Brave New World - A society where everyone is happy is a bad thing?

[GeD]

If happiness is the only goal, what's wrong with that?

Nothing...if you do not mind stagnation or degradation.

But the important thing here is to realize that the question is to what extent a certain goal or action is life-affirming or not (degradation or stagnation).

 

[loseyourname]

If happiness is the only goal, what would be wrong with killing everyone in the world except one person, if that one person is irrepressibly happy?

The goal of most utilitarian happiness-centered theories of ethics is to maximize the happiness of the entire human race. Some even go so far as to maximize the pleasurable sensations of all sentient beings. As such, it seems more valuable to have many happy people than one. The other problem is that only actions that maximize pleasure should be taken, according to this view. Killing everyone in the world does not do that, regardless of how the remaining individual feels separate from the killings (you do not seem to imply that he is happy because the rest of his species has been killed off).

 

[BicycleTree]

If you painlessly kill everyone in the world but that one happiest guy, the _average_ happiness increases.

If you say that the only the "total" happiness matters then would you rather have a world with 6 billion marginally happy people or a world with 200 million very happy people, if the total happiness of the 200 million is somewhat less than the total happiness of the 6 billion, even though each individual of the 200 million is much happier? Personally I would rather, all other things being equal, have the 200 million people world. And what about unhappy people--if someone is unhappy that presumably would detract from the total happiness, so it would be reasonable then by the utilitarian ethic to murder the depressed if there were no consequences but their death, even if those depressed do not actually want to die.

Happiness is certainly one goal, but I believe a bigger goal than happiness is fulfilling the expression of each individual's potential. If an alien were to offer me bliss in exchange for most of my mind, I would not take it. Would you?

 

[loseyourname]

If you painlessly kill everyone in the world but that one happiest guy, the _average_ happiness increases.

If you say that the only the "total" happiness matters then would you rather have a world with 6 billion marginally happy people or a world with 200 million very happy people, if the total happiness of the 200 million is somewhat less than the total happiness of the 6 billion, even though each individual of the 200 million is much happier?

I'm really not the guy to ask. I'm no expert on utilitarian theory, nor am I utilitarian myself. I do get the impression that you're mischaracterizing it to say that it would be a good thing to kill off all of the species except one, even if that one is happy. The two main points remain 1) That the act, in and of itself, produces no pleasure for any sentient being and so should not be done, and 2) The total pleasure in the world goes down. You've addressed 2, probably pretty effectively, but you haven't addressed 1. There actually is another point that can be brought up as well in that, although pleasurable experience is thought to be the only thing of intrinsic value, experience itself is generally regarded as a good thing unless it is painful. That is, unless the people you kill are unhappy and want to die, a utilitarian ethics would likely see the killing as a bad thing, even if it doesn't result in any direct pain.

 

[learningphysics]

If you painlessly kill everyone in the world but that one happiest guy, the _average_ happiness increases.

If you say that the only the "total" happiness matters then would you rather have a world with 6 billion marginally happy people or a world with 200 million very happy people, if the total happiness of the 200 million is somewhat less than the total happiness of the 6 billion, even though each individual of the 200 million is much happier? Personally I would rather, all other things being equal, have the 200 million people world. And what about unhappy people--if someone is unhappy that presumably would detract from the total happiness, so it would be reasonable then by the utilitarian ethic to murder the depressed if there were no consequences but their death, even if those depressed do not actually want to die.

Happiness is certainly one goal, but I believe a bigger goal than happiness is fulfilling the expression of each individual's potential. If an alien were to offer me bliss in exchange for most of my mind, I would not take it. Would you?

Well, one of the objections to killing everyone is if you believe in reincarnation, or even consider the possibility of reincarnation (or just life after death). Those killed may be reborn, and continue suffering (Buddhism)

I grant the problems involved with utilitarianism when life and death are involved. But when those issues are not involved, then what goals are there other than happiness?

You mentioned "potential". Potential to do what?

 

[GeD]

POWER. ;)

There are those who seek contentment, and those who seek power (although both still seek general satisfaction).



As for the ideas behind utilitarianism, there is that repugnant conclusion that we seem to have a duty under util to make more and more people, simply because even if they are all poverty stricken and extremely unhappy, the combined happiness total is greater than before. Of course, util can reply and state that the best way to facilitate happiness is not to make util followed so completely.

 

[learningphysics]

POWER. ;)

There are those who seek contentment, and those who seek power (although both still seek general satisfaction).



As for the ideas behind utilitarianism, there is that repugnant conclusion that we seem to have a duty under util to make more and more people, simply because even if they are all poverty stricken and extremely unhappy, the combined happiness total is greater than before. Of course, util can reply and state that the best way to facilitate happiness is not to make util followed so completely.

No. There is the disvalue of pain and suffering that needs to be taken into account. Creating more and more people can create positive happiness and negative suffering. Utilitarianism has the dual goal of increasing positive happiness and reducing negative suffering. Hence it doesn't make sense to make more and more people from a utilitarian standpoint unless they are all guaranteed a certain quality of life.

My personal philosophy is not that of utilitarianism but that of "negative utilitarianism", which emphasizes the lack of symmetry between pain and pleasure: The abolishing of pain and suffering is much more imperative than any increase in pleasure or happiness.

 

[GeD]

The abolishing of pain and suffering is much more imperative than any increase in pleasure or happiness.

Ah, this good ol' world is so ripe with fear of suffering.

BTW, your defined goal there is not part of the usual utilitarianism either. To them, happiness can be more important than some suffering, because most are strong enough to resist ailments/pain and "take their licks" - so to speak.