When Mill went about his business in the later part of the Enlightenment period of Europe, some interesting things were said. Some of it, of course, was moral theory, our hero claimed, but there are those who will deny that moral theory based in, what seems like, economic principles, can make any sense at all. In other words, talking about ‘happiness’ as the measurement for what is good and right, simply does not describe what we take to be commonsense about such matters.
But what does all this have to do with eating, you ask?
It really has nothing to do with eating at all but, my suggestion is that, utilitarian theories, such as that proposed by Mill, may have something interesting to say about who, in this world, gets to eat. And why. And here ‘world’ is used in the literal sense. Being a great proponent of utilitarianism myself (even whilst thinking that Kant was more successful in some ways) I would like to suggest that the moral agent is, indeed, governed by utilitarian principles. And this is precisely the reason why there are people starving.
So, let’s assume that Mill is right, and that the following propositions are true:
1. That we are all predisposed to psychological hedonism. In other words, we cannot help aiming, with our every action, to increase our pleasure and decrease our pain. This, of course, cashes out differently for everyone on account of their individuality.
2. And then, Mill reasons, because my happiness is so important to me, it can be assumed that everyone’s happiness is important to them.
So far so good, dear reader.
3. He then goes on to say, and it is a pity that he does, that based in 1 and 2 above, it
can be assumed that general happiness is what everyone desires.
I shan’t go into the logical failings of this reasoning, but just hope that you can see, with me, that the argument has run horribly aground: The leap from ‘everyone’s happiness is important to them’ to ‘everyone’s happiness is important to everyone else’ is a tad, let’s call it, ambitious.
And it is precisely what is contained in this leap (that everyone’s happiness does not necessarily matter to me) that explains why there are starving people. So Mill, by a sort of fault in his reasoning, inadvertently demonstrates why it is that some have so much and others so little. Surprisingly, some small wisdom can be got from logic. Or maybe the lack of, I should say.
If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and some are shutting down their organs for all the lusciousness of their favourite cuisine, while others’ bodies learn to manifest nutrients out of thin air, it is precisely because we do not care about everyone’s happiness.
Evidently, gluttony and starvation is an inevitable extension of our basic nature. One which could be constrained, of course, but not by another natural inclination, as Mill hopes to show.
But what does all this have to do with eating, you ask?
It really has nothing to do with eating at all but, my suggestion is that, utilitarian theories, such as that proposed by Mill, may have something interesting to say about who, in this world, gets to eat. And why. And here ‘world’ is used in the literal sense. Being a great proponent of utilitarianism myself (even whilst thinking that Kant was more successful in some ways) I would like to suggest that the moral agent is, indeed, governed by utilitarian principles. And this is precisely the reason why there are people starving.
So, let’s assume that Mill is right, and that the following propositions are true:
1. That we are all predisposed to psychological hedonism. In other words, we cannot help aiming, with our every action, to increase our pleasure and decrease our pain. This, of course, cashes out differently for everyone on account of their individuality.
2. And then, Mill reasons, because my happiness is so important to me, it can be assumed that everyone’s happiness is important to them.
So far so good, dear reader.
3. He then goes on to say, and it is a pity that he does, that based in 1 and 2 above, it
can be assumed that general happiness is what everyone desires.
I shan’t go into the logical failings of this reasoning, but just hope that you can see, with me, that the argument has run horribly aground: The leap from ‘everyone’s happiness is important to them’ to ‘everyone’s happiness is important to everyone else’ is a tad, let’s call it, ambitious.
And it is precisely what is contained in this leap (that everyone’s happiness does not necessarily matter to me) that explains why there are starving people. So Mill, by a sort of fault in his reasoning, inadvertently demonstrates why it is that some have so much and others so little. Surprisingly, some small wisdom can be got from logic. Or maybe the lack of, I should say.
If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and some are shutting down their organs for all the lusciousness of their favourite cuisine, while others’ bodies learn to manifest nutrients out of thin air, it is precisely because we do not care about everyone’s happiness.
Evidently, gluttony and starvation is an inevitable extension of our basic nature. One which could be constrained, of course, but not by another natural inclination, as Mill hopes to show.
3 comments:
So, even though this does not really solve the food crisis it does offer an explanation for why there is hunger and starvation. The solution is surely a task for the church? Not so? Where is god when one really needs him?
The right question about such matters is surely something like: Is it really wrong that some people have nothing to eat? And if so, what exact and observable quality of human starvation shows its wrongness?
I am not sure that I understand your meaning here, but .............., did not Mill say that we want the greatest sum of happiness in the world and we achieve that by, individually, attending to our own happiness? We increase the sum of happiness in the world. By so doing we can increase the collective happiness without caring about lumpen proletariat in either the abstract or particular. Plus all the blah, blah caveats
Of course you will see that my punctuation leaves something to be desired!
Post a Comment