Consequentialism and Utilitarism
«Act is everything. Glory is nothing », wrote Goethe. And Stuart Mill:
«Act is everything. Glory is nothing », wrote Goethe. And Stuart Mill:
He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays a friend who trusts him is guilty of a crime, even if his aim is to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations.
This way of thinking can be applied to love, and to the acts inspired by it. We can argue that the acts inspired by love can have many negative implications: love of power can be harmful, as can the love of luxury, or even an excess of (immoderate) love towards our children (it can spoil them). The consequences and the utility are more important than the intentions (that's what «consequentialism» and «utilitarianism» stress).
We can also postulate that reason, or generosity, or charity (which does not necessarily imply love) can be more important than love itself. What’s important is the act’s worth, and not what is behind it, be it love or any other intention or feeling.
These arguments (philosophically known as «consequentialism» and «utilitarianism») are strong, but it’s folly to devalue love. Consequences aren’t always the most important. Love and other feelings behind consequences define us, and we can’t minimize love. To deny it, is to fall into an inhuman and abstract world, a world that is not ours. Acting without love can be very impoverishing.
We can also postulate that reason, or generosity, or charity (which does not necessarily imply love) can be more important than love itself. What’s important is the act’s worth, and not what is behind it, be it love or any other intention or feeling.
These arguments (philosophically known as «consequentialism» and «utilitarianism») are strong, but it’s folly to devalue love. Consequences aren’t always the most important. Love and other feelings behind consequences define us, and we can’t minimize love. To deny it, is to fall into an inhuman and abstract world, a world that is not ours. Acting without love can be very impoverishing.
In a sense, Stuart Mill - a major exponent of consequentialism and utilitarianism - himself pleaded this position, when he wrote:
It is better to be a human being unsatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other, to make the comparison, understands both sides.
In other words: the good (happiness is a good) can’t be reduced to an abstract fact. And similarly we shouldn’t bet on a world without love, because in this case we would be vindicating the universe of the pig, or any other universe where life is a meagre reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment