First Exam: Thurs. Feb. 24 Theories of Happiness

Part One - Answer any two (2) of the following questions (50%)

1. Kinds of value • Explain the difference between intrinsic and instrumental goodness, and why this distinction matters for the study of ethics. Give examples to illustrate the kinds of things that may be said to have (a) instrumental value, (b) intrinsic value (c) both.

2. Modern views of happiness • Compare and contrast these three theories of happiness: (1) desirable consciousness theory, (2) preference utilitarian theory, and (2) objective list theory.

3. The relationship between happiness and pleasure • Compare and contrast 2 or more of the following ancient schools of ethics on (1) Buddhism, (2) Epicureanism, (3) Stoicism, (4) Aristotelianism, (5) Jesus & Christianity, (6) Hindu (ahimsa) as articulated by Gandhi.

4. Biological basis for ethics • Whether human beings are naturally ethical or whether ethical rules need to be imposed from above on a fundamentally amoral nature, has been debated through the ages. What evidence, observational and/or theoretical, is there in human biology and anthropology – in human behavior generally – that ethics are natural?

_______________________________________________

Part Two - Answer any two (2) of the following questions (50%)

For A-, be able to refer to thinkers who addressed the question and what their position is.

For A, be able to quote or paraphrase what they said.

1. Does true happiness require that we overcome all struggle, that we remove from life the things that cause us to struggle in order to achieve perfect comfort or is struggle intrinsic and essential to happiness? Aldous Huxley, Gandhi and Camus all argue that struggle is intrinsic to the path towards true happiness. Others argue (Epictetus, Jeremy Bentham) that struggle is not necessary, but that comfort in the key to happiness. What are the key issues here and what do you think is true?

2. Are there different quality levels of pleasure or are all pleasures equal, being relative to the being who experiences them? Jeremy Benthan believes that all pleasures are equal, while J. S. Mill believes that some pleasures are objectively higher (more intrinsically good) than others; who is to decide? According to Mill, an expert who are thorough experience with the pleasures under consideration. What do you think?

3. Is it better to be a satisfied cat or a dissatisfied human being? There is disagreement between utilitarian thinkers on this question. While Jeremy Benthan argues that all pleasures are equal, J. S. Mill argues that some pleasures are higher, others lower. Others believe (William James) that pleasure is relative to the person who desires whatever they desire and there is no objective basis for evaluating pleasure. What is the significance of this question for the study of happiness?

4. Is there some higher spiritual/ethical order in the universe or are human beings the measure of all things? Jesus, Gandhi and other spiritual thinkers believe in an order - God’s Will or Truth or Heaven or Nirvana – which human flourishing depends on acknowledging and living in harmony with. Does such an order exist, or do human desires determine what is truly real and significant (William James)? How does your answer to this question influence the way you life your life?

5. If pleasurable consciousness/experience is what is intrinsically good, does this mean that connection to actual reality does not matter? The classical utilitarians say yes, because happiness is our subjective state of being. Others (Robert Nozick, Aldous Huxley) question this by pointing out that we also desire truth, to be somebody, to accomplish things as opposed to merely having the experience of doing so (reality vs. virtual reality). Why does this issue matter for our understanding of happiness and how we live our lives?

Questions about Happiness and Ethics • Study Guide

For Ethics Quiz on Thurs. Feb. 24th

I. Instrumental versus intrinsic goodness

Ethics is about the understanding and pursuit of ethical or moral value in our lives. When we understand value in terms of goodness and badness, we need to appeal to some idea of what is truly good, truly bad. Now there are two kinds of goodness: instrumental goodness and intrinsic goodness. Something is instrumentally good if it is necessary achieving something you desire. For example, a screwdriver is good if you have a screw you need to turn. In contrast, something is intrinsically good if you choose it for its own sake, and not only for the sake of something else. The theories of happiness we’ve been studying are different ways of understanding what makes something intrinsically good.

2. Some ancient theories of happiness

Buddhism (What is non-attachment to desire?)

Epicureanism (What is the truly pleasurable life?)

Stoicism (What is freedom from bad things that may happen to you?)

Aristotelianism (What is peak activity in accordance with excellence?)

Jesus / Christianity (What is the kingdom of heaven?)

Hinduism / Ahimsa / Gandhi (How do you approach living in Truth?)

What are the key ideas about goodness and happiness of these ancient schools of ethical philosophy? What do they have to say about the relationship between pleasure and happiness? What truth do you find in each of these views? Does anything strike you as implausible or false about what they teach?

3. Some modern theories of Happiness

The Desirable Consciousness Theory – (Jeremy Benthan and J. S. Mill) The classical utilitarian philosophers argue that pleasure is intrinsically good and pain intrinsically bad. The “Greatest Happiness Principle” follows from this: given two or more choices in how to act, the ethically best action is the one which will lead to the greatest pleasure (or what amounts to the same, will cause the least amount of pain) for the greatest number of sentient beings.

The Preference Utilitarian Theory – (William James) If goodness is caused by desire, then there is no objective basis for distinguishing the relative goodness of two desires outside of the desires themselves. According to this theory, ethics is not about maximizing the greatest happiness, but maximizing the greatest satisfaction of what is desired (regardless of whether you personally believe that what someone desires will actually make them happy. This is related to a libertarian view of politics – that individuals should be free to choose (what appears to us as) self-destructive behavior simply because they desire it.

Objective List Theory – (John Finnis) In contrast to theories which define happiness or intrinsic goodness in terms of a subjective feeling, objective list theories of happiness understand happiness to be the objective condition of a life which includes certain objective components. It holds that happiness consists of a human life that achieves certain things from a list of worthwhile pursuits: such a list might include career accomplishments, friendship, freedom from disease and pain, material comforts, civic spirit, beauty, education, love, knowledge, and good conscience. Try memorizing Finnis’ list of essential ingredients to a truly happy life.

4. Some Key Questions for the Ethics of Pleasure, Happiness, Truth

Are there different quality levels of pleasure or are all pleasures equal, being relative to the being who experiences them? Jeremy Benthan believes that all pleasures are equal, while J. S. Mill believes that some pleasures are objectively higher (more intrinsically good) than others; who is to decide? According to Mill, an expert who are thorough experience with the pleasures under consideration.

Is it better to be a satisfied cat or a dissatisfied human being? There is disagreement between utilitarian thinkers on this question. While Jeremy Benthan argues that all pleasures are equal, J. S. Mill argues that some pleasures are higher, others lower. How might your answer to this question alter your view of what goodness is?

Is something good because you desire it, or do you desire it because it is good? If something is good simply because it is desired, then we cannot judge the goodness of anyone’s desires. (This is what William James argues in “Good as the Satisfaction of Demands,” pp. 205-211). Is goodness something in the world, or do things only have value if human beings desire them? Related to this is the next question:

Is there some higher spiritual/ethical order in the universe or are human beings the measure of all things? Jesus, Gandhi and other spiritual thinkers believe in an order - God’s Will or Truth or Heaven or Nirvana – which human flourishing depends on acknowledging and living in harmony with. Does such an order exist, or do human desires determine what is truly real and significant? This is the question debated between humanistic views of ethics and spiritual/religious views.

If pleasurable consciousness/experience is what is intrinsically good, does this mean that connection to actual reality does not matter? The classical utilitarians say yes, because happiness is our subjective state of being. Others question this by pointing out that we also desire truth, to be somebody, to accomplish things as opposed to merely having the experience of doing so (reality vs. virtual reality)

Does true happiness require that we overcome all struggle, that we remove from life the things that cause us to struggle in order to achieve perfect comfort or is struggle intrinsic and essential to happiness? Aldous Huxley, Gandhi and Camus all argue that struggle is intrinsic to the path towards true happiness. Others argue that struggle is not necessary.

5. Some notes on the significance of reciprocity for ethics as discussed in class

Reciprocity is a key phenomenon for ethics. If ethics is largely about cooperative behavior between people which mutually benefits them, reciprocity seems to be key to ethics and at the foundation of what we mean by equality, fairness, and recognition. Make sure you understand what reciprocity is, can define it and can explain its significance for understanding the origins of ethics.

Ethical relativism vs. evidence of the universal appearance of reciprocity in the biological world - If we focus on the differences between how different peoples live, we can easily reach the conclusion that there are no objective ethical standards shared by human beings generally (consider the example of different burial practices described by Singer on p. 57). On the other hand, examples of reciprocity can be found not only in many different human societies but even in other non-human primate societies such as Chimpanzees. You should be able to identify some of these examples (as described in the papers mentioned above).

Darwinian/evolutionary explanation of reciprocity - As discussed in the first class, Darwin argued that ethics evolves in nature, is part of the natural world, not something imposed on it somehow from above. All creatures are benefited from cooperating with each other as much as they can unless it interferes or threatens their survival. On Tuesday, we looked at Robert Trivers' paper on the evolution of reciprocity as a more detailed explanation of how natural selection may have evolved reciprocal behaviors in human beings and other primates. You should be able to explain in outline (without all the technical details) the basic argument for why reciprocity evolved in the human struggle for survival.

TUE 2/15 (6) Views of the Ultimate Good cont.

Reading: Singer, Ethics Reader, pp. 219-242.

THUR 2/10 (5) Views of the Ultimate Good: Modern Perspectives

Reading for class on Thur., Feb. 10th:

Modern perspectives on the Ultimate Good for human beings

Ethics Reader, pp. 198-219, 228-246

Announcements

Hi all - As most of you know, classes have been cancelled for Thursday, Feb. 3rd on account of faculty meetings. We will therefore reconvene next Tuesday and discuss the readings which were originally assigned for 2/3: Ethics Reader, pp. 179-197.

For those of you who missed class on Tuesday 2/1, we discussed the readings on reciprocity. The readings we focused on in class were Frans de Waal's Chimpanzee Justice, Tony Ashworth's Live and Let Live, Bruno Malinowski's The Kula Ring, and Robert Trivers', The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism.

Some notes on the significance of reciprocity for ethics as discussed in class

1. Reciprocity is a key phenomenon for ethics. If ethics is largely about cooperative behavior between people which mutually benefits them, reciprocity seems to be key to ethics and at the foundation of what we mean by equality, fairness, and recognition. Make sure you understand what reciprocity is, can define it and can explain its significance for understanding the origins of ethics.

2. Ethical relativism vs. evidence of the universal appearance of reciprocity in the biological world - If we focus on the differences between how different peoples live, we can easily reach the conclusion that there are no objective ethical standards shared by human beings generally (consider the example of different burial practices described by Singer on p. 57). On the other hand, examples of reciprocity can be found not only in many different human societies but even in other non-human primate societies such as Chimpanzees. You should be able to identify some of these examples (as described in the papers mentioned above).

3. Darwinian/evolutionary explanation of reciprocity - As discussed in the first class, Darwin argued that ethics evolves in nature, is part of the natural world, not something imposed on it somehow from above. All creatures are benefited from cooperating with each other as much as they can unless it interferes or threatens their survival. On Tuesday, we looked at Robert Trivers' paper on the evolution of reciprocity as a more detailed explanation of how natural selection may have evolved reciprocal behaviors in human beings and other primates. You should be able to explain in outline (without all the technical details) the basic argument for why reciprocity evolved in the human struggle for survival.

THUR 2/3 (4) Views of the Ultimate Good: Classical Perspectives

What is true happiness? Readings for class on Thur., Feb. 3rd are selections from classical writers on the question of the Ultimate Good for human beings.

Assignment: Peter Singer, Ethics Reader, pp. 179-197