Conclusion: Human Nature is constituted as to desire nothing,
which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness.
1.)Virtue is a part of finding happiness
-Actions
and dispositions are only virtuous because they promote another end than virtue
-The
principle of utility doesn’t mean that any given pleasure is to be looked upon
as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that
account
-They are
desired and desirable in and for themselves; besides being means, they are a
part of an end.
-Virtue is
desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their
happiness
2.)Virtue if not associated with the end result of
happiness, would be indifferent. Because
of the association with the end result of Happiness, it becomes desirable in
itself.
-Money is a
concept that works in a similar way
-Money
is desired not for the sake of an end, but as a part of the end.
-The
physical aspects of money are not desirable in itself, but the concept of being
able to purchase an end makes money desirable. (36)
3.)Power and Fame
-Humans desire Power and Fame
partially because of the immediate pleasure annexed
-They are attractive because they
give immense aid to our other wishes
-The desire for rewards such as
power and fame can sometimes outweigh the power for happiness.
-What was once desired as an
instrument for the attainment of happiness has come to be desired for its own
sake.
-In being desired in its own sake
it is desired because it is part of happiness. (37)
4.)Happiness is not an abstract Idea but a concrete whole.
-“ Life would be a poor thing if
there were not this provision provided with sources of happiness associated
with the satisfaction of our primitive desires.”(38)
5.)Virtue then is a product of the desire for happiness
-Through
the association thus formed it may be felt a good in itself.
-Utilitarianism
requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest strength
possible, as being above all things important to the general happiness.
The result is that there is nothing in reality desired
except happiness
-Whatever
is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself and ultimately
to happiness.
-Happiness
is desired in itself and is not complete until it has become complete
happiness.
-Virtue
is valued in itself because of the desire for pleasure and the hatred for pain.
This mindset creates the end goal of happiness. (39)
Conclusion: Human Nature is constituted as to desire nothing, which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness.
In my opinion, I think that you did a very excellent argument outline. I agree with your conclusion that human nature is to desire nothing, and while this is a difficult concept to grasp, your premises did a fine job in taking us through the argument. Why do humans desire? This question was answered beautifully in your outline. However, what exactly is meant by "virtue then is a product of the desire for happiness?" Aren't desires bad, as shown in premise three? Or is this a different kind of desire? Can one differentiate?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a nice outline but is human nature really desiring nothing? I mean I think that all humans do desire some form of happiness relative to themselves and how they feel. Happiness for one may be different for another. I agree with one of the premises under five that says "happiness is desired in itself and is not complete until it has become complete happiness". BUt what is complete happiness? I think complete happiness is when one is satisfied and content with what they have.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think you did a good job of outlining and supporting your conclusion. But I question whither it is a case by case affair or just an exclusive idea of life for virtuous people. If people need to simply desire nothing to achieve their telos then life would seem boring or dull. For people who's power and fame are translated into charities, scholarships, and other not for profit good in the world fame and power for instance would be a virtuous life filled with happiness. If we even take the catholic church and try to understand why people believe or help then we must question their desire to do so. In many cases it is the promise of a life after death which leads people to this happiness, but by not desiring this redemption then they would have never believed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great argument! My only concern really is from point 3, about fame and power. Fame and power is obviously temporary, and would only give a temporary happiness. But as you say it would give immense aid to other parts of their lives which would only lead to more happiness. You then say power and fame have become desired for its own sake instead of for happiness, but isn't happiness part of (or included) in the "its own sake"? Or maybe I'm just not reading it correctly and misinterpreting it, but I'm unsure as to the point you're making with #3.
ReplyDeletePoint 2 is fantastic, though; it cleared up quite a bit of my questions that I had regarding virtue. The idea of virtue, when you compare it to being the same as money, makes a lot more sense. Especially since virtue is abstract so it's harder to put a concrete thing to it. That cleared up a lot of questions. Overall, this is a great outline!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great outline. I agree with Joe, in that your comparison of virtue to the concept of money was very helpful to my understanding of virtue being directly associated with the end of happiness. What I understand from that premise is that since Virtue is a part of Happiness and Happiness is the end, then Virtue must be a part of the end. But does this mean that the two are inseperable? Would it be possible to desire and in turn attain happiness without virtue? You seem to answer this question with your premise "Utilitarianism requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest strength possible," however this seems to leave room for exactly how much virtue is required (in what quantity). Can one measure the strength of virtue? Or is it, similar to Happiness, not complete until it has become complete virtue?
My first thought once I had read this, was about the idea that virtue is only a means to an end- like money, and that "actions and dispositions are only virtuous because they promote another end than virtue." I take issue with this because I believe ends results, not just acts, can be inherently virtuous. It is not simply virtuous to pull a drowning child from water, but virtuous to have saved a life and given a mother back her child. The end is in fact virtuous. In saying that happiness is the only goal, a product to be "purchased" by virtue, one seems to ignore that virtue might be inherently valued to people apart from whatever joy it may bring to themselves. Therefore, it's sort of a chicken vs egg question, do people sometimes simply instinctively do acts off good because they are simply compelled, not merely out of the knowledge that it will make them feel good? I'd like to think so. I'd like to think someone rushing into a burning building to save someone isn't thinking "oh I should do this it will really put a smile on my face after" but instead acting out of some deeper compulsion to just do what's right.
ReplyDelete