Utilitarianism
All such theoretical devices are best ignored as mere intellectual fantasy exercises. If I were to build a moral theory for a world in which the utility monster did exist, it would look very different from utilitarianism. But this is not my purpose here. The utilitarianism I have constructed is for use in a world where ‘marginal loss of utility’ is a naturalistic fact of life. It is h uman nature that pleasure decreases with quantity; it’s basic opportunity cost economics . 38
Pain’s necessity for pleasure
A criticismwhich is due to patent misunderstanding is the idea that to be happy we need some pain and challenge in life, and that somehow the necessity for pain in life discredits utilitarianism.
Firstly, there is no actual evidence to prove that happiness relies on pain. Let us say a new study into the psychology of happiness suggests people gain more utility when they overcome a challenge to get it. The actions suggested by utilitarianismwould factor this in! 39 If you were to plug yourself into ‘Nozick’s pleasure machine’ 40 then the machine would factor in just enough challenge, adversity, and pain to remind/enable you to appreciate the pleasure, as this would be necessary to maximizing the utility. 41 Some critics are fearful that in an ideal world, utilitarianism could become so successful (eradicating all pain) that our lives would become boring and meaningless. This would not happen because utilitarianismwould suggest giving people a life purpose (a challenge to overcome), as this would be an end desire. To an extent people do desire work; so, utilitarianism would suggest having the perfect amount of it. But life as it is, often has unnecessary amounts of pain and far too much challenge: this has the effect of decreasing pleasure/happiness ∴ utility. The issues with Nozick’s pleasure machine can be dismissed as it would include challenges. If people desire challenge and social interaction, then the machine would maximize pleasure whilst including the exact right amount of challenge and social interaction. Nozick claims that people would not plug in, but I would argue that if you remind people that they can still speak to their families and friends in the machine, I think they would. I certainly would. Sex in a dream is just as good as real life, if not better because you can't be disappointed. As someone who has extremely vivid dreams, I love the night-time adventures. It appears that plugging into a pleasure machine has an image problem; if it’s in people's rational interests to fulfill their desires and if possible through the pleasure machine, why not do so? Doesn’t the fact that people spend money inside video games prove t hat we don’t place emphasis on the real. Is play -acting proof that humans love fantasy and dreams? Are video games our feeble attempts to fulfill them? We hate waking up from 38 The more resources we already have, the less impact more resources have. (See ‘Resource Allocation’ earlier.) 39 This is a reference to the economic attempt to build a model of society which would maximize utility, or merely a decision- making model given a set of options. Some models quantify with ‘utils’ ; others don’t quantify at all, instead using comparisons (indifference theory). Indifference theory is a possible solution for those who protest that happiness cannot be quantified. 40 Nozick 1974: 42-5. 41 The pain argument is most often used by religions as an attempt to explain away evil in the world. Those who claim this often have easier lives and fewer challenges than those who experience unnecessarily large amounts of suffering. Such people tend to believe in ‘The TrainWreck Equilibrium Theory’ which states that all people experience the same amount of suffering, just in d ifferent forms at different times. As poetic as this is, it’s no more than a lazy self-indulgence. Try telling a poverty-stricken child of Sudan that you will both undergo the same amount of pain in your lifetimes.
101
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs