The Moral Problem: Michael Smith

Introduction and Context
So far it looks like if we're moral realists (i.e., we believe there are objective moral facts) we are in deep doo-doo.  In Why Be Moral, Glaucon and Adeimantus compellingly argue that it's better to appear moral than to actually be moral.  The Euthyphro dilemma shows that appealing to God can't, on its own, give us an account of objective moral truth--if anything it points to a naturalist account.  And if that isn't bad enough, Mackie's arguments from disagreement and queerness undercut the likelihood of a naturalistic account objective moral truth.  

Before you go around raping and pillaging, lets take a look at what a naturalistic account of objective morality has to offer in terms of a response to the various problems that have emerged. 


Started from the Bottom, Now We're Here
Contemporary naturalistic theories of objective morality (moral realism) pretty much all start from the same place:  Moral obligation is justified in terms of reasons.  There is some reason for which it's wrong to poke babies in the eyes for fun.  There is some reason for which you shouldn't steal.  There's some reason for which should help to feed a starving child.  Reasons for and against an action are at the bottom of all naturalistic moral realist theories...and now we're here.

So far so good...except what happens if we don't share or we disagree about what the relevant reasons are in respect to what we should do?  How do you decide whose reasons are the true indicator of moral facts?  Maybe I have what I think is a good reason to steal Bob's money but you tell me that the reason I shouldn't steal Bob's money is because it harms Bob's interests.  I respond, well, that it will hurt Bob isn't a reason for me not to take Bob's money--I couldn't give two hoots about Bob's interests.  I only care about mine.

Ok, you reply, but suppose someone were to do the same to you, would that bother you?  Of course it would.  It would bother me because my interests are at least as important as the interests as the next person, and stealing from me would cause me to my interests to subverted by the interests of another. 

Enter the principle of impartiality:  Stealing from me isn't wrong because there's something special about stealing from me or that there's something special about my interests.  Stealing from anyone is wrong.  From the point of the view of the universe, ceteris paribus, all of our interests have equal weight/are worthy of equal consideration and so any act that unjustifiably preferences one set of interests over another is wrong.  

This principle sounds good in theory but there are also good reasons to think we needn't alway act impartially nor that morality demands it.  If I can only save one life: the life of a close family member or a stranger I've never met, it doesn't seem wrong for me to prefer the interests of my family member.  What about spending money to extend my life 1 year or spending that same money to extend the life of a stranger for 5 years?  What about my personal interest in going to a concert and the interests of a starving child who could eat for 3 months off the ticket price?  Is it morally wrong for me to preference my own (possibly trivial) interests in such a situation?  The point is, reasons as a ground for naturalistic moral realism seem to only get us so far.  As it stands, we have no clear account of how to weigh them against each other or how to reconcile competing reasons. 

Another Big Problem
So far we've said that appeals to reasons ground an account of objective morality.  But where do reasons come from?  (On some accounts) reasons are a reflection of our motivations.  We all have different motives for action but different motives will generate different reasons for action. If I'm motivated to X then I have reason to X.  But what if I'm not motivated to X (i.e. I have no desire to X), does it mean that I have no reason to X?  

Since reasons underpin naturalistic morality, people having different reasons will imply different standards of wrong and right.  This will undercut any hope at objectivity in morality.

What constitutes a good reason for action for you might not be a good reason for me, so I will use my reason to justify my action and you'll use your reason to justify your different action and we'll both be right.  The only way out of this mess is to come up with a way to mediate between competing reasons...

Enter Smith's moral realism

Smith's Rationalist and Internalist Moral Realism 
Smith has two main issues to deal with:  (1)  Explain how there can be objective morality despite the fact that we all can have different reasons for action and (2) explain his answer to (1) in a way that also addresses Mackie's argument from moral disagreement and argument from queerness. 

Before proceeding, lets get one conceptual distinction out of the way:  explanatory reasons vs justifying reasons.   If I keep a lost wallet we can ask "why did you keep the wallet?"  I can respond "because I like money and there was money in it."  This would be an explanatory reason.  The reason I give doesn't justify my behavior but it explains it.  It is often said that explanatory reasons are agent-relative reasons.   A subclass of explanatory reasons are motivational reasons.  These are the specific sub-class of reasons which explain an agent's actions in terms of their particular motivations, desires, and means-end beliefs (i.e., beliefs about how to best realize what they are motivated to do).

A justifying reason, on the other hand, would be something like this:  "I kept the wallet because I couldn't afford food for my children and it's true that if you are given a choice between letting your children go hungry and returning a wallet, you should not return the wallet."  Justifying reasons are generally considered to be reasons we'd appeal to for or against acting in a certain way.  Justifying reasons are sometimes called normative reasons. 

How to Get Moral Objectivity from Reasons

Solution summary: Rationality is a universal quality and humans all possess it (to varying degrees).  The desires you'd rationally have about a situation are the desires that we'd share universally about that situation.  Since, under ideal conditions of rationality, we'd all have the same desires (and motivations), we'd also all have the same reasons for action (in a given moral situation).  Therefore, we could, if acting rationally, all share the same reasons for action thereby giving rise to objective morality.

So, to repeat, the first main problem for Smith is this: Objective moral facts can be known by appealing to reasons.   However, if not everyone thinks that the same reasons are good reasons for an action, then people will have different ideas about what is right and wrong, and objective morality doesn't get off the ground.  

There's a side-issue that need resolving too.  What kind of reasons are we talking about to ground moral judgment?  Motivational or justifying reasons?  If it's only agent-relative motivational reasons then it doesn't seem like the project will get very far.  Clearly, we all have different motivations for doing things.  On the other hand, if we're talking only about justifying/normative reasons then it doesn't seem that reasons have any power.  

What I mean is, if knowledge of right and wrong doesn't motivate action, what use is it?  If mere awareness of a normative reason doesn't motivate action, there doesn't seem to be any practical value in figuring out what's right and wrong.  If, upon discovering a (normative) reason for acting morally, people who were going to act immorally aren't motivated to do act otherwise, what practical value is there to figuring out and explaining moral truths?  

Because of this problem, Smith defends a position called "reasons internalism".  Reasons internalism attempts to connect justifying reasons to agent-relative motivational reasons.  In other words, reasons internalism tries to show that knowing a moral fact (justifying reason) will necessarily play a role in motivating the right actions.

Ok, now that we've got most of the terminology and context out of the way, lets take a look at how Smith attempts to deal with the problem of moral objectivity.  

What is (naturalistic) moral rightness?  Moral rightness is what we'd desire ourselves to do in a certain circumstance if we were fully rational.   So, if you want to know what 'right' is, (a) imagine that you are perfectly rational and (b) imagine what you'd want done in that particular situation.  

Consider an example:  You find a wallet on the ground and want to know what to do.  First imagine that you are perfectly rational and then imagine what you would want done in that particular circumstance.   Under these conditions you have a good chance (not a guarantee) to know what the right thing to do is. 

So, where does the objectivity come from?  Ah! Ha!  I'm glad you asked.  Lets work backwards for a second.  How do we determine what to do?  We appeal to reasons.  But of course, if we all have different reasons then we'll come up with different answers about what to do.  But where do reasons come from?  Reasons come from agent-specific desires, beliefs, and motivations.  Obviously, we differ enormously in these agent-specific respects...so appealing to them will not get us commonly-held reasons.  

The trick is to find a way to make everyone recognize and be motivated by the same reasons.  The only way to do this is to find something that generates the same desires.  We need something that is grounded in something universal: i.e., something we all share that is homogenous.  Rationality. Ta! Da!  Since rationality is universal, if in any particular situation we imagine ourselves as purely rational we will share the same motivations and desires (because they arise from the same source).  Those same motivations and desires (across individuals) will in turn generate the same reasons for action (across individuals), which in turn will generate the same moral judgments about a particular moral situation. 

Now, how does this connect to the agent-relative vs justifying reasons issue? Knowing what a (hypothetical) fully rational agent would want to do creates in (actual) you a desire to do that thing. Added to our pre-reflective set of desires, we now have a new desire to do what a purely rational agent would do.  This new desire will play a motivational role in how we act (because we want to actualize desires).  But since this new desire is something that would be universally shared (because it's what all purely rational being would want), it is not merely an explanatory reason (i.e., "because I wanted to do x") but a justifying reason (i.e., "because it's what all fully rational agents would want").

Issues:
1.  Why should we suppose that there is an overlap between what is rational and what is moral?
2.  Would our desires really be the same if we were all fully rational?
3.  Can desires be rational or is reason content-free?
4.  Is it true that knowing what a fully rational agent would want to do cause me to want to do that too?

Reply to Mackie's Argument from Queerness
Mackie says that moral properties can't be a feature of the world be cause they'd be metaphysically and epistemologically queer.  I can come to know and study all the properties of matter and energy but how come no one has ever scientifically identified the property of 'rightness' in something?  I know how my sense of sight, touch, smell, taste, and hearing work.  But how come no one's ever discovered a moral sense organ?  If we can sense these properties, surely there must be an organ or faculty for it.

Smith's reply is this:  Rightness is simply the qualities or properties we would want acts to have in circumstance C if we were fully rational.   There's nothing magical going on here.  If you want to know what rightness is, think about what a fully rational being would want in a particular moral situation. The features that we'd want the acts to have in those situations is 'rightness'.  

One might object that we've defined 'rightness' in terms of rationality, and maybe we can't give a naturalistic account of rationality.  Ok, maybe so, but rationality is naturally realized; that is, it emerges from the natural world.  A rational creature is simply one with a certain psychology-type.  And psychology is something that can be studied scientifically, so it is therefore, a natural quality. 

Reply to Mackie's Argument from Moral Disagreement
Recall that the argument from moral disagreement goes something like this:  It's an empirical fact that there is and has been a lot of substantive moral disagreement between cultures, over history, within cultures, and between individuals of the same culture.  Rather than saying this moral disagreement is a consequence of people misperceiving objective moral truth, it make more sense to say moral rules are socially constructed and reflect cultural ways of life.  

In Smith's reply, notice how he employs a very similar strategy to Mackie's but starts with different evidence arguing for the opposite conclusion.  

Convergence Claim: 
Smith's basic reply is the convergence claim:  If you removed all the distorting factors in people ethical reasoning (cognitive biases, cultural prejudices, uncritically accepted beliefs, dogma, ideology, religion, disagreement over non-moral facts) and engaged in rational discourse, everyone would eventually end up with the same moral conclusions.

Mackie is cherry-picking:  He's only looking at instances of moral disagreement but there is and continues to be lots of important moral agreement in the world--across cultures and individuals.  The empirical fact that moral arguments tend to illicit the agreement of our fellows gives us reason to believe that there will be a convergence in our desires under conditions of full rationality.

Abduction: The best explanation of moral agreement in the world is our convergence upon a set of extremely unobvious a priori moral truths. And convergence on these truths requires convergence in the desires that fully rational creatures would have.

Counter: But what about all the moral disagreement?

Replies:
1. : Alongside massive disagreement we find entrenched agreement.   For example, there is widespread agreement on thick moral concepts (descriptive concepts that are also value-laden): courage, brutality, kindness, meanness, honesty.  Moral agreement is so extensive that normativity has been incorporated into naturalistic descriptive concepts.  If we look at how these concepts are used across cultures we will find significant overlap not only in the behaviors they describe but also in the moral evaluation of those behaviors.

2:  Past moral disagreement was removed, inter alia, by a process of moral argument.   The fact that rational argument can lead to changes in culture's and individual's moral evaluations of cultural practices and behaviors is strong evidence for the positive role of rationality in accessing moral truth. Consider, for example, slavery, women's rights.  Essentially, there is moral progress across and within cultures, and one reason for this is rational discourse.

3: Current intractable disagreements can be explained away by absence of ideal conditions of reflection and discussion; i.e., if we removed the elements that distort or impede rational discourse, we'd have substantive moral agreement.

Issues:  

1.  Is it rational arguments that bring about change in moral attitudes or is it something else like emotions and the ability to empathize?
2. If we did remove all the distorting influences, would there be a convergence of desires of fully rational people?
3.  Is the convergence claim falsifiable? If it isn't, it doesn't mean it's false, only that as an empirical claim it will lose some strength.

Replies to Foot
Foot's main criticism is that logical consistency doesn't necessarily imply moral behaviour.  Eg. A criminal can have logically consistent premises about what to do yet not arrive at the correct moral conclusion.

Reply
The criminal's flaw is his premises. He has a normative reason to gain wealth no matter what the cost to others. But a fully rational creature would not want this.  His desire isn't what a fully rational creature would desire.

Counter:  The problem of conflicting intuitions about what a fully rational creature would want

What if the criminal says that he did rationally reflect on what a fully rational creature would want in his circumstance and he came up with a normative reason to gain wealth no matter what the cost to others.  He comes to this conclusion even thought the vast majority of others conclude the contrary.

Reply: Intellectual Arrogance

Just because his intuition differs from the vast majority doesn't mean, ipso facto, he is wrong.  But the criminal is demonstrating intellectual arrogance.  The criminal sticks to his opinion that he has reason to gain wealth no matter what the cost to other.   He sticks to his view without good reason. He doesn't weigh his position "in light of the folk...the only court of appeal there is for claims about what we have normative reason to do."  

Reflecting on what a perfectly rational individual will do doesn't guarantee the correct answer, it's a starting place.  From there we engage in rational dialogue and check our intuitions and arguments against those of others.  If they differ, they we need to find some reason for which we should prefer ours...especially if we are in the minority.  It doesn't mean we're wrong, only that we shouldn't be so arrogant to suppose we have stumbled upon the truth while the majority (of epistemic peers) has erred.

Issue:  Is this a satisfying reply?

Libertarianism and Moral Obligation to Others

Libertarianism:  Intro
I've been wanting to write a post on libertarianism for a while and since I have a ton of things I'm supposed to be doing right now, I thought now would be an excellent time.  When I was philosophically naive I found libertarianism quite compelling.  I think this is common for most youth--especially young white men.  (Libertarians in the US are 80% white and 67% male PEW US political demographics ) It's very easy to attribute our individual successes solely to personal effort and to be blind to the effects of social privilege as well as overlook the social hurdles others must face.  

My position on libertarianism, however, is evolving.  For the last decade the pendulum swung to the extreme opposite side.  I considered libertarianism juvenile and naive, not to mention morally bankrupt.  Recently however, I've started to moderate my position, from visceral dislike to a recognition that there is at least some merit to some aspects of libertarianism.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm still see libertarianism--particularly it's contemporary popular form--as a scourge that is merely a justification for greed and selfishness.  Nevertheless, I think there is something to learn from its emphasis on individual responsibility and ownership (which I discuss at the end of the post).

 Lets get the definitions out of the way so I can get to what I actually want to talk about:  the relationship between libertarianism and moral obligation to others.  I guess before I do that, I should say that there are several different flavours and aspects of libertarianism and so I'll give a couple of definitions soz you get the gist of it:

Libertarianism: (1) is the idea that individuals fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. SEP

(2) is a set of related political philosophies that uphold  liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. Wikipedia

(3) is the view that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish. The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

(4) is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz

There are a couple of key elements you should extract from these definitions.  
(1)  Libertarians typically favor individual rights over collective/community rights. 
(2)  From (1) it follows that government should have very limited power and a very limited roll in people's lives.
(3)  Property rights are very important to libertarians.  (Gid doffa my lawn!) 
(4)  Libertarians are primarily concerned with negative freedoms rather than with positive freedoms.  (distinction is discussed below.)
(5)  Classically, the libertarian view of moral obligation to others is simply that we ought not to interfere with their negative freedom.

Negative freedoms are typically described as "freedom from x."  For example, I have the right to be free from harm and intervention in how I live my life.  It is primarily concerned with absence of constraints on what I do or think.  Summed up, it's the philosophy of "you're not the boss of me so you can't tell me what to do" or "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose."

Positive freedoms, on the other hand, are about having the possibility of acting in such a way as to control or fulfill one's life purpose.   So, under this idea of freedom, the absence of physical obstacles isn't sufficient for one to be free.  Freedom also requires having the available means, infrastructure, and social support (amongst other social goods) to pursue one's goals.  Basically, it's not enough to say someone's free to eat if they can't afford a meal.

Example
Lets consider an example to bring out the differences.  Consider college education.  A proponent of negative freedom says since there's no one physically stopping the poor marginalized individual from attending college, they are free to go.  The proponent of positive freedom sees things differently.  They say that an individual without the social and economic capital to attend is not free to attend, even though there are no physical obstacles.

This is taking us a bit off track, but such scenarios are at the heart of the conflict between small 'l' liberals and libertarians.  Libertarians argue that it's not the role of government to redistribute funds (because that'd be stealing another's private property through taxation) and provide the social goods necessary for the marginalized to attend college (or do whatever to increase their positive freedoms).  

You cannot interfere with another's negative freedom (to do what they want with their money/property) to help another (i.e., increase another's positive freedom).  If someone voluntarily donates the money, that's fine, but it has to be voluntary.  

Isaiah Berlin's famous essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" lays much of the groundwork for discussions about a tension between the competing goals of social equality and negative freedom.  

Moral Obligation
Ok, so now that we have a little background I wanted to throw one more element into the mix: moral obligation.  I'm just going to assume that most people feel some moral obligation to help people or animals who are badly off in life.  There many be disagreement over just who is deserving, but I hope most people reading this blog feel that there are at least some categories of people (and/or animals) that are badly off to whom we have a moral obligation to help.  

Libertarianism and moral obligation to others: one of the more pernicious aspects of the modern libertarian movement--especially the brand espoused by Ayn Rand and her followers--is that everyone is somehow responsible for their own situation, no matter how poor it is.  

All circumstance result from a chain of perfectly autonomous decisions on the part of the agent, so it follows that they are responsible for the end result.  Because they're solely responsible for their circumstances, others are not; and there is, therefore, no moral obligation to help them.  I may have missed a few steps of the argument but this is what it amounts to.

Problems for Libertarianism: Although, not the main topic of this entry, I'd like to point out a few problems with the above argument.  First, implicit in libertarian is the idea of absolute free will.  I think this is mistaken because it flies in the face of well established empirical research in psychology and social psychology.  The social sciences provide us with more that enough evidence to show that mere willing is not how people make decisions nor how they end up where they do in life.  We have to consider the subtle and not so subtle effects of culture, genetics, home-life, socio-economic class, ethnicity, and so on.  Basically, there are a whole bunch of things outside of our control which influence how we make decisions.

Anyhow, even if we dismiss the psychologic/sociological evidence against total free will and suppose that people are 100% responsible for their current circumstances--no matter how poor, it simply does not follow that we are absolved of any moral responsibility to them.  

Proof of Moral Obligation:  
Scene A:  You're the only one around except for some guy who has a heart attack in front of you.  Are you morally obligated to help in whatever way you reasonably can?  In this case, probably just calling 911?  Or is it OK for you to just walk away?  I'm going to assume your answer is that you're obligated to call 911.

Scene B:  Suppose you see a guy do a jump with his skateboard.  He lands about 10ft from you and smacks his head on the concrete.  He's bleeding everywhere and he's got a concussion.  You're the only one around.  Since you've been trained in first aid, you know that if you bandage his head with your shirt and call 911, you'll save his life.  

Question:  is it morally permissible for you to just walk away?  Or do you have a moral responsibility to help?  The skateboarder chose to do the stunt.  Does this absolve you of your obligation to help?  I don't think it does, and neither does sweet baby jesus. 

The point is that between Scene A and B the only important difference is that while the skateboarder chose to engage in potentially dangerous behaviour, the man in A didn't choose to have a heart attack (assuming he lived a healthy lifestyle).  Nevertheless, I don't think we can reasonably say that we are morally responsible for helping the heart attack victim but not the skateboarder.   You may disagree, and if you do, please tell me why in the comments section, however, I'm going to assume that most of you are with me up to this point. 

Notice that it doesn't really matter whether you are a moral realist or some form of anti-realist (relativist, constructionist, etc...).  All that is needed is that you agree that it'd be morally wrong to not to help and morally right to help.  Quick qualification: ...so long as helping doesn't impose an unreasonable burden on the helper.  I'm not going to quibble over what the conditions for an unreasonable burden might be. There will certainly be grey areas, but this doesn't mean that we won't be able to identify clear cases. 

Before moving to my next point lets quickly recap where we are right now:
(A).   There exists a moral obligation to help others who are badly off if we are in a position to help and helping doesn't place an excessive burden on us.  

Libertarians and Taxation
Libertarians are often opposed to taxation.  Why?  Personally, I think it's just greed and selfishness, but they also have a reasonable philosophical justification that follows from their doctrine of non-interference. 

Recall that negative freedom and property rights are 2 pillars of libertarianism.  When the guvamint comes along and, against your will, takes a portion of your property (i.e., your money) and does with it something you wouldn't have otherwise done, then they interfere with your negative liberty as well as commit theft.  

So, as you can see, taking money from some and redistributing it to others via social programs that enhance the positive freedoms of others (i.e., via funding public schools, universities, medical care access, roads, welfare, food aid, rent subsidies, etc...) is incompatible with strict libertarianism.  Because these public social goods are quite diverse in nature, I'm going to focus on the idea that the government should pay (i.e. collect taxes for) programs like welfare, healthcare, and food stamps.  Recipients of these programs are generally the ones to whom the moral obligation to help is greatest and least controversial.

So, lets start to relate this back to the previous section on moral obligation.  To my mind, social programs such as I have mentioned are a logical consequence of accepting (A) (i.e., there exists a moral obligation to help others who are badly off if we are in a position to help and helping doesn't place an excessive burden on us.)

Libertarians argue that it is morally wrong for the government to collect taxes for and to administrate such programs because doing so necessarily infringes on the negative freedom and property rights of those from whom the tax money was collected.  The negative freedoms of taxpayers supersede the needs of those who are badly off. 

The Moral Libertarian?
But lets suppose the libertarian also has a basic sense of moral obligation and accepts (A).  How does he reconcile (A) with his commitment to libertarian values?  In other words, how can you reconcile a recognition of a basic moral obligation to others and at the same time uphold negative freedoms and individual property rights as paramount?  

The libertarian answer is that both moral commitments are not in conflict.  They only come into conflict when they are forced against their will to help (via maditory taxes).   They reply that it's not a necessary condition that social programs be conducted through government-run tax-funded programs. To meet the moral obligation of (A) and to avoid infringing on negative freedom, it's perfectly fine for an individual to donate to a NGO, create their own charity, or hand out money on the street. 

But here's the prollem with that.  What to do when, given the choice, people don't help others to whom they have a moral obligation?  Is there then an obligation for guvamint to step in?  Or are these people who need assistance to receive that assistance only at the whim of those who can help?   In a culture that worships the accumulation of money more and more, I would not like my chances if I had to rely for help on the good will of wealthy strangers.  I'll come back to this in a moment. 

This leads me to an aside.  The libertarian might respond here that..."welp, tough titties.  Whatever crappy circumstances you're in, they must be the result of choices you made, so you sort of deserve it. And besides, if I help you, you're not going to learn your lesson and it's only going to encourage you to stay in your shitty position."  Sadly, I hear stuff like this all the time from libertarian-minded folk.  

Or worse, you get responses like this: (The fact that this type of statement can be made in public without inciting the same reaction one would have to a psychopath is evidence of a sad state of affairs of American morality.)

Obviously, this type of response ignores the reality that many people who are in a crappy situation aren't there as a consequence of poor decisions.  Many people lose their homes and go bankrupt because they had to pay medical bills.  And I don't think many people chose to get sick.

People can suffer from mental illness too.  Are they responsible for that?  Are they responsible for the psychological consequences of a poor upbringing? There are plenty of other counter-examples, but that should suffice.

Anyhow, returning to the main issue:  the conflict between individual negative freedoms and property rights with the moral obligation to help others.  Let say we agree with the libertarian and say, OK, ain't no guvamint gong touch your precious $ or force you to do anything you don't want to do.  Suppose we do this, and lo and behold, no one helps out the poor or the ill and they all die the death.  But hey, at least no one had their negative freedom transgressed! 

The libertarian objection to taxation for social programs is that it violates a moral obligation to respect people's negative freedom.  Fine.  But why does the moral obligation to not violate negative freedom win over the moral obligation to help others when you can (and it won't adversely harm you).  We have a moral values cage match on our hands.

You Want to Make a Wrestle? 
So here's what I think.  Oh shit.  I just realized that to properly support my view and pre-empt obvious objections, I'd probably need to write a book...so, I'll just restate what I've already said:  The moral obligation to help others is fairly uncontroversial if helping them isn't excessively burdensome.  We can quibble over what "excessively burdensome" means another time, but for now, going to leave it mostly unqualified except for this: Helping would be excessively burdensome if it prevented an individual from living their life in modest comfort. 

(Particularly) in a culture that worships the accumulation of wealth for its own sake and in which there are massive inequalities in wealth, the guvamint plays a necessary role in ensuring the moral obligation to help others is met.

What I Think Libertarianism Gets Right
I think libertarianism is partially right about emphasizing personal responsibility and the dangers of creating a psychology of dependence.   I'm too tired to look up the articles right now, but there is some psychological literature supporting the idea that top-down assistance programs can create a culture of dependancy.  (See especially the literature of foreign aid to Africa).  

But these problems on their own aren't an argument against government supported social programs.  The moral obligation to assist isn't dissolved simply because some methods of discharging it are ineffective.  It simply means that social programs need to reconsidered and perhaps employ some libertarian principles such as being bottom up and actively empowering its participants in coming up with solutions and pathways. 

Projects that eschew a top down approach in favour of individual empowerment have had very good success rates:
http://eefortomorrow.com/EE_Press.html
http://www.odalc.org/

By and large, it seems people will live up to the standards and expectations that are set for them--whether they be high or low.  And of course it doesn't hurt to help people set their own standards...

When we talk of personal responsibility I think we have to be careful that it doesn't devolve into victim-blaming.  There's a distinction in there somewhere, but I'm too tired right now to tease it out.   Maybe someone can point me to some literature on the topic.  Anyhow, social and psychological factors should be recognized but not seen as an excuse.  This approach robs the individual of their autonomy.  I think the libertarians have that part right.

I think there's also something to their idea that ownership of personal property is important, but maybe it needs to be toned down a bit.  From personal experience, (that's science!) since I've become a home owner and landlord, I not only take better care of my own living space, but I'm better able to understand why I need to respect and take care of other people's property.  When everything I owned fit in a backpack, I don't think I really understood why it's important to respect and take care of the property of others.  If more people can develop this respect for other's property, there might be less vandalism and theft. 

Anyhow, I'm fading.   Lemmi know what y'all think.

The Dualism of Practical Reason: Sidgwick

The Dualism of Practical Reason from "Some Fundamental Ethical Controversies" by Sidgwick 



Introduction
Sometimes we are faced with decisions in which we must choose between our own good and the good of others.  Of course, there are happy situations where the two converge, but the difficult moral situations are those in which the two interests do not aligne, and a choice must be made.  It is in these types of situations where Sidgwick says we experience the dualism of practical reason.

What does the dualism of practical reason mean?  To figure this out lets take the concepts in isolation.  Practical reason is the type of reasoning we use to decide what to do.  For (a very simple) example, if I'm hungry, my practical reason tells me I should make a "samich" rather than drink wine.  Or if I want to graduate, practical reason tells me I need to write my papers at night rather than go out drinking.  We also employ practical reasoning in more complex situations that involve values.  Suppose I value virtue (whatever that is).  Practical reason is what I employ to decide which actions will bring about virtue. Essentially, practical reason is what we use to determine how we should go about achieving some end--usually normative.  

Dualism, in this context, refers to the idea that our practical reason is divided between two sometimes conflicting ends.  These two ends are the good of other and our own good.  For Sidgwick the goal of seeking our own good/happiness is just as reasonable as seeking the good/happiness of others.  Because both goals are reasonable, in situations where these goals conflict, our practical intuition will be split.  That is, our practical reason will be in a stalemate with itself and so cannot be used to determine what to do.  In such cases, what we do will be a function of the relative strength of non-rational impulses.  In other words, what we decide to do will be determined by whatever desire is strongest, not what is rational.

For most of moral philosophy prior to Sidgwick moral theorists thought two things: (a) morality is rational and (b) what is right and good for the individual to do will converge with what is right and good for society.  Despite his desire that both be so, Sidgwick concludes that they can't both be true because of the dualism of practical reason.  Lets look at that in a little more detail...

The Dualism of Practical Reason:  The Problem of Rational Egoism
For many traditional moral theorists, it is a "dictate of reason" to prefer the general good to that of yourself.  That is, in cases where you stand to benefit at the expense of others, to do so would be immoral and irrational (because morality and reason are intertwined).

The problem is that some people might refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of this principle.  A person might say that it is more or equally rational to prefer my own good as the end of my actions.  So, the only way such a person could act for the general good (in cases of conflict) is to act irrationally.   

It seems, that if we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that reason "assigns a different end to the individual and to the [group]."  That is, it is just as reasonable to sacrifice one's own happiness to the group as it is to prefer one's own happiness to the group's.  If we want to maintain that morality is rational, that is, we can determine what to do in moral situations by appeal to our practical reason, we will find that what we ought to do sometimes conflicts.

Internalism vs Externalism
So, there are a couple of philosophical things going on here which has to do with what is called "internalism" and "externalism".  I wrote a post last year on this topic (see the Williams article) if you want more depth, but I'll quickly sketch it out here.  The issue is about what constitutes a reasonable end.

So far we've just said that both preference of one's own happiness (because it is important to you) and preference of the general good are both reasonable ends for our practical reason to realize.  But are they equally reasonable?

An internalist says that the reasonableness of an end of action is determined, well...internally.  That is, if I think that my well-being is more important to me than the general well-being, then that's good enough for it to constitute a reasonable reason for my action.  My subjective desires and beliefs about what's important determine what's reasonable for me to do.  You can't tell me "no, you are mistaken that your personal well-being is important to you".  How could I be mistaken about what is important to me?  That doesn't seem to make any sense.  So, so long as we say it is rational for an individual to pursue what is important to that particular individual, then actions toward those goals will be rational.

The externalist says, ho..ho..ho..hold on a second!  Not all reasons (i.e., ends) for action are reasonable, and furthermore reasons aren't merely internal desires for things.  Reasons stand outside of us.  Ok, yes x, y, z is important you but that doesn't make it objectively important or an objective reason for action.   There are reasons for action that everybody would agree are reasonable.  For example (from Parfit), if you are in a burning building and you can safely leave, you have a good reason to leave.  Everyone would agree to the reasonableness of your not wanting to get burned to deph.  You have a reason (in the external sense) to x-scape from the burning building.

So, the externalist says that there are different degrees of reasonableness ranging from the subjective to the objective.  Rationality is acting on the reasons to which everyone would subscribe.   Everybody has a reason to care about the general well-being (because they are a part of it) but only you (and maybe your momma) care about your particular well-being above the general well being.  Acting on objective reasons over subjective (ie. internal) reasons is a more rational thing to do.  Since (if!) morality is rational, then we should prefer the general good over our own in cases where they conflict.  Or at least in cases where I benefit at the expense of er'body elks.

Internalists deny the existence of external reasons, they say all reasons are internal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people only have selfish motives for action.  Some people might, as part of their psychology prefer the good of others to their own.  So, their reason for acting benevolently will arise from wanting to see this preference realized.  Internalism doesn't condemn us to crass egoism.  People's actions will simply be a function of their internal preferences.  We just have hope that most desire the good of others!

Dualism of Practical Reason 2
There is another moral theory that demonstrates the split of our practical reason.  In Kant's moral philosophy we are always to act accordian to reason because it is supposed that reason alignes perfectly with the good.  That is, the right and the good perfectly overlap.

For Kant, the right is a matter of following absolute (rational) moral principles.  The problem is, it doesn't take much imagination to come up with situations where following the moral principles would cause us to act in a way we'd call--by any reasonable sense--immoral.  

The standard example is that of lying.  Kant says we should never lie.  Well, what about if I'm in WW2 Germany and I'm hiding Jews (down the well) and a gestapo agent asks me if I'm hiding any Jews down the well?  Our moral sensibilities seem to tell us that in such cases the moral position is to lie.

Sidgwick's point is this: even supposing we could rationally intuit or deduce a set of moral principles, there will inevitably be situations where these principles conflict and we will have to chose one over the other.  So, our practical reason will be split.  Furthermore, in such cases we need an "master" principle of morality.  One that tells us how to order the other principles when they conflict.

So, lets grant that Kant came up with the set of rational principles.  In situations where following them would seem to be causing great harm, it appears that our practical reason will be split.  Do we follow the rules just for the sake of following the rules or do we abide by another rule that says we should minimize general harm and maximize general happiness? 

 Only the most martinet of people follow rules "because that's the rule and following rules is what is good".  Most reasonable people acknowledge that when rules--no matter how rational--cause more harm then good, we should at least consider the principle of harm/utility.  So, even if we have a system of rational rules, our reason will still be split; that is, there will still be a dualism of practical reason. 

Mill's Utilitarianism Part 3: Proof of the Principle of Utilitarianism

Mill's Utilitarianism, Chapter IV:  Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible

Note: For criticisms of Mill's Proof see my later posts "Sidgwick's Criticisms of Mill's Proof" and "Moore's Criticisms of Mill's Proof"

Favorite Quote: "...[Virtue] may be felt a good in itself, and desired as such with as great intensity as any other good; and with these differences between it and the love of money, of power, or of fame--that all of these may, and often do, render the individual noxious to the other members of society to which he belongs, whereas there is nothing which makes him so much a blessing to them as the cultivation of the disinterested love of virtue."

Background
A familiar theme in many branches of philosophy (mostly epistemology) is how to prove a primitive.  By "primitive", I mean a foundational fact.  A fact that to the question "why?" you can't reply anymore than "it just is".  Think of it this way:  Imagine you're taking to a really annoying kid who keeps asking "why" to every successive answer you give.  At some point, you're going to run out of answers.  Or punch him right in the face!!

Here's an example of a conversation reaching a primitive (from a criminally underrated comedy):
Example of an Epistemic Primitive(video)

So, what's all the hoopla about primitives?  Well, Mill has a problem with proving utilitarianism because it is claimed that its first principle (ie. an action is good to the degree that it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of peeps) is a primitive.  But so are the first principles of any moral system.  If proponents of each moral system each tell me I should accept their particular first principle because "it just is the right one", why should I choose one system over another?  And on what grounds?

Mill recognizes this problem and tries to give us a proof...

Proof of Happiness as the Only Good
We begin with what Mill sets out to prove: that in human affairs, happiness is the only desirable end.  Not that we don't want other things, but that we want other things like money, honor, success, friends, and family because they are often only means to our ultimate end, which is happiness.  But why should we agree with this?

First argument:  How do we know if something is visible?  People see it.  How do we know if something is audible?  People hear it.  So...how do we know if something is desirable?  You got it...people desire it!

Ok, so people desire their own happiness perhaps, but it doesn't necessary follow that people desire the happiness of others...

Baaaat! That's not what we're trying to prove.  We're not primarily concerned with what people actually do, we are concerned with defining what moral goodness is.   The fact that a person values and desires their own happiness tells us that happiness is a good to that person.  So, the general happiness must be a good to the aggregate of all persons.

So far we've (more or less) established that happiness is a good because it is the desired end of most people's actions, but we have yet to establish that it is the only good.  To do this we have to demonstrate that happiness is the only thing that people desire.  It seems clear that there are other things people desire such as virtue (some people), absence of pain, and absence of vice, makin' paypur, range rovers, etc...

So, how does Mill argue for his postion?  He could say that all the other things people desire are instrumental ends; that is, they are merely a means to happiness.  But no, that'd be a cheap move and open him to some easy challenges.  Instead, he pursues a slightly different (but similar) strategy.

He acknowledges that for some people, they actually do pursue virtue, money, fame, etc... not as means to happiness but as ends in themselves.  So, how is that consistent with happiness being the only ultimate end?

The answer is that although people might not pursue virtue and such as a means to happiness, but as a component of happiness.  Huh? Wut?  How does this work?  

Lets drawr an analogy with money.  Most people pursue money as a means to some end.  People pursue money cuz it will get them the things they really want.  In the standard case, money is an instrumental end.  It is simply an intermediary step on the way to getting what we really want.  But, sometimes, in the course of some people's lives, they start to want money just to have it.  They don't use it to get other things. They want money for money's sake.  They like to love it and feed it and pet it...This is usually a progression.  It doesn't happen over night.  Not that it would matter if it did.  The point is, that somewhere along the line some people pursue money just to have money.  Having the money--by itself--makes them feel happy.

Ok, lets go back to virtue.  Most people typically act virtuously because helping other people makes them feel good.  If they didn't get a good feeling from acting virtuously, they might not so act.  But, hopefully, some people over time will start to value acting virtuously just for the sake of it.  Why?  Because this has become an element in the set of things that make them happy.  Being virtuous makes them happy.  Just like simply having money makes some people happy.

The difference is subtle.  In the first instance we are virtuous, not because we have a desire to be virtuous, but because acting so will afford us some pleasure; that is, we seek the consequence of 'pleasure' from the consequence of our virtuous act.  Over time, acting virtuously itself becomes a source of pleasure.  We get a warm fuzzy feeling from helping people.  What kind of people?  People that need help!  And so, virtue becomes a component of what is considered to be pleasure/happiness.  It gets included in the umbrella of things we equate with happiness, and thus, "good".

I have to admit, I find this a little sophistic.  Here's another quick example that might make strengthen Mill's case.  Few people listen to music because they figure the end result of doing so will bring them happiness.  Instead, for many people music is an element in set of things that are happiness, thus becoming a good in itself.  Music is happiness--or at least listening to it is.  And being virtuous (for some) is a direct source of happiness.  Acting virtuously is simply included in that person's definition of what it means to be happy.

So, because things like music and virtue, in themselves, come to cause us happiness, they become goods in themselves.  But why are these things goods?  Because they produce happiness...Ah ha!  So, you see...we've come full circle:  that which brings about happiness is good--be it virtue or music, and  whether we seek it as a means or an end!  And what's more, this proves what we've been trying to prove all along, that "there is in reality nothing desired except happiness."

It's an interesting thought experiment to come up with a counter example.  Is it possible that someone would listen to music if they thought it would make them unhappy?  That's probably a bad attempt at a counterexample.  Lets ax instead if it's possible that someone would act virtuously if they expected it to make them unhappy.

Possibly.  But the utilitarian would reply that the arbiter of goodness isn't a particular individual's happiness but the total happiness produced.  So, we need to re-ax the quextion: (Hai! Ya!) Would someone self-sacrifice if they knew that it wouldn't increase the happiness of others or at least prevent their suffering?  On what grounds would they be acting?  I suppose it's possible but it certainly would appear strange.  Not that humans don't already engage in a crap load of strange behaviours.  But I digress...

So where we at?  Oh right.  Proving that happiness is the only thing that human's desire.  Why is happiness the only thing humans desire?  Because the ends of our actions are all either directed at something that we consider to be part of happiness or a means to happiness.

Now here's the part that's a little sketchy.  The first premise we've established is that (1) The only thing that humans want is things that are a part of happiness or are a means to happiness.  From this it follows that (2) these are the only desirable things.  The next premise I'm not sure where it came from, he just kind of sneaks it in: (3) "the promotion of happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct." Then Mill concludes (C) "it necessarily follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole."

What I don't see is where (3) comes from.  It looks like it's supposed to follow from (1) and (2), but there is no logical connection as far as I can tell.  What er'body wants and the benchmark for evaluating the moral worth of actions are not necessarily connected.  As a "gentle" Christian once told me, "children in hell want ice water."  Doesn't mean the standard of conduct should be measured by how much ice water is produced... The obvious response is to ax why they wanted ice water: to bring them relief from suffering (same as pleasure/happiness for a utilitarian).  So, check mate!  Utilitarians win again.

Mill would probably futher respond that, "you dumbass, we've just spend a crap load of ink and paper proving what 'good' is.  'Good' is whatever produces happiness.  More happiness= more better.  So, a good (i.e., morally right) action is one that produces the most happiness for the greatest amount of peeps.  Eazy peezy japonese-y!

Happiness is goodness!  That's what good is!  And there is only one good--happiness.  Were you asleep or something?"

Or something like that.  He could be quite short with people that questioned him.

That's all for tonight.  I hope this made you happy...meaning it was good!

Mill's Utilitarianism Part 2: Mill's Argument for the Ultimate Sanction (What Can Compel Us to Consider General Happiness when We Act? )

Yo check it.  Weez about to learn about why (Mill thinks) we should be compelled to adopt and adhere to utilitarianism as the ultimate moral standard.  That is, why does a utilitarian ethic have binding force?

Overview and RecapOk, so...like...'member utilitarianism?  It's the idear that the moral goodness of an action is proportional to the total amount of happiness (or pleasure) it produces (for the agent as well as--and especially--other people).  So, an action that produces more pleasure/happiness for 5 people is more gooder than an action that produces pleasure/happiness for only 1.  Simple enough so far, right?  (We'll table some of the problems to get to the point of this post.)

Next step--Definition:  Happiness and pleasure are one and the same for utilitarians so I'll just say happiness to mean both; happiness also includes avoidance of pain.  But Mill makes a distinction between types of pleasure: higher (intellectual) and lower (sensual).  We know some pleasures to have more worth than others because the majority of peeps who experience and have the capacity for both will choose the higher over the lower.

Ok, supposing we accept everything so far, there's still a prollem--why should I be motivated to obey this standard of morality?  What's stopping me from being a selfish egotistical misanthrope and stepping on others to feed my own ravenous appetite for pleasure?  That's the problem Mill tackles in this section...

Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility
People Will Act on Utilitarian Principles Because They Already Are UtilitariansThe general gist of Mill's argument for why we should be motivated to obey the utilitarian maxim and whence it derives its motivating force is that we are already utilitarians and this is the natural moral position!  Of course he has some more specific arguments to support this assertion which we will look at...

Mill sets things up for his we're-utilitarian-even-if-we-don't-know-it view like this:  Many people recognize a moral duty not to murder, steal, and deceive yet might question the utilitarian maxim to act according to what will promote the general happiness.  How do we explain the feeling of moral duty toward abstaining from these specific acts while there is no corresponding feeling to act on the utilitarian maxim?

Mill suggests that we have accepted the specific consequences of utilitarianism but not the general maxim.  But this failure is simply a consequence of poor education and lack of influences which form moral character.  If people got their learn on, the 1st principle of utilitarianism "shall be as deeply rooted in our character, and to our own consciousness as completely a part of our nature, as the horror of crime is in an ordinarily well-bought up young person."

Basically, people who accept the consequences of the utilitarian ethic but not its principle do so because it falls outside of their particular custom and education--and so they question it.  But this is nothin' a little learnin' can't fix.

The obvious problem with this argument is that it can be made by any ethical system.  Hey, if you raise everyone as Kantians and teach them to see the moral truth in Kantianism, chances are, the majority will think the categorical imperative (one should only act according to principles that you'd want everyone to act on) is the one true moral principle.

Actually, if you ax most 'mericans (Republicans, anyway) they'll probably advocate an egoist morality; that is, since people are rational and self-interested, actions that are in line with the principle of rational self-interest are 'right'--provided another's rights aren't infringed upon.   If only they knew they are really just misguided utilitarians...

Anyhow, what really jumps out at me is how Aristotelian Mill sounds wilt all this moral education stuff.  Aristotle basically said (super condensed version), an action is good if it is by a virtuous person and a virtuous person is one who has had a correct moral education.  In a way, Mills just adding on that someone with the correct moral education would act according to the utilitarian principle.

Sanctions
Recall that the whole point of this section of the utilitarian argument is to defend utilitarianism from critics who charge that utilitarianism can't work because there's no reason for people to go along with it.  In this context, Mill discusses external and internal sanctions that may or may not compel someone to act according to the utilitarian ethic.  Regarding external sanctions he says they are the same for any possible moral system: desire to be praised and avoid punishment (earthly or cosmic).  Lets move on to internal sanctions...

Internal SanctionsSo, what is it that might compel us to consider our action's effect on the general good above all other considerations?   What is it that makes us feel as though we have a duty to consider the general good? It is "a feeling in the mind; a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properly cultivated moral natures rises, in the more serious cases, into shrinking from its impossibility."  In other words, our conscience.

Lets call it a special feeling; lets call the feeling of moral duty "the essence of conscience".  There we have it--the thing that compels us to act according to utilitarian ethic is our conscience.  Admittedly, we rarely feel pure duty because we often have competing feelings, interests, and social conditioning running around in our heads that distort this sense of moral duty.

But how does pure conscience bind us to a particular course of action (i.e., the 1st principle of utilitarianism)?  It binds us because it is "a mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right, and which if we do nevertheless violate that standard, will probably have to be encountered afterwards in the form of remorse."  In other words, our conscience binds us because we cannot escape it.

The obvious objection is that there are people who don't have strong feelings of conscience or are able to ignore their conscience, so how can we say that utilitarianism binds people to action?  Mill's (reoccurring) reply is that this is a problem for any ethical system--it is not particular to utilitarianism.  Such people can only be compelled to act through external sanctions regardless of what moral system you support.   So, I guess this is meant to diffuse the argument that utilitarian ethics should be rejected because it can't bind people to follow it, but neither is it a point in favour of utilitarianism.

On the Origins of the Feeling of Duty
Mill begins that the origins of the feelings of duty, be they innate or acquired, are unimportant because the net result is the same.  Supposing they are innate (here he's implying Kantian ethics), then the feeling of duty would attach to moral principles.  But there is no argument to suggest that the innate feeling of duty wouldn't attach to the utilitarian principle rather then, lets say, the categorical imperative.  Furthermore, if morality itself is intuitive, it seems that accounting for the effect of our actions on the happiness of others is "intuitively obligatory".  So, even if our sense of moral duty is innate (which Mill denies) this is no objection to utilitarianism.

Suppose instead, as Mill does, that moral feelings are learned rather than innate.  They are something we (hopefully) develop over time with experience and education just as we do with things like the ability to reason, to use language, to play an instrument... Just like any capacity we have, our moral feelings can develop to varying degrees, both positively and negatively.  So, even if our moral conscience is acquired rather than innate, there is no reason to suppose it couldn't develop to follow utilitarian principles (amongst all the other possibilities).

Then Why Utilitarianism? Finally we learn why our conscience will be receptive to utilitarian principles rather than others.  Given that, regardless of the origins of our sense of duty and moral conscience, what arguments are there to suppose the utilitarian ethics is the one true standard?  So far we've said that human can be conditioned to attach a sense of moral duty to just about moral principle.

Ah! Ha!  But you see, the utilitarian principle is special! The is a "powerful natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality".  You see, once the general happiness is recognized as the ethical standard it will be the basis of this powerful natural sentiment.  And that natural oh-so-good feeling is the social feeling of mankind--"the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures..."; that is, our natural tendency to live as social creatures.  It is unnatural for us to live outside of a social context.

It's hard to dispute that we are social creatures but some people might reply that our natural tendency toward social living doesn't necessarily entail utilitarianism.  An egoist or social contract theorist might say, for example, that social living just means that I have to abide by certain conventions if I want to get out of life what I want but still avoid (external) sanctions.

Mill further argues that social living is impossible unless the members regard everyone's interests to be equal.  People grow up with the understanding that they have to include the interests of others when/before they act.  They learn not to injure others.  In instances of cooperation they learn that interests can be mutual and that our own well being is often bound up in that of others.  He goes on to paint a very pretty picture:

Not only does all strengthening of social ties, and all healthy growth of society, give to each individual a stronger personal interest in practically consulting the welfare of others, it also leads him to identify his feelings more and more with their good, or at least with an even greater degree of practical consideration for it.

Under these conditions he will, as a matter of habit, consider the good of others in his actions.  Once he has this feeling he will want to demonstrate it, and encourage it in others.  And even if he doesn't have utilitarian sentiments, for his own self-interest he will want others to be utilitarians because he will benefit.  Before long and by this process the utilitarian meme takes over the society, removing sources of opposition and "leveling those inequalities of legal privilege between individuals or classes".

Here's the really interesting thing.  In a way Mill was right.  Empirical evidence suggests that most people think like utilitarians (however, it varies between cultures and contexts).  Also, that in groups where there are strong social ties members do tend to consider the happiness of the other members in their moral calculus.  As the intellectual underpinnings and the utilitarian feelings of the individual grow, he will oppose socio-economic and socio-political structures that prevent others from having the benefits he has.  Through this mechanism the moral community grows in number.

Basically, once you go utilitarian you never go back cuz it just feels sooooo natural.  When you accept utilitarianism into your heart it is not as "a law despotically imposed by the power of society, but as an attribute which is would not be well for them to be without".  Utilitarianism, once embraced, works in harmony with external or internal motives to care for others.  When external sanctions fail to motivate, the utilitarian ethic will provide internal motivation (sense of duty) to consider the happiness of others (in proportion to the extent to which to agent is utilitarian).

Sounds nice, doesn't it?