Utilitarianism is a theory holding that the
proper course of action is the one that maximizes
utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness
and reducing suffering.
That's the definition that wikipedia.org gives
of utilitarianism.
Normally when someone asks, "Why do we bother
doing things that help other people? Why should
we donate to charity? Why should we volunteer
our time? Why should we be kind to other people?
Say please and thank you?"
They give utilitarianism as the philosophical
justification.
"It increases utility in society! It makes
everyone happyier and it makes society run
smoother.
And I also like that this definition includes
actual terms that describe things in reality.
It's not saying, "Be good and don't be bad!"
It's saying, "Increase happiness and reduce
suffering", so that we can actually apply
the definition to our lives.
However, upon evaluating it, I don't think
it really makes a lot of sense and truly works,
considering the way our biology works. And
here's what I mean.
When I say "how our biology works", I'm referring
to the reason why we do things.
Why do organisms do things? Like take a random
squirrel or raccoon that's living in your
dumpster. Why are they existing?
Some might say they exist to live to the age
of reproduction, have sex and have babies.
And while this is true in the grand scheme
of things, on the microcosmic level, it's
not.
No squirrel's going around saying, "All right,
I'm gonna have sex, I'm gonna have twenty
babies! It's gonna be awesome, and I'm gonna
perpetuate the species!"
They aren't saying that! What they want is
to do things that make them happier and reduce
their suffering.
That's why sex feels good: it's nature giving
us a perk of having sex! It's encouraging
us to have sex, so we aren't just laying around,
doing nothing, and we go extinct.
It also explains how in a biological community,
you can have an organism that commits suicide,
even though that's not something that will
help perpetuate the species.
That organism is having pain, and they're
doing whatever it takes to alleviate that
pain.
Even though it's not perpetuating the species'
existence, it makes sense for that individual
organism at that time.
I think it makes sense to say that we're gonna
do what makes us feel better and what we think
will benefit us, and we'll avoid the stuff
that doesn't.
One big thing that we, as organisms, tend
to experience that makes us feel better is
empathy.
Not even just humans, but 'lesser organisms'
as well; those that are less developed.
It's been shown in various scientific studies
that lab rats can display empathy towards
each other.
And I'll link a very interesting article discussing
that down below.
But the interesting thing is: when we do some
selfless act for someone else, we often times
feel good about ourselves, whether it's big
or small.
If it's something we could've done to make
their lives easier, and we did it, we feel
better for it.
So, I think it makes sense to say that we,
personally, gain from doing this. We profit
from it.
But utilitarian philosophy seems to promote
the idea that this isn't something that should
give us a high.
This isn't something that should make us feel
special; it's just the baseline expectation
of what we need to do to live.
For example, take me in my life, being an
adult. I want to be taken seriously, a person
who does things and achieves things in their
lives.
The fact that I prepared breakfast for myself
in the morning, make my bed after I woke up
and wiped my butt after I pooped doesn't make
me an independent adult.
That's just baseline things I have to do in
order to even begin to be considered an adult.
If that's a bit of an arbitrary example, here's
another one: take the 'nice guy' who's put
in the 'friendzone' because he's just too
nice.
Now, oftentimes this guy isn't really nice,
but let's assume he is. He's just a swell
guy, and he'll love you, he'll kiss your feet
and all that great stuff.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's a good
person to be in a relationship with, because
when you're in a relationship, the person
has to offer you something.
You have to feel like your life is better
for being in a relationship with that person.
Often times, it's because they have mental
and emotional stability, so they can be a
source of security for you,
they have some sort of interesting faction
of their life which can enrich your experience
in life,
they have hobbies and skills that keep them
busy so they can constantly expand their minds
and have something to share with you.
Not to mention the fact that they have something
to distract themselves in life, so they aren't
totally dependent upon you and clingy.
People need these types of things, and when
we talk about girls "going with assholes",
I think that girls go with the assholes because
they offer all of these things, the things
that really matter.
Now, it doesn't often last because they don't
have the foundational stuff: they aren't kind,
they aren't empathetic., but the fact is the
nice guy doesn't have the important stuff.
He can't truly achieve the relationship. And
why? It's because he doesn't have the extra
stuff: they stuff that really makes it worthwhile
for him.
He just has the baseline stuff. That doesn't
mean anything though.
It seems to me like through utilitarian philosophy,
being empathetic and looking out for the interests
of others shouldn't give you that high, it
should just be the base level of existence.
And when you really think about it, that sort
of obligates you to anything and everything
you can to help anyone and everyone in the
world around you.
For example, let's say that you work a minimum
wage job, and you just barely get by. Then
the next month, you get a little raise, and
you get fifty extra bucks that month.
Now, you could use it to expand your luxury
in your life a bit, but it seems like you're
obligated, from this perspective, to give
it to charity, or spend the time that you
could've made that extra money in, volunteering.
Every time you have some way that you can
help someone, you should be expected to, but
you're not a good person for doing so, that's
just what you have to do in order to even
begin to be considered a good person.
Like making your bed or wiping your butt or
being a nice person. It's not special in and
of itself.
So that seems to contradict the way that we
function. Rather than expecting everyone to
do everything they can to help everyone in
the world, and not expect anything in return,
we should embrace the fact that we're selfish,
and recognize that we are gonna do things
for our own self-interest. When we help other
people out, we largely do it because it makes
us feel better,
whether we get something physical in return,
maybe monetary compensation, maybe someone
thanks us and says, "you're an awesome guy"
and it makes us feel awesome to be recognized,
maybe we just have a heightened sense of empathy
and we feel like we're better because of what
we've done, whatever the case is, we wanna
get something out of it,
and we should keep doing kind things for other
people until we feel like we've gotten enough
out of it.
If everyone did this, then the world would
be a much better place, and in my opinion,
this is a much more pragmatic way of making
the world a better place, while increasing
happiness and reducing suffering.
It's not something that every individual can
just do on their own as an act of charity,
it's something that we, as a society, have
to develop by changing our perspective of
how people work with each other.
That's my opinion anyways. Thank you.
