ETHICS MADE EASY : ETHICS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT - 4

ETHICS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY:

THOMAS AQUINAS AND WILLIAM OF OCKHAM

Quest: How do Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham differ in their ethical approach? Discuss. (June-2011, 500 words)

Ans: The moral philosophy of Aquinas is based on the teleological eudaimonia of Aristotle. He asserted that the God is ‘the ultimate end’ and ‘Supreme good’ of humans. Only with the help of God’s grace can men attain encounter with the last end. As a believer of intelligent design he mentioned that God has a plan for all creation. Nothing is happening randomly in this universe. His eternal law is manifested in the natural law. This natural law is being revealed by Him to His devotees and a part of it is clear to the discursive reasoning of human being.

Acting as per eternal law or eternal reason is moral act, according to Aquinas. But it is only human reason which can interpret the implication of this ‘natural law’. To synchronize with this eternal law interpreted by reason is the norm of morality. So, the norm of morality is intrinsic not extrinsic one.

While Ockham, the great opponent of Aquinas, is the proponent of voluntarism. He is concerned with God’s freedom and omnipotence. He is opposed to the intrinsic norm of human act. But Ockham gives contradictory statement by supporting both God’s ordered power and right reason. He says that it is God’s freedom to establish the moral order which is the criterion of deciding certain act as right or wrong. He denied the wrongness of human act as inherent quality but free decision of God. At the same time, he asserts the view that any morally good act should be in conformity with the ‘right reason’. He says that even if someone does a wrong act, according to that very person it is in conformity with the right reason.

He seems to promote freedom of will on the basis of perception. But a question arises here that since it is free will to decide a certain act right or wrong, without divine revelation it is impossible for anyone to know the rightness or wrongness of any work. Even if he made a scope for right reason, it hampers the free choice of God.

EPICURUS AND THOMAS HOBBES

Hedonism: ( June-2012, 100 words)

Quest: Write a critique of hedonism as a merely pleasure oriented principle. (Dec.2011, 500 words)

Ethical egoism (Dec. 2012, 100 words)

Ans. J S Mackenzie writes in his ‘A manual of Ethics’ (p. 167), “Hedonism is the general term for those theories that regarded happiness or pleasure as the supreme end of life”. In fact this very word ’Hedonism’ has been derived from ‘hedone’ which means ‘happiness’. So happiness is the sole end of life, according to these philosophers. Epicurus and Thomas Hobbs are considered as hedonist philosophers. According to Epicurus, anything which is unpleasant like fear and anxiety should be eliminated from the life of man. And absence of pain and serenity of mind should be promoted. He has used the Greek word ‘atarxia’ for it. He said that only by removal of false fear like fear of death and fear of God, men could achieve atarxia. Fear is detrimental for achieving atarxia. According to him the highest virtue is phronesis i.e. discernment. The power of discrimination of the quality and lastingness of pleasure and pain included in actions is necessary for atarxia. Whatever is conducive to this final end of life is moral, according to him. He tried to encourage the emotions of well-being, harmony and pleasure. He used to call all his followers in a beautiful garden and seek after pleasure. But it was not ‘wine–women-and-song’ kind of pleasure but something nobler and higher like friendship, art, music and the like. R.A.P. Rogers writes in his book “A Short History of Ethics” (p-88), “Thus the highest good is not the pleasure of the moment, but the pleasure of the whole life______. It is inferred from this that pleasures of the mind are superior to those of the body, because they include the pleasures of memory and hope”.

Like Epicurus, Hobbes was also a hedonist philosopher. Pleasure was the sole end for him. To achieve this end of peace, harmony and longer life he set up the state. Various laws enacted by the state forced human beings to act according to the laws of nature. In order to attain peace and harmony, everybody had to sacrifice some of his freedom and craving to possess everything for himself. According to him, power is the necessary factor of law and it is the only option to curb the natural desires of human beings to rape, loot and tyrannize. Forbidden actions are bad actions. To conform to the divine or positive (civil) law is to act according to the norms of morality.

So, the ethical teachings of Hobbs has been termed by some philosophers, as ‘Ethical Egoism’ because of its being based on the natural and reasonable human urge to seek pleasure and self-preservation. According to others, it is ‘Social Utilitarianism’ because it aims at peace and harmony for everybody. Another epithet used for Hobbes’ theory is ‘Moral Positivism’ because it mentions the divine power as the ultimate ground of moral good and the criterion of morality.

Thus, we find that though these hedonist thinkers aim at pleasure as the end of life but their concept of pleasure is not limited to the individual itself but human being in general, which is conducive for any society.

JEREMY BENTHAM

Quest: What is utilitarianism? (Dec-2013, 150 words)

Altruism (Dec-2011, 100 words)

Quest: Examine critically utilitarianism (Dec-2011, 250 words, June-2013, 2012, 100 words)

Utilitarianism: J Bentham writes in his ‘Principles of Morals’, ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as what we shall do’. J S Mill echoes the same as, ‘_ _ _ desiring a thing and finding it pleasant, aversion to it and thinking of it a painful, are phenomena entirely inseparable, rather two parts of the same phenomena , to think of an object as desirable and to think of it as pleasant are one and the same thing’ ( J S Mill, Utilitarianism Chapter-4)

Bentham’s approach to ethical issues is individualistic, whereas Mill’s is social. Mill says that not only the happiness of mankind but “rather of all sentient beings” must be the matter of consideration for us. According to utilitarianism, ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ must be the criterion for moral assessment. Utility of any deed must be the foundation of morals. According to Bentham, ‘A good law is one in which ‘utility’ is effected resulting in pleasure or happiness to the party whose interest is concerned. He says us that it is human nature that he seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Though, he writes that, it is not merely sensual pleasure that he is speaking about, but it may be intellectual and philanthropic as well. The gross happiness of Bentham was refined by Mill in asserting that there is also a qualitative difference between pleasures and not just quantitative one. According to him every individual seeks common happiness, not only individual one.

J. Bentham writes in his, ‘Principles of Morals’ that ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters pleasure and pain. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do well as what we shall do’.

He says that everybody wants happiness first of all for himself. Even a philanthropist works for his or her own satisfaction. As he writes in his book, “Principles of Morals”, ‘To obtain the greatest portion of happiness for himself is the objective of every rational being. Every man is nearer to himself than he can be to any other man and no other man can weigh for him, his pleasures and pains’.

He says that not merely sensual pleasure but also that which arises from intellectual study and benevolence, is the aim of human being. But the ultimate motive and intention of every act of everybody is to achieve happiness. He writes, ‘Dream not that men will move their little finger to serve you unless their own advantage in so doing, be obvious to them. Men never did so and never will, till human nature is made of present materials ______’.

But he has accepted only quantitative difference of happiness not the qualitative one. He writes: ‘Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry’. J. Bentham “Principles of Morals”. He has proposed seven norms for the measurement of the quantity of happiness. He says that he should take into consideration the intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fecundity, purity and inclusiveness of pleasure. By including benevolence Bentham has given his sense of pleasure an altruistic value. He says that one should give priority to the acts which will bring greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of persons for the longest stretch of time.

JOHN STUART MILL

Altruism: ‘Happiness is the sole end of human actions.’ J S Mill –‘Utilitarianism’

According to Mill “the greatest happiness principle” should be “the foundation of morals”. But this happiness of Mill was all inclusive. It included not only “The happiness of mankind, but “rather, of all sentient beings”. As he writes:

“Each person, so far as, he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. Each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.”

J S Mill- Utilitarianism

Differing from Bentham he said that there is also a qualitative difference between pleasures, and not just a quantitative one. His further addition to Bentham’s theory was this that every individual seeks not only his own happiness but the common happiness. He asserts his view by appealing to “the conscientious feelings of mankind”. He says that it is the voice of our inner conscience that we desire pleasure. That’s why Mill’s Utilitarianism is called ‘Refined Utilitarianism’ or ‘Universalistic Hedonism’.

He has accepted four constraints due to which any human being is forced to become benevolent. These four constraints according to him are: natural, social, political and religious. He writes, ‘The internal sanction is a feeling for the happiness of mankind, a feeling of regard for the feeling and pains of others, the social feeling of mankind, the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which if not innate are not less natural’.

J S Mill, Utilitarianism

Thus, we find that though the theory of Mill is ethical hedonism yet its basis in the psychological one.