Utilitarianism
So, the word ‘g88d’ (mod ified utilitarianism) is immune to the semantic issues proposed by Moore and Hume. The criticisms they propose are more of ‘good’’s colloquial connection to the flawed concepts of duty and ought. The concepts, in my opinion, are too entrenched in our psyche to now claim that they aren’t connected to ‘good’. But by starting again with ‘g88d’ we can try and replace ‘good’’s everyday use with ‘g88d’.
In detaching ‘g88d’ from authoritative ought, can I claim, in an essay about concepts and ethics, that ‘g88d’ is a moral term?
Shifting from ‘good’ to ‘g88d’
W e need to distance utilitarianism, as a concept, away from a morality in terms of ‘oughts’ and ‘propers’. Over time I hope people will start to have the same positive intuition about the word ‘good’ f or ‘g88d’. And so a statement of opinion could be ‘ It’s good to do g88 d ’ . Where good is expressing those feelings of ‘properness’, ‘obligation’, ‘ought’ etc. This is what distinguishes utilitarianism from mere behavioral psychology – the expectation that the descriptive statement 'g88d' about end-desires can be talked about in such a way as if it were a moral statement: i t’s g88d to help the elderly etc. I am trying to suggest that there are two ideas/sets-of- terms that exist side by side: ‘good and bad’ an d ‘g88d and b8d’. ‘Good and bad’ are messy words which are a jumble of people’s opinions. People also commonly have the opinion that ‘morality’ is synonymous with ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Then there is ‘g88d’ and ‘b8d’, these terms refer to a clear -cut concept of ‘those actions which maxim izes utility for the maximum number of people,’ and ‘those which do not.’ By proceeding to explain (through evaluating the criticisms) how the term ‘g88d’ (as defined above) is a more beautiful definition of morality than ‘good’, we can shift how we define morality. Morality can be rid of ‘duty’, ‘shoulds and oughts of authority’. Morality will be a study of an action’s or person’s effectiveness at maxim izing utility, either in a g44d, g66d or g88dmanner. The only ‘ought’ wewill consider is the ‘practicality ought’ for fulfilling personal desire. Psychologically, by providing clarity, this competitive account of morality (detached from archaic concepts such as duty) should come to replace ‘good’ when we try to make decisions. Due to the clarity and the closer alignment with rational descriptive decision making (how a person not blinded by emotion acts), the utilitarian decision-making process is the only sensible choice. 19 I am definitely not saying ‘ because we act according to ‘g88d’ we should act according with g88d, ’ instead I’m proposing that ‘g88d’ is a more useful, clear and desirable way to act than ‘good’, it also happens that when we are rational we do act according to ‘g66d/g44d/g88d’, if only subconsciousl y. 20 As well as using ‘g88d’ as a tool to decide how we want to live and act, it can be useful for describing actions or
19 Unless you would prefer to be guided by emotion and intuition (in which case choose good). Even if you do choose that you will still act in a way in line with ‘g88d’, unless you have been indoctrinated wit h concepts of false duty to false authority. 20 In response to Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau points out whilst humans naturally aim for self-preservation, they are also marked by pity: w e desire for other humans not to suffer. It’s up to the biologists and psy chologists to decide which word (g66d/g44d/g88d) is most descriptive, but the most descriptive may not be the same as the most useful.
93
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs