While this author has no issue with the above conclusion, Sedgwick ruins an otherwise justifiable proof by furthering this argument with an actual hypothetical discussion to convince the Egoist to accept Universalist doctrine. Sedgwick writes:
“When the Egoist puts forward…the proposition that his happiness or pleasure is Good, not only for him but from the point of view of the universe…by saying ‘nature designed him to seek his own happiness,’ It then becomes relevant to point out to him that that his happiness cannot be a more important part of good than the equal happiness of any other person. And thus…may be brought to accept universal happiness or pleasure… (Methods of Ethics 416-417)”
While the first part of Sedgwick’s conclusive statement makes much sense as it is sensible to assume that convincing an egoist to adopt altruistic dogmas is to cater to his/her self-centered ideals, the example discussion makes no sense as a true Egoist would simply say “says who?”The Egoist would not be persuaded by a simple reiteration of the primary difference between Egoists and Universalists, regardless of the latter’s use of the formers own principle. While I believe it is true that as humans we are naturally prone to avoid pain and enjoy personal pleasures, I do not believe that these pleasures should be enjoyed at the expense of others. However an Egoistic has no concerns for the welfare or general happiness of others; only insofar the welfare and happiness of the other concerns those of the the Egoist. Because of this, the above scenario would not work as the Egoist will not care about whether the overall populace is happy or not or whether his happiness is the most important part of good or not. Perhaps the Universalist could have just said that, naturally speaking, if the many are happy they are more likely to tend to the happiness of the one. Otherwise, How could we convince such a self-absorbed body that Utilitarianism is all about the collective happiness?
2 comments:
I agree with you Stephanie, that we should avoid egoism. I also agree that the Egoist is detrimental to the health of a people because as an Egoist seeks to be satisfied, other people will be forced into situations which do not lead to their happiness. It seems unlikely that the actions of an Egoist would necessarily lead others to happiness.
I agree with you too Stephanie and Shane. I think people should avoid egoism hedonism. I think that egoism and hedonism are counter-productive. If Hedonist and egoist catered to the happiness of the others the favor will be returned. This is more beneficial because you could have multiple people worried about your happiness instead of just having yourself. If you have a network of friends who stick together then life can become easier one’s happiness can be longer lasting. I believe an egoist or Hedonist can be convinced by him/her helping other people he/she is also helping himself.
Post a Comment