anonymous cowgirl

Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is

The Principle of Utility states, “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends” (Chapter 2, para. 2). John Stuart Mills defines utilitarianism throughout the second chapter, and addresses a number of dissenting opinions, all of which boil down–in his view–to a failure to understand the meaning of utility. “The end [or purpose] of human action,” he says, is “an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and a rich as possible in enjoyments” for all.

Human nature – higher and lower pleasures

A central theme to Mills’ description of utility is that the higher capacities of the intellect give greater pleasure. Virtuous action and engagement of our rational faculties are more pleasurable than possessing an abundance of food or other material satisfactions. In one form or another, Mills employs this belief throughout the chapter to address utilitarianism’s detractors.

In his belief that humans derive greater pleasure from virtuous actions, and in his belief that all human beings possess a desire to be virtuous and enlightened, Mills echoes Mencius, a Chinese philosopher writing 2,100 years earlier. In the following passage, Mills discusses why those who are capable of higher pleasures forego them for the lower:

Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. (Mills, Chapter 2 para.7)

This reminded me strongly of Mencius’ discussion of human nature, which Negin cited earlier on this blog:

The trees of the Niu Mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large state, they were hewn down with axes and bills; and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owed the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain?

And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the heart of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of heart is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it – the heart – retain its beauty? …Therefore, if it receives its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it loses its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. (Mencius, Book 6, Part 1, Kâo Tsze)

Self-interest and the public good

There is a dominant conceptual framework that says we are all self-interested, and that our society can attain the most good by allowing each of us to pursue our self-interest. In fact, this is often confused with utilitarianism. But Mills refutes this idea when he defines the goal of utilitarianism as “the greatest amount of happiness altogether,” not just for the individual [emphasis mine]. And he makes it clear in this chapter that the greatest good may sometimes require individuals to renounce their own immediate self-interest.

Mills actually cites selfishness as one of the principal causes of a lack of utility or pleasure. In contrast to the view of homo economicus–the self-interested individual–Mills states that there is no inherent necessity that any human being should be a selfish egotist. Human beings are capable of much more. Mills says that we are capable of two related aims:

1. Genuine private affections
2. Sincere interest in the public good

This two-fold purpose of individual development and community well-being seems to align with a new conceptual framework offered by the Baha’i Faith. Mills goes on to suggest the type of society that would grow out of the Utilitarian principle. It would be possessed of laws “to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole.” This is a profoundly powerful, unified statement. John Stuart Mills seems to reject the false dichotomy between private and public good. Today we read a statement like this in one direction: “My happiness is good for the whole,” instead of taking a more holistic view: “I must rationally decide what is best for the whole, even if it entails personal sacrifice.”

Utilitarianism and the Baha’i Faith – Initial considerations

This view of human potential seems similar to the spiritual realities revealed by Baha’u'llah writing in the Middle East a few years earlier. However, Baha’u'llah’s Writings exhort the friends to be of service to others. Mills perhaps suggests a zero sum game: if serving your self-interest garners more total happiness than serving someone else’s interest, it is better to serve yourself. If greater total happiness can be won by sacrificing for the good of the whole, then do so.” In contrast, Baha’u'llah asks the believer to “preferreth his brother before himself” (Tablets Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, tenth leaf, page 71). Abdu’l-Baha, His son, describes this ethic further–with no mention of self-interest:

First, you must become united and agreed among yourselves. You must be exceedingly kind and loving toward each other, willing to forfeit life in the pathway of another’s happiness. You must be ready to sacrifice your possessions in another’s behalf. The rich among you must show compassion toward the poor, and the well-to-do must look after those in distress. (Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 215)

This is Part 2 of a Series. Read the other parts:

1. Notes on John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism
2. Utilitarianism (and the Baha’i Faith) Part 2

Here is the scene: I’m at the bus stop. My computer bag is slung over my shoulder, and my book bag is in my hand. All of a sudden I realize there’s water trickling out of my book bag, due to an unruly water bottle. So I take everything out, and put most of the books into my computer bag, except for one sodden notebook which I keep out to let it dry off a bit. Then Lev calls so I’m on the phone with him. Then the bus pulls up, at which point I have to reach into my computer bag, pull out my purse, get my wallet, grab my bus card. SUMMARY: I’m carrying a live phone, a notebook, a wet bookbag, my purse, my wallet, my bus card, with my computer bag slung over my shoulder, trying to enter a bus. WHAT I NEEDED THEN was a word to say that would allow me to exit the phone call with the utmost haste, no questions asked, no feelings hurt, no concerns about safety raised. AND a word for Lev to say so I know he heard me and won’t think I just hung up on him. After some discussion, we came up with a solution.

THE SOLUTION IS UNVEILED HERE:
Person needing to hang up: Eject!
Person on other line: Release.

I’m reasonably sure this will come in useful to others as well. Enjoy!

new word: ubifarm. it will do, lacking anything better, to describe a loose set of ideas. the notion that a share of vegetables from a farm’s CSA (community supported agriculture) program could have its own blog. That gardens, farms and markets might have their own RSS feeds. My phone ought to tell me when arugula is available in Davis Square. If sensor technology improves, I’d love it if the soil in my backyard could tell me the concentrations of lead and other heavy metals. But barring that ideal situation, I could send a soil sample to the local extension office and blog the results.

so please – consider ubifarm. (thanks to Brian for perhaps unwittingly initiating this tag.

• Seasonal Veggies RSS Feed and other Farmers Market Technology
• Salt of the earth: Brian liked my tag!
• ubifarm on del.icio.us: add yours
• Herb Cruising via Brian: the post that started it all

In a whole blog full of beautiful posts, Blogwarrior Phillipe has just cast light on the Don Imus thing from a Bahá’í perspective on strength, nobility, and the station of African Americans:

What I concluded is that the excessive focus on how upsetting these kinds of statements are to African Americans is a way of saying that we are so fragile from the experience of racism in this country, that such comments are psychologically devastating to us, rather than simply offensive or annoying.

I’d recommend subscribing to his RSS feed, and I’ve added him to the blogroll on your right. There’s good food over there. I’ll close with another quote from Phillipe’s post, which references the Bahá’í belief that human beings have an immense capacity:

Every Black American, even on their worst day is living proof that we have survived the worst that white supremacy could throw at us… We are powerful (as all human beings are) because God made us that way.

Malcolm had a project consultation with us yesterday. I showed him the scenarios I’ve been working on, which are written from the perspective of an artificially intelligent lighting fixture in a distributed network. He enjoyed it, and pointed out that one of the reasons the anthropomorphism works is that we know lighting fixtures aren’t sentient. When an automatic teller machine says, “Hold on, I’m processing that,” it’s frustrating in part because the use of the first person pronoun is confusing. The ATM takes the place of a human being — hence it’s name. Is it trying to act like a person? Is it letting me know that a real person is inside the bank processing my request? The “I” is confusing. But with a lighting fixture, it’s clear that the light fixture is not a person. So the use of the first person pronoun automatically places us in a newly imagined space.

Dinosaur comics has officially become my new favorite tool for social commentary. If T-Rex says it in that opening panel, I get the feeling anyone will listen. He doesn’t sound holier-than-thou, or patronizing; it’s just the voice of T-Rex, telling you to stop using the b-word. What could be simpler?

At the Oberlin Hip Hop Conference in 2000, Saul Williams gave the keynote. I had an audio tape of the speech, which I once listened to every day for an entire summer, interspersed with the original Handsome Boy Modeling School album. During the talk, Saul praises all the women who taught him, even when they were cursing him out. And he mentions, as an anology for whites using the n-word, how even though some women may choose to use the term discussed in Ryan North’s comic strip, he as a man will actively choose never to use it. A history of sexualized power imbalances and marginalization renders it unacceptable for a man to use such a term. Take that, Monterey Jack!

Did anyone else just take this for granted? Apparently ‘gaiden’ is a descriptor word in Japanese, referring to an ‘outside story,’ or a story that happens outside the main continuity. Check the Wikipedia definition of “gaiden.” I always assumed “Ninja Gaiden” was just the name of the old video game. Or possibly the name of the ninja in question.

…Apparently it had further significance.

UPDATE: Wikipedia also provides further background on how Ninja Gaiden’s title was selected. There’s an odd sort of poetry to it.

I don’t know when I fell in love with words. I think Becca had something to do with it. I looked up to that woman. Her poetry was so class, and she refused to write very much of it. …As though she dared not accumulate. Anyway, it was two years later, at the tender age of 21, that my friend Katy introduced me to the Oxford English, and it’s been non stop ever since. And here, for you, without paying for access to the OED online, is your chance to help word-nerds everywhere:

http://www.oed.com/bbcwordhunt/

But wait, there’s more. For a limited time, callers will receive a free hyperlink to the OED’s side project, dedicated to pulling knowledge from aficionado communities. Check out

http://www.jessesword.com/sf/

The list of specific words they need help with can be found here. I’m so proud that we live in a time when people do this. When people are so much in love with language that we invest time in antedating, interdating and postdating. As in, “Prior to Stephen Chalmers, writing for the New York Times in 1908, did anyone use the word ‘aerocar?’” Your language needs you!