermore, he connects visibility to desirability which are two different things because visibility is about what is actually being observed and desirability is more of a subjective experience.

What is a criticism to Mill’s argument of desire specifically on the lack of explanation about desire?

When he makes the claim about desirability being synonymous with visibility what ends up happening is confusion about whether Mill is discussing “being desired” or “being worthy of desire” those are two distinct things.

Being desired = what people actually want

This is a descriptive claim about people's desires. For example, someone wants revenge, money, or fame. It tells us what they want, not whether wanting it is good.

Being worthy of desire = what people ought to want

This is a normative claim about what is good or worth pursuing. For example, even if someone wants revenge, we can question whether revenge is actually worth pursuing.

The reason this is a problem is because

• If it means actually desired, Mill is saying that what people want is what they want. That doesn't establish what is good.

  • If it means worthy of being desired, Mill needs to explain why the fact that people desire something proves that it is worthy of desire.

The issue is that Mill needs to show why evidence that people desire happiness establishes that happiness is worthy of desire — and further, that it is the only thing worthy of desire as an end.

What is an objection to Mill’s second premise and how does he amend it?

Mill acknowledges that people can desire virtue for its own sake, rather than merely as a way to get something else.

His response is that this doesn't necessarily contradict hedonism. He argues that virtue can become part of a person's happiness.

Think of it this way:

• Initially: You practice honesty because it helps you avoid punishment or gain other people's trust.

• Eventually: You value honesty in itself. Being an honest person becomes part of the life you want to live.

Mill's interpretation: Honesty has become part of your happiness, even though you no longer pursue it simply to obtain pleasure or a reward.Mill needs this response because otherwise virtue seems to be a counterexample to his claim that happiness is the only ultimate end.

His reasoning is essentially:

• People appear to desire things besides happiness for their own sake.

• But things such as virtue can become components of happiness.

• Therefore, desiring virtue for its own sake does not necessarily mean desiring something completely separate from happiness.

What is Nozick’s experience machine argument?

1. If Hedonism is true, the life in the experience machine is at least as good as any possible life outside of it.

2. Life is in the EM is not at least as good as any possible life outside of it

3. Hedonism is false

Why is premise two of Nozick’s argument important to take note of?

Imagine a machine that can make you experience anything you want: a successful career, loving relationships, exciting adventures, and a happy life. You would experience all of these things as if they were real, but they would be simulated. Nozick is asking if we would choose to plug ourselves into the machine permanently

f you would refuse, he argues that you must value something beyond pleasurable experiences. Perhaps you want to actually accomplish things, form real relationships, and live in contact with reality.

That is the challenge to hedonism: pleasure alone may not explain everything that makes a life good.

What is Nozick’s objection to Hedonism?

You may care about actually doing things and living in reality, not just experiencing pleasure. If those things matter to your welfare, the machine leaves something important out. Hedonism is saying that your welfare is only dependent on your pleasure, so if the machine gives you everything you desire then you have not lost anything (welfare wise ) by entering the machine.

What is the non-alienation argument?

1. If any intrinsic goods were objective then it would be possible to be alienated from one’s welfare (something good for you regardless of what you wanted or cared about)

2. But it is not possible to be alienated from one’s own welfare (you could be alienated from your own welfare, so you would be disconnected from your own desires and perspective)

3. No intrinsic goals are objective

What is desire satisfaction theory?

Simple desire satisfaction theory states that all and only all desire satisfactions are intrinsically (good or bad in it of themselves) good and all and only all desire frustration are intrinsically bad. In their degree of goodness and badness and it is a matter of the strength of the desire. Your welfare is connected to what you actually want, rather than being determined entirely by pleasure or by an objective list of goods.

The frustration is desiring something be the case and the world not being that way. It contributed or distracted from the strength of the desire (the stronger there desire, the better the benefit and worse the harm)

A desire being satisfied can benefit someone in terms of their welfare without making the desire itself morally good.

For example, if someone wants to learn a language and succeeds, their desire is satisfied. The theory treats that satisfaction as good for their well-being, not merely because learning a language might bring them some other benefit.

What is utilitarianism?

(This is discussing what makes things morally right keep that in mind)

Utilitarianism states that an act is permissible only and if only it maximizes welfare a maximizing welfare in this case is not about the quantity of welfare, it is looking at the net welfare that is produced. (Every welfare subject matters) So, utilitarianism runs on act assessments (looking at someone’s act and seeing if it increased welfare) Utilitarianism is in a way related to consequentialism.

What are some objections to utilitarianism?

1. It is too demanding because you are asked to look at all the available actions that you could partake in when performing an action and

2. then you would have to identify the welfare consequences of each of those actions

3. Then you would have to compare and identify which of those choices are the most optimal.

What is Mill’s response to the demanding complaint about utilitarianism?

Mill says that we can rely on secondary principles (that give you the jist for how to act) so that you don’t have to think about every possible outcome.

What is the naive argument from integrity?

1. If utilitarianism is true, then we are sometimes obligated to violate our integrity by acting contrary to deeply help moral commitments.

2. But we can’t be obligated to act this way

3. Utilitarianism is false

The example of Jim having to either kill one person or 20 people would die and in this case, it would be said that Jim should kill the one person if it means saving the 20. Williams is challenging the idea that the consequences for overall happiness should always override a person's own commitments. He thinks morality should take seriously not only what outcome is best, but also what it means for you to be the person who performs the action. (Character assessments) Williams’s concern: Your commitments can matter to you for their own sake, as part of who you are. But utilitarianism may require you to abandon them whenever doing so produces a better outcome.

You should not view people merely as a factor into a calculation and your morals are not something that you can discard just because it would produce a better outcome.

What is the revised integrity argument from integrity?

1. If utilitarianism is true, then we are sometimes obligated to violate our integrity by completely discounting our deeply held moral commitments.

2. But we can’t be obligated to completely discount our deeply help commitment.

3. Utilitarianism is false

The problem is more fundamental: utilitarianism may fail to recognize that my commitments are mine and that I have a special responsibility for what I choose to do. It treats my projects as just another factor in the calculation of overall happiness. The argument from integrity is primarily about alienation from your agency and commitments,

What is the argument from freedom?

1. The moral features of actions (permissibility, obligation, etc) depend only on what is under our control.

2. The consequences of our actions are not under our control

3. Therefore, the moral features of our actions do not tend to end on their consequences.

As opposed to the act assessments of utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory focuses on character assessments which is important.

What is the positive features of utilitarianism?

1. The view has impartiality meaning that the view does not give special treatment to anyone (which is a good feature for a moral theory)

2. The theory is well positioned to explain a lot of conventional moral thinking and why it’s built into that conventional moral think that there exceptions

3. The theory creates a plausible relationship between axiology (goodness and permissibility (“rightness”)

What are some beneficial things to know about Kant and his moral theories?

1. Kant regrets all forms of consequentialism (argument from freedom)

2. Kant insists that consequentialism misunderstands the relationship between “right” and “good”

3. Kantian ethics promises to correct utilitarianism’s supposed inability to account for the moral significance of things like faireness/justice

4. Kant rejects the utilitarian understand of the moral significance of individuals and offers an alternative explanation there of in utilitarianism Kant views it as us being vessels for what really matters which is welfare, which is to say that we matter in so far as we are maximizing welfare.

What does the categorical imperative want us to do?

The CI directs us to acts from maxims only when they pass the test about a maxim being a universal law. Could you (the actor) endorse the maxim binding everyone’s conduct?

What is the principle of universalizability?

An action is permissible if and only if, and because its maxim is unxiversilizible.

What is the principle of humanity?

An action id permissible if and only if it treats rational autonomous creatures as ends in themselves and not merely as means.

What is the difference between the hypothetical and categorical imperative?

The hypothetical imperative is conditional in nature (if . . . then) whereas the categorical imperative is the same no matter the situation (it applies no matter your personal desires)