Philosophy
08/10/2014
Lasker’s Rule
A hot topic on the philosophical table is whether or not to act in a manner which maximizes happiness. Utilitarianism is a theory which approaches this very subject. Utilitarianism is the philosophy that every individual should act in a manner that distributes the largest amount of happiness over the largest percentage of the population. For example:
[s]uppose a raft is floating in the Pacific Ocean. On the raft are two men starving to death. One day they discover some food in an inner compartment of a box on the raft. They have reason to believe that the food will be sufficient to keep one of them alive until the raft reaches a certain island where help is available, but if they share the food, both will most likely die. Now, one of these men is a brilliant scientist who has in his mind the cure for cancer. The other man is undistinguished. Otherwise there is no relevant difference between the two. What is the morally right thing to do . . . if you voted to give the food to the scientist, you sided with the teleologist, the utilitarian, who would calculate that there would be greater good accomplished as a result of the scientist getting the food and living than in any of the other likely outcomes (Mill 520).
I do not believe this philosophy is entirely accurate.
My own philosophy of happiness is not unlike Utilitarianism, except for the crucial point which proposes that one should sacrifice for the happiness of the majority. I believe one should sacrifice solely for the happiness of one’s self. If sacrificing for the happiness of the majority somehow benefits one’s own happiness then so be it, but I do not believe that the layman ought not fight the doctor over the last meal on the raft, for the layman’s happiness is worth just as much to the layman as the doctor’s happiness is to the doctor.
Happiness is like a game of chess: maybe your opponent’s queen-piece is vulnerable and you take it out: score for you! But in doing so you, unknowingly, leave yourself vulnerable to a checkmate. Maybe you really enjoyed taking out your opponent’s queen-piece and that is all that mattered to you at the time but it is my opinion that in all cases of and the like, one would best enable one’s own happiness by sacrificing the spike of joy in the moment for the more subtle joy of winning the match. Happiness of the future must be anticipated and prepared for in the present. It is more felicitous to propagate a lower mean of happiness over an extended period of time than it is to acquiesce some sublime happiness for only a short period, and I can prove so by detailing an instance of life which I am sure most, if not all, are familiar with.
Let us talk about drugs. People take drugs because drugs are awesome and they make you feel great! Why then is there such a stigma attached to drugs and the drug-culture? Perhaps this topic will be more easily absorbed on a more local level: alcohol. Alcohol is a fine example of a drug. It has less stigma associated with it than methamphetamine or heroin, although in many ways it is much more treacherous than the two combined. In any bar on any given night one may find anywhere from a handful to dozens of individuals indulging in alcohol, and if asked why most would reply that he/she is ‘out having a good time’ or ‘relaxing after a hard day of work’. Whether they are in a relaxed mood or an excited mood, the underlying lure is the same: happiness. People are happy when they enjoy themselves and people are happy when they are relaxed. So if alcohol is the source of happiness then it would be perfectly logical for everyone to drink alcohol all the time. This is called alcoholism and in theory it is a brilliant plan, in practice however we see a great deal of divergence in the expected results. Quickly one goes from a state of impaired motor function and slurred speech, which can be both fun and humorous, to a state rife with headaches, vomiting, and unconsciousness. If that is not enough to disparage one’s state of happiness, and alcohol continues to be consumed over a long period of time, one can expect to experience: liver disease, nerve damage, sexual dysfunction, brain damage, and cancer, just to list a few. Alcoholics make a deal with the devil when they drink, they trade a lower average level of happiness over a long period of time for an extremely high average level of happiness over a short period of time. I do not think any anecdotal evidence is required to convince you that the former is the lesser evil by far.
I can demonstrate my argument again from a different perspective, the perspective of relationships. An intimate relationship between two partners can fabricate a great deal of happiness. As a relationship progresses however, it requires more work to sustain the happiness it provides. Often times there are periods of time within a relationship that the happiness being presently ascertained is dwarfed by the potential happiness one might procure from another partner. In such cases infidelity seems to be the logical course of action. Many people choose to act in this way which seems so logical to them at the time. When their partner discovers the infidelity however, the logic which they acted upon no longer seems as sound. Their current partner will typically terminate the relationship, which leaves the infidel with even less happiness than they had within the lull of the relationship. Perhaps they could engage in a new relationship, spiking their happiness, and continue in such a cycle. This is, once again, a valid theory but much less viable in practice. As the infidel continues in such a manner he/she gains a reputation as an infidel, and as such becomes less attractive to potential mates. Each time the cycle completes itself it becomes more and more difficult for the infidel to attract a new mate. Theoretically, after this cycle completed itself so many times, the chance of the infidel finding a new mate becomes nil, as does the chance to escalate their own happiness. Once again we can see that the lower average level of happiness over the longer period of time (staying committed to the original relationship and forgoing any acts of infidelity) is the more beneficial.
I have already stated I believe the layman has every right to fight the doctor over the food because the layman’s happiness is just as important to the layman as the doctor’s is to the doctor. The layman’s happiness to the doctor in such a situation is effectively nil, as is the doctor’s to the layman. What this suggests is that happiness is subjective. Were the two both going to survive then one’s to the other would increment, yet it would still be from a purely subjective point of view because now the one would need continue to live alongside the other and thus the other’s happiness is influential of the one’s and so it is that we should go about life. Happiness will not be subject to an objective moral standpoint, as happiness is a purely subjective experience. The only logical reason for one to attempt to please another is because we all must live together and our environment is a major factor in our quality of life (happiness). One can do everything in one’s power to make another happy, but if the other decides they will not be pleased then nothing one might do will change their mind: happiness is a subjective experience and therefore cannot be subjugated to an objective moral standpoint. Do everything you can to make yourself happy, but keep in mind that the environment is a major contributor to your state of affairs and that other people are major contributors to your environment.
Works Cited
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/alcohol/short-term-long-term-effects.html. N.p. 2006-2014. Web. 07/10/2014
Pojman, Louis P., Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy: The Quest For Truth. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment