Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Utilitarianism and Altruism

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Utilitarianism and Altruism

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm specifically thinking of JS Mill's version of utilitarianism. Typically, his ethics are thought to be altruistic, and in most cases this seems to be true. But is it possible that Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone and even demand that an agent act in a selfish way.

Imagine: I, a young man with the whole of my life still ahead, is walking home. On the way I see an old man, most certainly in the winter of his life, drowning in a deep lake. As an altruist, there is no doubt that I should try to save the drowning man. However, does Mill's utilitarian ethics demand that I try to save the old man?

Perhaps not. In the attempt to save the old man, I risk my own life. As, according to Mill, we should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness should I leave the old man?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm specifically thinking of JS Mill's version of utilitarianism. Typically, his ethics are thought to be altruistic, and in most cases this seems to be true. But is it possible that Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone and even demand that an agent act in a selfish way.

Imagine: I, a young man with the whole of my life still ahead, is walking home. On the way I see an old man, most certainly in the winter of his life, drowning in a deep lake. As an altruist, there is no doubt that I should try to save the drowning man. However, does Mill's utilitarian ethics demand that I try to save the old man?

Perhaps not. In the attempt to save the old man, I risk my own life. As, according to Mill, we should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness should I leave the old man?

It would seem to me it would be dependent on just what those risks entailed to save the old man.
William

@William,

That I might drown is one risk. Three possible outcomes of me trying to save the old man:
1) I save him
2) I save him but drown in the process
3) We both drown

If it turns out that either 2 or 3 occur, it seems to me that my altruistic act (trying to save the old man) produces, according to Mill, more unhappiness than happiness.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That I might drown is one risk. Three possible outcomes of me trying to save the old man:
1) I save him
2) I save him but drown in the process
3) We both drown

If it turns out that either 2 or 3 occur, it seems to me that my altruistic act (trying to save the old man) produces, according to Mill, more unhappiness than happiness.

It seems to me, 2 and 3 are the same. It is unlikely you will save him if you lose you life in that process. We are thinking entities. If you conclude you would indeed lose your life, 2 live's would be lost and that would effect other lives such as you family and children. If one sees no chance of succeeding, better the loss of one life than risking the health and welfare of many more. Does that make sense?

William

@William,

William wrote:

It seems to me, 2 and 3 are the same. It is unlikely you will save him if you lose you life in that process. We are thinking entities. If you conclude you would indeed lose your life, 2 live's would be lost and that would effect other lives such as you family and children. If one sees no chance of succeeding, better the loss of one life than risking the health and welfare of many more. Does that make sense?

Yes, perfect sense. But that isn't the point. I'm wondering if Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone egoism, or at the very least, eschew altruism.

2 and 3 are not the same; however unlikely 2 may be it is a possibility.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, perfect sense. But that isn't the point. I'm wondering if Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone egoism, or at the very least, eschew altruism.

2 and 3 are not the same; however unlikely 2 may be it is a possibility.

In saying 2 and 3 were the same, I was taking the scenarion literally. It seems highly unlikely the drowning victim would survive if you drowned yourself and both lives would be lost. Yes there are other scenarios in which 2 would be applicable and 3 would not. Let me ask you a question, DT. Is there a place for common sense in logic discussions? It seems to me most of them are "catch 22's" that end up either way you go, you are wrong. It just seems to me there are just to many variable's involved that make "ethics" problems impossible if these variables are not considered and that is what the "mind" does. I'm relatively new to ethics problems so bear with me here a little.

To blindly risk your own life to save another without weighing all that is at stake borders on foolishness rather than altruism. To consider one's self and responsiblity to his family is not egosim. Now to let the old man drown because you don't want to get water in your ears is another story. How am I doing?:perplexed:

William

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That I might drown is one risk. Three possible outcomes of me trying to save the old man:
1) I save him
2) I save him but drown in the process
3) We both drown

If it turns out that either 2 or 3 occur, it seems to me that my altruistic act (trying to save the old man) produces, according to Mill, more unhappiness than happiness.

... but aren't you implicitly assuming that "option 0" is somehow neutral?:

0) I stand and do nothing while the old man drowns, can't look at myself in the mirror anymore, become self-destructive, and eventually commit suicide.

@Didymos Thomas,

In a way isn't that equal to option three, only over a longer period of time?

It depends upon the outcome of two or three for a decision. If you are religious then self-sacrifice is the ultimate form of love, almost a guarantee from some doctrines for entry to heaven, and so 2's outcome would be greater than anything from the utilitarian and altruistic perspective, whereas 3 would only be so great from the utilitarian perspective, as the old man's afterlife outcome would be unknown and you would surely be credited for the attempt of self-sacrifice. If to you god does not exist, then we take the other concepts of death as neither good nor bad, merely the cessation of sensation, then something else entirely crops up. Is the potential of life greater or lesser than the neutrality of death?

On the other hand, by the time you take this thread into consideration, the old man has drowned and you have forgotten you can't swim anyway.

@Didymos Thomas,

:shifty:

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm specifically thinking of JS Mill's version of utilitarianism. Typically, his ethics are thought to be altruistic, and in most cases this seems to be true. But is it possible that Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone and even demand that an agent act in a selfish way.

Good question, and a bit sticky as well.

While I'd agree that his ethics are typically thought to be alturistic, my personal visualization of Mill's utilitarianism tends towards the more practical. Nevertheless, having recently re-read his "Utilitiarianism" and having it handy, if I had to answer your scenario's question, I'd say most likely: It depends on the likelyhood of success; or more precisely, the perceived likelyhood of success in the mind of he who is considering the swim.

Here are some passages that struck me as likely applicable:

From J.S. Mill, Utilitarinism (1863), Chapter 2:
[INDENT]"The utilitiarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted. The only self-renunciation which it applauds, is devotion to the happiness, or to some of the means of happiness, of others; either of mankind collectively, or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests of mankind"
[/INDENT]and..
[INDENT]"What is there to decide whether a paricular pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings of judgment of the experienced?"
[/INDENT]There are other references which could refute this, but this is how I take his intent. But yea, he seems to be aware of the quandry of self-sacrifice -vs- ones' own happiness.

My own ethic says that one must make the attempt; that there is value in the act itself, unless ones' perceived chances for success are very dim (in which case I'd be guilty of a sort of suicide).

Hope this hits close to the intent of your question - Thanks

@Khethil,

As rare as this situation might be, what if you had some mentally disturbed person who attempted to drown himself knowing that another person would see this and attempt to save him?

This mentally ill person would get pleasure in this whole scheme, but in the process of dying, his whole, very large, mentally sound family would be extremely saddened by the incident of his death, if he were to die.

And the person choosing to save the mentally ill person happens to have no family or anybody who would really be saddened from the incident of his potential death, but his life has been going very well, and he has been prosperous and happy.

So should the mentally ill person be saved by the other?

Can you have morality where justice is ineffectual?

@Holiday20310401,

So it is agreed that, at least in some cases, Mill's ethics stand in opposition to altruism?

@Kolbe,

Kolbe wrote:

In a way isn't that equal to option three, only over a longer period of time?

... exactly ... so, assuming you are of the type who would be haunted by inaction in such a circumstance and you know this about yourself, the utilitarian choice is pretty clear: jump in! ... of course, this is a pretty personality-specific answer ...

Kolbe wrote:

On the other hand, by the time you take this thread into consideration, the old man has drowned and you have forgotten you can't swim anyway.

... but then I can blame it on y'all for taking too long to come to a conclusion (crowds are so liberating that way!) ...

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So it is agreed that, at least in some cases, Mill's ethics stand in opposition to altruism?

... I think that it could be said that where the actions suggested by altruism are identical to the actions suggested by utilitarianism it is by mere coincidence ... btw, I seem to remember reading about a study that was done on people with lesions in a certain area of the brain that purportedly provides a feedforward/feedback path between emotion and reason ... the control subjects in the study scored in a "normal" range along the altruism-utilitarianism continuum; whereas the folks with the lesions all scored as good utilitarians ...

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Perhaps not. In the attempt to save the old man, I risk my own life. As, according to Mill, we should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness should I leave the old man?

I'm not sure if this has been said already but I think of this every time someone mentions utilitarianism. It is impossible to calculate the greatest amount of happiness. For one you don't know anything about the old man. He could have 100's of friends and relatives that would suffer because of his death. All of those 100's might then meet others that would try to console them and those people may become depressed as their help is not working. Possibly he was an entertainer by trade and now their are people that will not have his benefit of entertainment anymore. Since those people will not have his entertainment anymore then they may become depressed and do "bad" things.

It is impossible to calculate the 'greatest amount of happiness' because their is an infinite number of consequences.

@Didymos Thomas,

Humans don't make rational decisions, we rationalize after the ract.

So ethics should determine laws and culture which exert influence upon the individual and help shape his inherently irrational decision making process.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So it is agreed that, at least in some cases, Mill's ethics stand in opposition to altruism?

I'd say: Yes, but only in the most literal sense and without weighing the details of the circumstance (that those cases where there is disproportionate sacrifice without possibility of gain are not moral).

But... I could think of many examples of altruistic acts which dont' necessarily equate to a proportionate "sacrifice" yet could be reasonably called altruistic. Altruistic acts, by definition, describe acts which are taken without regard to the 'self'. But this is not to say that there could not be acts of giving, where I don't take myself into account, that could be called good when weighed in the light of the overall pleasure/pain principle.

Your question is simple and direct; asking for a simple answer for which I don't think it's just to give without qualification.

I am gonna have to think on this some more. Although I completely believe what I'm saying here, I'm feeling some wishy-washyness. In any case, I hope this makes sense.

@Didymos Thomas,

Do the calculus. Does saving (along with all the predicted necessary actions to do so) the old man diminish the total local happiness sum, given your contribution, more so than leaving him be (insofar as leaving him be would, between the two of you, diminish the total local happiness sum? Or something like that... Guh. Utilitarianism...

@Khethil,

IMHO,

Again I have to say that we are all on paths that we create beneath our own feet, and should a man create a path that he finds difficult to continue on because of past mistakes I would say that he would probably wish he could go back and make a different choice.

No doubt we are all on paths exactly like that.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm specifically thinking of JS Mill's version of utilitarianism. Typically, his ethics are thought to be altruistic, and in most cases this seems to be true. But is it possible that Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone and even demand that an agent act in a selfish way.

Imagine: I, a young man with the whole of my life still ahead, is walking home. On the way I see an old man, most certainly in the winter of his life, drowning in a deep lake. As an altruist, there is no doubt that I should try to save the drowning man. However, does Mill's utilitarian ethics demand that I try to save the old man?

Perhaps not. In the attempt to save the old man, I risk my own life. As, according to Mill, we should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness should I leave the old man?

Probably it is a question of intent. And, ya know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think I would admire the primary intention and overlook the possible consequences.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm specifically thinking of JS Mill's version of utilitarianism. Typically, his ethics are thought to be altruistic, and in most cases this seems to be true. But is it possible that Mill's ethics can, in some cases, condone and even demand that an agent act in a selfish way.

Imagine: I, a young man with the whole of my life still ahead, is walking home. On the way I see an old man, most certainly in the winter of his life, drowning in a deep lake. As an altruist, there is no doubt that I should try to save the drowning man. However, does Mill's utilitarian ethics demand that I try to save the old man?

Perhaps not. In the attempt to save the old man, I risk my own life. As, according to Mill, we should act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness should I leave the old man?

'Is the scene safe?' is the number One rule in a first response.
Helping those in need without the risk of hurting others including Oneself is the right thing to do, when safe to do so.

=
MJA

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Utilitarianism and Altruism

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Utilitarianism and Altruism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know