Hume wrote in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "In all determinations of morality, this circumstance of public utility is ever principally in view; and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common life, concerning the bounds of duty, the question cannot, by any means, be decided with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of mankind. If any false opinion, embraced from appearances, has been found to prevail; as soon as farther experience and sounder reasoning have given us juster notions of human affairs, we retract our first sentiment, and adjust anew the boundaries of moral good and evil."
This is clearly a different sort of utility than that of Bentham and Mills. It appears to square with Foot's claim that, “It is surely clear that moral virtues must be connected with human good and harm, and that it is quite impossible to call anything you like good or harm.”
I think that this notion of utility in the Enquiry does not get much attention in today's discussion of Hume's ethical thought.
Utility is the value of something. Critically, however, what is of value depends upon either a goal or what other things you value (c.f. Hume's Is-Ought divide).
Many people these days disparage the "Utilitarians" for a variety of reasons including the fact that human morality "apparently" isn't utilitarian (for example - why can't you kidnap a person off the street to serve as an involuntary organ donor to save five people?).
This disparagement is unwittingly just another form of Hume's divide compounded by an overly simplistic/time-discounted view. You can't just kidnap a person off the street because that would lead to persons needing to protect themselves against such an eventuality, leading to an arms race, leading to an eventual loss of *all* of the advantages of "community".
Bentham and Mills make (what I would call) the error of focusing on "happiness". Humans have evolved both to have a moral sense and to be happy/enjoy those things which are good for us and have enabled us to survive and flourish. Of course, if you over-optimize that in the short-term you get wire-heading, sex, and drug addictions.
Personally, I favor Jonathan Haidt's *functional* approach to morality -- that morality's "goal" to to suppress selfishness and allow us to live together cooperatively. I am thoroughly a consequentialist but believe that deontology is also critically important in causing good consequences when we can't/won't take a long-term (enough) view (or over-estimate our ability to cheat and our gains from doing so).
So, yes -- Hume's utility/values is/are different from the "Utilitarians" in that they are focused in terms of happiness and what short-term goals/values they believe will lead to the long-term goals/values that the vast majority of humans hold (but can't explicate because, as MANY scientific studies show, we cannot reflect upon our moral "reasoning") -- while Hume is maintaining the focus on the long-term ("the true interests of mankind").
I'd also like to belabor the point that "utilitarianism" (as a GENERAL method of evaluation) really should be separated from the specifics of measuring happiness (or counting lives, or . . . . )
I take it then Mark that you are no friend of the notion of a Hedonic Calculus and that you are likely a Rule Utilitarian. I believe that Hume knew that his usage of sentiment could potentially result in highly subjective and individualized morality. In order to avoid this, he was forced to use an understanding of human nature and the good for humans. He did indeed speak of “utility”, but interestingly, he did not describe utility in what we typically think of as utilitarian or consequentialist terms:
"If we examine the particular laws, by which justice is directed, and property determined; we shall still be presented with the same conclusion. The good of mankind is the only object of all these laws and regulations. "
and again:
"We may conclude, therefore, that, in order to establish laws for the regulation of property, we must be acquainted with the nature and situation of man; must reject appearances, which may be false, though specious; and must search for those rules, which are, on the whole, most useful and beneficial."
I am currently reading The Righteous Mind by Haidt at the recommendation of the head of Dr. Cliff Guthries, the head of my department. So far it is quite good. What work of Haidt's have you found to be most persuasive?
Actually, I would argue that calculus and utilitarianism are the same thing and that hedonics is one particular rule/goal that you are measuring/valuing against.
I am not in favor of over-optimizing hedonics (personally unhelpful wire-heading or drug or sex abuse) but, actually, following the rule of doing what feels good is generally not a bad plan. We have evolved to feel good when doing something that is pro-survival -- unless it is a case where the sensation has been hijacked.
Part of why I like Haidt so much is because he has given a goal/function that we can measure against. How well does *this* suppress selfishness and help us live together cooperatively? As pointed out by Franz de Waal, humans are obligatorily gregarious -- we must have community to survive and thrive. Is there any part of ethical behavior that you can think of that isn't related to this goal in the longest view? Isn't that exactly the same as Hume's "good of mankind".
Another thing I really like about Haidt is his recognition of the different bases for morality across different individuals -- the fact that liberals tend to value two things and conservatives are spread across five (both of which are arguably correct but in very different circumstances). He has brought some objective rigor to a field that desperately needs it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy