In this section of Method of Ethics, Sidgwick posses the idea that a Utilitarian can come up with a rule which leads to a more general happiness but this rule differs from the rules which follow “common sense.” The new rule which can lead to general happiness has both positive and negative differences. He says in order for this new rule to work, he must “estimate the force of certain disadvantages necessarily attendant upon such innovations” (476). Sidgwick says that since one’s own happiness is a part of the universal end, he must consider the effects this new rule may have on him as well as others closely related to him.
Many calculations are needed for the Utilitarian in order to see if it is a good idea to implement the new rule in favor of the generally accepted rule. He warns however, that many people who are the first to try and make a change fail and if they wait for the change to happen gradually it will be more welcomed by others. He also warns that if this new rule is established it may not be initially followed by everyone. Sidgwick says, it is “easier to weaken or destroy the restraining force that a moral rule, habitually and generally obeyed, has over men’s minds than to substitute for it a new restraining habit, not similarly sustained by tradition and custom” (477). He is emphasizing that it is much easier to possibly modify or completely dispel a rule, rather than create a new rule which conflicts with common sense. Along with the negative differences the new rule may bring, it will also bring positive differences as well, such as providing a more “stricter interpretation to the general duty of General Benevolence, where Common sense leaves it loose and indeterminate”(479). He is saying that whatever is right for him to do, he can recommend to another person to do the same thing because it is leading to a general universal happiness.
Sidgwick brings up the point that maybe the main issue does not circle around whether or not following Utilitarian ways leads to a more general happiness, than following common sense, but should exceptions be allowed to rules which both sides consider valid? This is an interesting point which I think changes his entire argument. Before he was arguing that there are instances in which Utilitarian’s create new rules, which differ from rules followed by common sense, and lead to a more general happiness. But now he is saying that maybe each side is arguing over making exceptions to the rules rather than implementing a new rule. The question I would pose is which would ultimately provide an easier route to establishing a more general happiness, creating a new rule or making exceptions to ones already established? I think Sidgwick would say that making exceptions or modifications would be an easier and more effective way of attaining a general happiness. I think he would say this because he stated it was much harder for everyone to buy into a newly implemented rule, rather than just conforming to the slight modifications to a rule. The exceptions would be a slight adjustment to the rules for which everyone would be able to follow. Another question arises is are the exceptions the same for everyone or do they change depending on the circumstances?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I agree with you that Sidgwick would believe that making exceptions to an established principle would be easier than making a new rule because he says that Utilitarians should start to make their reforms by weakening existing rules. They way Sigdwick suggests one should do this is by talking about the existing moral codes and begin to question them based on whether they are in need of change. It is difficult for one to just establish a whole new rule because Sidgwick says that as humans we cannot just be separated from our moral code because it is the way we act. Humans are too complex to be told what to do and not to do, therefort Utilitarianism shouldn't be too radical. However, he also says that humans are always changing which is grounds for believing that reform is not impossible.
I agree also -- making exceptions to an established rule is easier than making a new rule. Utilitarians want to enforce popular morality. According to Sidgwick, one should not impose a new rule on others who are not prepared to adopt it because of the "immediate evil of the annoyance given to others, but also the further danger of weakening the general good effect of his moral example, through the reaction provoked by this aggressive attitude" (479). I feel like support for this can be found when governments try to "overreach" and control too many freedoms within the population. For example, the Prohibition era in the United States did little to end the problems associated with alcoholism -- it created a black market. The abuse of alcohol is a bad thing, but by pushing a policy of abstinence, the government did not fix this inital problem. This radical attempt to "create a new rule," actually "weakened the general good effect" of this moral policy -- to drink alcohol in moderation. I think Sidgwick would agree, it's irrational to attempt to impose a new moral principle upon a large group of people. All humans are rational beings who form their own value systems and beliefs on morality. As we discussed in class, each human being also knows how to best find happiness by his or her own standards/desires. Sidgwick also states that "just as a prudent physician in giving rules of diet recommends an occasional deviation from them, as more conducive to the health of the body than absolute regularity; so there may be rules of social behavior of which the general observance is necessary to the well-being of the community, while yet a certain amount of non-observance is rather advantageous than otherwise" (481). Sidgwick, loyal to the principles of Utilitarianism, wants to make this theory accessible to the masses. The imposition of a new rule would probably fuel more negative reaction than progressive change. Sidgwick realizes that & anticipates slight modification to a rule as a better alternative.
I agree that making an exception to a rule is much easier than creating a different and new rule to the realm of utilitarianism and common sense. I believe that Sidgwick would also agree with this due to the fact that he argues for Common Sense, rather than a pure and perfect utilitarianism, for which Mill argued. Sidgwick’s common sense states that a true universal/utilitarian morality can never be present; the only thing that humans can do in order to create a socially just morality and ethic, which is described as a general happiness, is promote morals and actions that lead to a social consensus of happiness. Therefore, exceptions can be made to rules because Sidgwick also states that actions that lead to happiness often reflect and affect those that are closest to that individual. Actions that lead to a general social happiness have become more individual, so much so that exceptions would be feasible, and once an exception is made for one person I believe that it will become applicable to the rest of society if it is promoted as Sidgwick suggests.
As with everyone else, I would have to agree that making an exception to a rule is much easier, and less traumatazing then dropping a rule and coming up with a whole new one. Emperical evidence is on the side of this throughout history. Particualry, in the case of revolutions. You end up seeing massive amount of lives lost, and an eventual counter-revolution because people dislike when new moral codes and directions are forced upon them. However, if we are to look at history where countries made gradual transitions from different forms of government, we ten to see less bloodshed, and other things that take away from the gerneral happiness. This philosophy is embodied today in the political sphere in the form of Progressives. And, unfortunately, we see what happens when a new rule is brought about. Take healthcare for example, though it will benefit the majority of america, around half of the people are opposed to it. Some would argue, and have, that the best way to approach this issue would be as Sidgwick proposes, slowly chipping away.
I think your blog post was interesting and it really helped me understand what exactly Sidgwick is trying to tell us in this part.
I think your question, which would ultimately provide an easier route to establishing a more general happiness, creating a new rule or making exceptions to ones already established? is something to really think about. To answer this question I think it would have to depend on the type of situation you're in. However, for the most part I would also agree with everyone in saying that Sidgwick would say that making exceptions or modifications to the rules would be a much more effective way in approaching a general happiness. In order to be socially moral is to practice morals and moral actions that lead to a everyone to happiness. Since Sidgwick believes in this he would have no problem in modifying rules because it would lead the public to a mutual happiness.To answer your second question about whether or not these exceptions would be the same for everyone of would they change depending on the situation, I would have to say that it depends on the situation the person is in. In some situations you would need to modify rules in a minor way and in other situations you would have to modify them in a major way. I think Sidgwick would be for modifying anything as long as it continued to bring happiness to the general public.
I think it depends on a particular situation whether a change in ethics should come gradually or more immediately. As we’ve abundantly noted, Sidgwick mentions that it is often more appropriate to make exceptions to old rules than to establish new ones, because everyone may not accept the new rule. However, if the same number of people takes exception to the old rule, which is less felicitously advantageous, as to the new one, would it not benefit overall happiness more to make the abrupt shift to the new rule? Furthermore, there may be instances where an old rule is found to be so inadequate in terms of overall happiness that it must be abandoned.
My only problem with the question of whether or not it would be easier to make exceptions or to make new rules is that it sounds a bit like the same thing. An exception can be counted as a clause to a rule. That clause, in of itself, is another rule to follow when taking into account that more general rule. Just like he says it would be difficult for many people accept a new rule, I think it would be just as difficult to buy into an exception that changes the way we look at a rule. If the exceptions are indeed “gradual,” I would still argue that there comes a point where people begin seeing the rule for the change or new implications it has adopted.
I do not think it would make sense for exceptions to change depending on the circumstance. That seems to only create exceptions to exceptions. Then again, like Olech said, Sidgwick would implement anything that promotes general happiness. Does not that defeat the purpose of modification?
I agree with the idea that Sidgwick would rather make exceptions to the rule than implement new ones. If everyone found it more beneficial to create new ones, it would be incredibly difficult to stay up the new rules that people would create as they went along. Although I'd like to say that the exceptions should be the same for everyone, I feel as if the exceptions change upon the circumstances people face. These exceptions would be almost impossible to apply to everyone and their own unique situations. It is almost as if you have to make exceptions to exceptions on the rule to facilitate circumstances that we face in our lives.
Tom I see what you are saying that if you made an exception it is like making a change which then in turn seems as a new rule, but what I think Sidgwick is trying to emphasis is that making up brand new rules is what he is against. The idea of exceptions has to deal with leaning more towards common sense and if it makes more sense to have a rule apply this way for this person then he would say the exception would be better than just by implementing a new rule. Also the gradual change over the complete overhaul or new rule makes sense even though a “potential new rule” is formed. It is easier to deal with the changes gradually and adapt along the way rather than all at once. For example if they were to change the legal driving age from 17 to 25 people would be extremely upset but if overtime the increased the age requirement it would allow for people to adapt to the new rule which is in place. Even though it is a new rule it is better to raise it to 19 and keep it there for a while and then move it up again instead of raising it to 25 right away.
Although the discussion has been in the way of whether or not there can be exceptions for rules, perhaps Sidgwick would allow following a law to a degree. That is, if a law exists, the assumption is that the statement the law makes is foreseeably good and valid. However, it seems that everyone agrees that a law can not necessarily be followed completely at all times in all circumstances. Thus, instead of changing a law, or mending it, perhaps the law be followed to varying degrees. Is it possible, within Sidgwick’s account of law, to still be following the law if acting in a way which agrees with the intent of the law?
In my opinion, for the world to be fair and just all rules should apply the same to each and every person; with this in mind, the exception to each rule must also apply to each person in the same way. However, in recent years it has become obvious that rules do not necessarily apply to everyone in the same way. For example, when a celebrity or athlete is charged with a crime it is not uncommon for their sentence to be the absolute minimum no matter what the circumstances. This appears to me to be completely unfair to the rest of the population. Therefore, in order to continue striving for the general happiness it is important for everyone to be treated justly and have each exception to the rule apply to them in the proper way.
To address your initial question about whether creating a new rule or modifying one is easier, I would have to disagree with the answer you think Sidgwick would give. I agree that his response would be something similar, but I don’t share his opinion. I think making new rules would be easier and more effective. Think about it, modifications and exceptions are just changes that affect specific portions of what was originally accepted. These affected “specific portions” of rules affect specific portions of people who then become distinct from the rest. In this sense, they’re either alienated in an advantageous way or negatively. New rules, on the other hand, provide a fresh beginning to everyone. Instead of disuniting populations through exceptions and specifications, new rules offer equality in change for the whole. Yes, the action might be drastic and the adaptation wouldn’t be immediate, but the immorality of unequal treatment is reason enough. And in a situation where everyone is in the same boat, there are fewer grounds for opposition, making the transition smoother.
I think that modifying the established rule will always be better than creating new ones. Very rarely is the established rule so fundamentally misguided that it cannot fix. It is more feasible to fix a damaged car than to buy a new one. New rules mean radical mindset changes and generations may pass before the mindset of the people changes accordingly. Conversely, the modification of an established rule represents only a slight deviation from what the people of any given society are accustomed to and thus, is something they can adapt to with greater ease. Where the pursuit of a general happiness is concerned, there will always be an overarching rule which may or may not apply perfectly to all parties concerned and thus must be susceptible to modifications in order to have greatest effect.
When making exceptions to the rules, I think that it should be the same for everyone. The old rules are already based on universal laws. In today’s laws, for example, while our circumstances have definitely changed drastically over the years, our laws are still very similar to the old ones, i.e. “thou shall not kill”…or steal. However, one can argue that in the past, slavery was allowed by law. Still, in the past, this old law that enabled equal rights to all men except slaves, made exceptions according to circumstances. That is why exceptions to rules should be similar for all, that way things like slavery will never be allowed.
If an entirely new rule fails, Sidgwick would say that it must be abandoned (being that it no longer ensures the happiness of the individual and the public). The problem with an entirely new rule (that is contrary to common sense) is that it is not rooted in history (a devise that some utilitarians use to determine their actions). Since a new rule is entirely unique in concept and has no roots in history, there are no immediate rules that can replace it if it fails. This would leave everyone ethically disoriented and further problems would ensue. I think that Sidgwick would prefer the modification of an old rule since history would serve as it's safety net in the event that it proves to be a problematic modification. Modifying an old rule may not always work, but at least it wouldn't result in the possible ethical disorientation that a failed new rule would result.
I completely agree that Sidgwick would say that making exceptions or modifications would be an easier and more effective way of attaining general happiness but when going from Aristotle to Sidgwick we continue to see that trend. It would almost be impossible to think we can attain happiness through Aristotle's virtue ethics because the bar is set so high. By making exceptions to all of these we can find it easier to attain happiness but this is true in our modern society. To answer the last question posed, I would say that the exceptions should be both the same for everyone and different depending on the circumstances. There are way too many circumstances subject to change and while we continue to make exceptions, I feel, this will ultimately lead to an unbearable amount of exceptions to attain happiness in our society.
These arguments against 'negative' modifications of a rule seem to illustrate Sidgwick's prudence concerning any unnecessary changes to the status quo. When he mentions that new, better rules have tendencies of being more destructive than constructive he appears to suggest that we should choose the lowest common denominator in terms of moral rules--avoiding the "complex and elaborate," the "subtle and refined," or what may require more self-control or intellectual development (477). I assume he is tending toward a practical decision-guiding rule that can be used by the common man; but I'm still not convinced as to why these principles should not aim for a higher and greater ideal at the risk of alienating some groups. The only reconciliation I see is the prospect of having a common decision-guiding rule balanced by an esoteric morality (489-490), but his suggestion that it be secretive is still a bit unsettling. Anyway, maybe I'm just missing the whole point...
Post a Comment