Another thought which concerns me about the utilitarian idea about doing that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number, is that, it may be a mode of being more akin to a computer than a sentient being.
The problems with utilitarianism are that (1) it is, at least thus far, not possible to know the total story, so to speak, in terms of all the outcomes of every action as well as all the causes of current or past actions ( which would be important for determining how to cause to happen, or prevent from happening various phenomena deemed to be desirable and undesirable ( and according to whose standards?);
(2) even if (1) were possible, perhaps doing or attempting to do (1) would contravene one of the, or perhaps THE defining feature(s) of being a human being and perhaps one of the, or THE defining feature(s) of nonhuman sentient beings also : the relationships which exist among human beings and other sentient beings whereby, for example, individual human beings generally relate, individual to individual and via conceiving of herself or himself, consciously and ‘subconsciously’, as being a part of various groupings of individual human beings.
Regarding (2), I deem that human beings inevitably form, consciously and ‘subconsciously’, ranking systems in terms of what ties to other human beings we value more so than other ties we may have. We may not have a sense of these rankings unless we are forced, heartrendingly perhaps, to act on them consciously.
In some cases, some individual human beings may act in a manner such that he or she places greater value on the well-being of a large number of people he or she is not emotionally close to, than on the value he or she places on the well-being of a single or some smaller number of people with whom he or she is much more emotionally close. But some people will do the opposite.
I guess a question that lingers within me is whether it would be desirable, if it were possible, to base my actions on what I would deem to be the greatest good for the greatest number. Again and again, there seems to me to be some key features that religiously based ethics and utilitarianism share.
If it were possible to determine what the greatest good for the greatest number would be, to what extent would I, by acting upon bringing that about, estrange myself from the ties I have with my loved ones ?
Somehow, the thought of that imagined estrangement reminds me of how I felt in 1986 when I thought that the god that I had conceived of at that time, was calling upon me to do ‘his’ will.
In that state of mind in June, July and August of 1986 when I thought I had some sort of divine mission, such as being the second comming of Christ, I often felt like a stranger inhabiting my own mind.
I grieved and had a heavy heart regarding my ties to family members and friends, and also felt a preemptive sense of estrangement from people in general I encountered in my small-town/suburban community in the Warren-Youngstown area of Ohio.
In the past couple of years, I’ve come to see that experience, recognizing that I may play at least a small role in helping with the development of a new type of spirituality that is congruent with science and reason in general, and based in our inescapable belonging as part of nature.
But at the time, my collection of mental maps for making sense of the deep stirings within my own mind was so limited, I ended up thinking of it in terms of what little I knew about Christianity. As a result, I thought ‘God’ was calling upon me to be the second coming of Christ.
I associated, in 1986 ‘doing God’s will’ with being sort of stripped of all of the comforts of my ties to family members, friends, and people in general.
I recall that, in 1986, I had the idea that ‘doing God’s will’ would place me into conflict with the majority of other human beings. It seems that I had internalized the idea found in some Christian writings regarding one’s ‘forsaking of the world’ or ‘being forsaken by the world’ in order to experience ‘communion with God.’ Somehow I also mentally associate this with the idea of the world being an ‘upside-down kingdom.’
—-Questions regarding the idea of ‘universal love’—-
So, I think, generally, that my ties to other human beings via my ties to my loved ones such as family members, friends, and romantic partners, involve me both consciously and ‘subconsciously’ having greater concern for the welfare of my loved ones than I have for the welfare of strangers—-all else being equal.
But let’s think about for a bit more the idea of estrangement from one’s loved ones being casually connected, psychologically, to being more capable of ‘universal love.’
To what extent is it the case that one becomes more capable of ‘universal love’ by not having the social bonds which cause one to have strong biases such as that of one’s regard for one’s spouse or one’s regard for one’s child? How would this work ? It might not need to be this way. Gandhi seems to have become celibate to intensify his universal love, but Martin Luther King Jr didn’t.
—Subjectivity and ‘universal love’—
A person can be celibate and even have no close friends, (even while being on good terms with many people in one’s community) but should one force oneself to become emotionally without parents and siblings ? This question interests me because I’m romantically single and often find myself not pairing up with people as platonic couples or in terms of being in close-knit small platonic groups. Given my cycling mode of transport, I’m solitary when I travel almost always.
The idea that a person can achieve a higher degree of impartiality via having no close ties is not new, though giving some examples could be useful.
A paper from the UCSD Philosophy Department ” Consequentialism versus Special-Ties Partiality ” by Richard J. Arneson seems relevant. In that paper he mentions Amartya Sen
Also relevent regarding how human social bonds pertain to morality is The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, Global by Virginia Held. According to reviewer Carla Bagnoli, University of Wisconsin, “the ethics of care adopts a relational conception of persons, which is in stark contrast to Liberal individualism.”
What if thru an evolution of human consciousness people in general were more concerned about those who aren’t friends or family or fellow nearby community members? If nearly everyone is living in this less subjective way, we and our friends and family might benefit?
Perhaps there’s no need to cringe at the thought of having a ‘more universal’ mode of concern for others (as I’ve cringed over the years) because it doesn’t necessarily mean we lose that which is a big part of our humanity: our close, deep social bonds, as parents, children, spouses, colleagues, comrades, and so on.
Generally, it seems that a Utilitarian or a sort of god’s-eye-view approach to morality contravenes an essential feature to being human: our ties to various other human and non-human sentient beings, which are an extension of each person’s individual perspective, rather than a mysteriously acquired knowledge of the absolute good.
In light of that, 15 or 20 years ago I would have claimed morality is relativistic. But now I think there are some standards that apply irrespective of individual mentality and culture. Part of that involves thinking that we, as families, communities, nations, and as as global society, have an obligation to help one another meet our needs, and that that process isn’t limited to the well-being of humans.
It may be the case that this process of ranking one’s concerns for others varies from individual to individual; and that some individuals may have a perspective such that he or she, in at least some circumstances, gives a higher priority to the welfare of people with whom he or she is not ‘emotionally close’ than he or she gives to the welfare of those with whom he or she is or has been ‘emotionally close.’
Leave a Reply