Utility

Finished Utilitarianism this morning, I found it a very agreeable take on things and I support Mill's disinterested view of the merit of happiness. His morality is very much subjective, and I like that; perhaps it is even a little too subjective. To begin with, he concludes that happiness is the end of man (end meaning goal) and everything else is but a means to that end. I think this is useful so far as it pertains to the temporal state of man, but when religion is taken into account then happiness is not the true aim anymore. Mill tries to get around this by saying a benevolent God would wish his creatures to be happy, but I'm not sure this is really true. Certainly, happiness is a positive quality in humanity, but virtue must also have a place. For example, perhaps everyone could be made more happy (total happiness increases) if religion were abolished, and hence religiously-inspired strife also ended. But I don't think many people would see this as a good at all. Later in the book, Mill discusses justice, and rights. I have yet to understand his take on how the two meet - what if total happiness could be increased by the seizure of a few rights?

There's an interesting comparison of virtue to money, in terms of their utility. Money is a means to an end, a means to fulfill our pleasures and desires. However, money is often seen as an end in itself; but this is not entirely a bad thing. If money is a source of happiness, instead of a means to it, then the ultimate end of happiness is still achievable, and perhaps moreso. Virtue can be seen in this light. Disregarding the religious ramifications of virtue, it is a means to an end, to achieving a society in spite of our Hobbesian tendencies. However, it has become to many people an end in itself - which if it produces happiness, is all the better. Which brings me to...

The morality of utilitarianism does not distinguish among motives. A man who saves a drowning man altruistically is no different, morally, than the man does that expecting a reward. Intention does matter, so a man who saves a drowning man only to inflict pain on him later is still immoral. But unlike Kantian ethics, actions are evaluated purely on their consequences - this jibes well with Nietzsche.

Finally, my favorite quote. "It is better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." Pleasures of the mind are greater than pleasures of the body. I found a similar tenet in the Enchiridion. Bentham believed that all pleasure was equal, which sounds like hedonism. But Mill's utilitarianism does differentiate.

In other news, listened to a podcast on the history of the Roman empire today. This should be useful since so many classical writers refer to Roman figures. And I've been reading much about the Incan empire lately. I was very surprised to learn that the empire only lasted for about 100 years, from 1438 to about 1533. Surprising how advanced they were in some areas and how deficient in others - learning about them at the same time as reading Guns, Germs, and Steel helps shed perspective on those deficiencies as well.