3

I've seen this way too often. People who claim themselves utilitarians use the utilitarian argument to support their own end, but shy away when they just give to the common good. Sure, this shows the existence of greed, but I still find it odd how they do so.

Thus I ask, is it self-evident that utilitarianism requires the ultimate altruism, provided altruism is required by utilitarian ethics, by sacrificing oneself always to the ultimate good?

I should note that the base of this question is not to prove that altruism is present, but is to question whether or not it could be self-evident

  • 1
    I'm not following the question really. What do you mean by "the utilitarian argument" and what do you mean by "shy away when they just give to the common good." What do you mean by "ultimate altruism"? what is "ultimate good"? Please revise your question to make clearer the question you have for us about philosophy and where you're coming from. – virmaior Feb 23 '16 at 6:47
  • There are three possible interpretations I see for this question: a) Is altruism inherent to utilitarianism in the sense that you also have to self-sacrifice if it is "right", following the rule? b) As self-proclaimed utilitarianists do often shy away from sacrificing their own ends although it seems ethical per utilitarianism, are they simply inconsequent? c) As Utilitarianism seems to have unintended side-effects as not enforcing altruistic behavior, should altruism be added to make it complete as a ethical system? In addition, please keep in mind that "utilitarianism" is a set of theories. – Philip Klöcking Feb 23 '16 at 9:55
  • In specifying the question,I would follow "a" from Philip above. Is altruism inherent in the sense that you also have to self-sacrifice if it is "right," following the rule? And if this is true, is it self-evident? – Matt Feb 23 '16 at 12:32
  • If everyone acted the most utilitarianistically, together, we would live the most hedonistic life possible. – Probably Sep 22 '17 at 14:51
  • There is a theory called "Egoistic utilitarianism". Many utilitarians are exactly such people (not in the sense they completely disvalue others, but in the sense they value them less than selves or close people). – rus9384 May 22 '18 at 23:38
0

Utilitarianism does not require altruism in a situation of complete lack of faith in providence. If anyone's fortunes may immediately reverse at any moment, and they may then become the least privileged members of society, or if they may be elevated spontaneously into a position of rulership, the statistically best position is for them is for the system as a whole to maximize average benefit. (Or at least to draw maximum and minimum benefit close together, which is just the median-vs-mean alternative formulation of the same position.)

Of course, none of us think this way. We have a certain level of tribal faith and faith in social stability that leads us to assume our positions in society are secure and will not change very much unless we actively do something that changes them. But this lack of tribalism and faith in providence is not altruism. It does not imply any real concern for others, just defense against extreme fates.

"There but for the grace of go I." is not really an altruistic motive, taken literally. It is easiest for us to enter into this position from individual empathy. But that empathy is not any better reason to take it seriously than simple statistics unless you have a counterbalancing faith in overall social stability.

You can claim that social stability is an observed trend, and that presuming it is just logic. But that is because our current systems of ethics and government are not utilitarian -- they are skewed to the benefit of the privileged and have built that stability into their value system.

0

No, utilitarianism does not require altruism.

No country or community ever purely subscribe to a single moral system like utilitarianism, but we can possibly say legal systems are somewhat based on consequentialism, in that we expect everyone to behave hedonistically except in situations where restrictions would be for the greater good for the rest of the community. Stealing, murder, defamation all have consequences under law. Lying, cheating, lack of manners have societal consequences. If we can make laws and incentives perfectly align with utilitarianism, we should expect people to behave accordingly.

So an evil man can always behave in his own self interest and seek his own pleasures, and the consequences in a utilitarian system will drive the man to utilitarianism choices. It's absolutely reasonable for a selfish man play the system to ensure maximal benefits; we just need to make sure that the selfish choices also align with utilitarian choices. Given perfect incentivized utilitarian system, we should expect every sane reasonable individual to be utilitarian.

Obviously, no country has perfect laws and we know our economic/workplace/societal incentives go against the greater good by default, so every society requires most of its citizens to behave altruistic or be empathetic to achieve some kind of utilitarianism. That said, in theory, individuals do not need altruism for utilitarianism.

0

Both utilitarianism and altruism presume the ability to judge the degree to benefit of an action to oneself and others. Utilitarianism holds that actions should be chosen to maximise the aggregate benefit to all people ("the greatest benefit for the greatest number"), whereas altruism holds that actions should be chosen to sacrifice your own benefit for the benefit of others. In both cases the goodness of an action is judged by a weighted aggregate of the benefit of an action to all people in society --- in utilitarianism each person is weighted equally in this aggregation, whereas in altruism the benefit to the decision-maker receives a negative weighting (i.e., self-sacrifice of the decision-maker is considered to be good). This difference is described quantitatively in the framework of decision-theory in my answer to a related question here.

There will certainly be individual decision-problems where the optimal action under utilitarianism coincided with the optimal action under altruism. This will tend to occur in cases where there is a large aggregate benefit of an action to others, and the benefit of the action to the decision-maker is small enough that it makes no difference whether this is given a positive or negative weighting in the optimisation problem. However, although there are going to be particular decision-problems where both ethical systems recommend the same action, there will also be problems where they diverge, so they are not the same. In cases where the benefit of an action to the decision-maker is large, utilitarianism will tend to recommend that this action should be taken (so long as the loss to others is not also large) whereas altruism will recommend that this action should not be taken.

Summary: Utilitarianism does not require altruism, though it will coincide with altruism in some decision problems.

0

If I understand you correctly you take "utilitarianism" (U) to be a theoretical claim about ethical duty, and "altruism" (A) to be the practical duties (to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number) that utilitarianism endorses, and you are saying that you think it's obvious that if you believe the theoretical position (U), you must actively live out the practical position (A) - correct?

(The alternative reading is that you're asking whether only people with a psychological predisposition to altruism accept the truth of utilitarianism, but that doesn't match what you're saying about your utilitarian friends.)

As a conceptual/ethical issue, I think you're absolutely correct and the fact that many of the supposed "experts" on U do not practice what they preach is a sad testimony to the conceptual problems with U. In essence, arguments for U are very persuasive to a certain sort of person (altruists) even if they're not very logically convincing - or even coherent. So you get the weird situation that (please forgive the vulgar simplification) dumb altruists find U very persuasive (because it appeals to their worldview), but all of the arguments they hear for U are devised by smart non-altruists who don't come close to living a life of A, for precisely the reason that smart altruists who are sympathetic to U try to apply it as A and quickly figure out where the problems lie.

That is my conceptual analysis. Wrt the history of philosophy, there are two reasons why A might not follow from U:

  1. Utilitarians like Mill (following in a tradition going back to Hume) are externalists and don't take logical arguments to have any motivational force in general. If you read the final chapter of Mill's Utilitarianism you'll see that he assumes only people raised as utilitarians will act on its logic.

  2. The original utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham didn't consider U a principle for personal ethics; it was a principle for social institutions and part of the argument was that there could be no appeal, in public discussions of whether something was good or not, other than to the common good of all the discussants. Obviously this foundation makes U unsuitable as an argument for A (although it does not exclude it).

  3. Many modern utilitarians like RM Hare have built up elaborate utilitarian systems that fix the traditional problems with U by sacrificing the idea that U should directly guide individual actions; in this case what makes a certain rule an ethical rule might be that the rule satisfies U, but that doesn't make the people who follow the rule A (for example, the rule might be "Work hard to support your family").

The second and third are self-explanatory; let me add that -1- (JS Mill's approach) differs from contemporary U in that Mill really believed what he said, and did not expect U theories to convince anyone to act in a U/A way by force of logic; in this he is different from contemporary U, that really does try to use U-principles to pressure people to act in a certain way (even though the ideologues in question do not themselves act on the principles and have no principled explanation of why that is.)

0

Utilitarianism says that pursuing the "greater good" will on benefit the most people (including the individual). Therefore the altruism that utilitarianism requires, is mostly grounded in self interest. It is not gratuitous like some regular altruism could be.

The problematics of such altruism centered in self interest is also called "tragedy of the commons"

-1

Altruism and pity can be used synonymously in the context of utilitarianism. Non-profit organisations, being vehicles of pity and altruism are the results of utilitarian maximum profit. It is thus part of the same system, which should change in total.

Nietzsche described the problem as follows:

"The hour when we say: 'What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion.'" (Nietzsche 1997: 7)

Rousseau promoted pity as follows:

"It is therefore certain that pity is a natural sentiment, which, by moderating in every individual the activity of self-love, contributes to the mutual preservation of the whole species. It is this pity which hurries us without reflection to the assistance of those we see in distress; it is this pity which, in a state of nature, stands for laws, for manners, for virtue, with this advantage, that no one is tempted to disobey her sweet and gentle voice: it is this pity which will always hinder a robust savage from plundering a feeble child, or infirm old man, of the subsistence they have acquired with pain and difficulty, if he has but the least prospect of providing for himself by any other means: it is this pity which, instead of that sublime maxim of argumentative justice, Do to others as you would have others do to you, inspires all men with that other maxim of natural goodness a great deal less perfect, but perhaps more useful, Consult your own happiness with as little prejudice as you can to that of others. It is in a word, in this natural sentiment, rather than in fine-spun arguments, that we must look for the cause of that reluctance which every man would experience to do evil, even independently of the maxims of education." (Rousseau 2004:21)

References

NIETZSCHE; F. 1997. Thus Spake Zarathustra. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited.

ROUSSEAU; J. 2004. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Mineola: Dover.

  • 2
    This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review – Swami Vishwananda Sep 13 '17 at 10:11
  • @SwamiVishwananda answer adjusted. – Marquard Dirk Pienaar Sep 13 '17 at 11:33
  • Can they? Seems like you are shoe-horning your concerns in – CriglCragl Mar 21 '18 at 0:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.