Advantages and disadvantages of utilitarianism teleology

Utilitarianism, namely utilitarianism, is a theory in moral philosophy (ethics). Advocate the pursuit of "the greatest happiness." The main philosophers are john stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.

Utilitarianism, also known as "utilitarianism" and "utilitarianism", usually refers to an ethical theory based on actual efficacy or interests. In China, Mozi, a thinker in the Warring States period, expressed goodness by utilitarianism, which was an important representative of early utilitarianism. Ye Shi and Chen Liang, thinkers in Song Dynasty, advocated the study of practical application, paid attention to practical function and effect, and opposed the study of utilitarianism and empty talk about life.

What is the content of utilitarianism?

When it comes to utilitarianism, people always think of the words "money, power and reputation", but this is actually the biggest misunderstanding of utilitarianism. The ethics pursued by utilitarianism is not material but spiritual. The word "happiness" seems to have nothing to do with utilitarianism, but utilitarianism really pursues happiness. It is not only personal happiness, but also the "happiness maximization" of the whole society. Personal experience of happiness mainly comes from the increase of happiness and the removal of pain, which are two aspects of the pursuit of happiness. Then in the process of pursuing happiness, we must find appropriate means to achieve happiness. "Money and power" are just a means to achieve happiness, but many people mistakenly think that the three are happiness itself, so they just pursue them. Therefore, many people will not feel happy even if they get the name of financial power. Many people are doing immoral things to get the name of financial power. Everyone pursues happiness, avoids pain, does not hurt others' happiness, and does not increase others' pain, then the whole society will maximize happiness and finally achieve a beautiful social form of "I am for everyone". As for what happiness is, there is no reasonable explanation in the book, but it is described as the result of an action-increasing happiness and reducing pain.

What are the criteria for judging the code of conduct?

The criterion of utilitarianism to judge right or wrong is to look at the results. In fact, right and wrong, good and evil have always been a controversial topic. "The purpose is good but leads to bad results" and "the purpose is bad but leads to good results" are really controversial. The solution given by utilitarianism is that no matter what the purpose is, the result is good, good, then OK. In addition, judging the right or wrong of specific things is to see whether it is "punished". If a person does something and everyone thinks that he should be punished, it means that he has done something wrong. If everyone thinks there is nothing to blame and punish, it means that this is right.

How does utilitarianism produce moral constraints?

Humans are very similar, and we are always eager to be consistent with others. For example, one day, people can immigrate to Mars with a picture of Yuan, and 80% of the people around them have already left, which makes it difficult for you to remain firmly rooted in the earth without being affected by it. Based on this psychological feature and the behavioral facts that have evolved for thousands of years, individuals are very willing to integrate into the collective and establish a stable relationship with the collective. Therefore, socialized human beings are another form, and education plays a role in people's conscience, so almost everyone's inner goodness will be amplified, so everyone is eager to become a moral good person.

This reminds me of two things. One is the standpoint of economics, which is like this: even if everyone values the results and starts from their own interests, the society composed of all people is not selfish and the world is getting worse. On the contrary, it is a fact that technology has improved and the quality of goods has improved. In other words, even if we only value the results, the purpose is not for the good of others, and finally we can get a good result after socialization. Secondly, with regard to the disappearance and disintegration of some functions of religion, we are materialistic because we no longer need to rely on giving us faith, and the society of "loving your neighbor as yourself" does not need God to create it, because it is still possible to achieve it only by us humans. So materialism has become a contemporary belief, because compared with ancient times, it is not difficult for us to "live" now, and we no longer need beautiful stories to comfort ourselves. Perhaps the last thing left of religion is the philosophical part, and those political parts will soon collapse.

How to explain justice under utilitarianism?

The word justice originally meant "abiding by the law" when it came into being, but with the development, its meaning gradually enriched, and the symbol of justice gradually had more meanings, which developed into our complex meaning today. Utilitarianism's explanation of justice is based on two conditions, one is the emotional condition of human beings, that is, we have the psychology of anger and revenge against external threats, and the other is sympathy and empathy for the same kind. These two points are just that our conscience is uncomfortable when we see others being violated. The second is the moral foundation. As mentioned above, this is the judgment of right and wrong: one is to see whether to punish him or not, and the other is to see whether to force him to do it. On these two foundations, society gradually developed "justice" higher than morality. Justice is actually a kind of consciousness that considers the interests of the collective and others after socialization, which is divorced from the individual. There is no difference between justice and public interest in essence. The only difference is that justice has more emotion than public interest (that is, a sense of revenge against evil).

About justice, a very important content is fairness, and I was suddenly inspired. On the issue of distribution, which is fair, pay according to work or government tax distribution? Coupled with the inspiration of discussing beauty tax in July 8th the other day, I think distribution according to work is really unfair. Personally speaking, distribution according to work is definitely no problem. Personally, no one wants to give their hard-earned money to others in the form of taxes to balance social injustice. However, from the perspective of sociology as a whole, we are born with genetic differences. In this society, everyone is born with different attribute values, and these attribute values may not get the same value return in this era. Faced with this problem, from a social point of view, this unfairness depends on taxation, otherwise those strengths will only become stronger and stronger under the Matthew effect, while the weaknesses will become weaker and weaker. I suddenly feel how nice it is to have a government!