Being in college, we have all probably heard of the the expression, "Oh, she is just here to get her MRS degree". For those of you that haven't heard anyone say this, it means that a girl is choosing to focus on husband hunting in college rather than put that same time and energy into her academic work. This saying is almost always brought up with a negative connotation, but let's look at this example under the microscope of utilitarian calculus.
Let's say both Betty and Barbara attend Rhodes College. Betty and Barbara take similar classes, but each has a different motive. Betty takes the challenging pre-law classes to prepare herself for her dream of one day attending Yale law school, while Barbara takes pre-med classes intending to find a potential husband that will one day be a doctor. Betty does well in school and is able to go to Yale, while Barbara meets the man of her dreams. But with the job market, Betty is not able to find a job and is sitting on a pile of student loans, while Barbara is already pregnant with Mr. Money Bag's second kid. While this scenario is not very accurate and could come under scrutiny, I am simply trying to paint a picture where striving for Mill's "higher pleasures" leads to more pain than pleasure.
But if Betty's life leads to more pain and Barbara's to more pleasure, then why do we still view Barbara's action of "getting an MRS degree" with a negative connotation? It has ultimately brought her more pleasure and caused her less pain. She has attended Rhodes College where she received education in higher pleasures, but does not use them in the same way Betty does. It is the motivation that separates the two, something that Mill does not focus on like Kant does. What are your thoughts on this scenario? Does Utilitarianism explain that it is better to get an MRS degree in this situation? Or is there a necessity to examine the motives of individuals if one is truly seeking the origin of morality?
This is an interesting post because it seems to me that despite what society would say about you, Mill would saw choose your Mrs. Degree over the law degree if it means that your suffering is reduced. However, according to Mill society wouldn’t be judging the person who chooses to get her Mrs. Degree because for Mill, what constitutes the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality it to do as one would be done by - to love one’s neighbor as oneself, meaning to not pass judgment on her choices. Although at the same time, Mill believes that the happiness of the whole is more important than the happiness of the individual. So although the actions of the person who chooses to get her Mrs. Degree would be supported by Mill, the actions of the person who chooses to get the law degree would be supported as well because according to Mill, one need not be personally satisfied with one’s life in order to be able to contribute of the total sum happiness of society. Therefore, it seems so me that Mill would support both lady’s life decisions.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken, Mill also says that a rational being would never trade a painful higher pleasure for a pleasant lesser pleasure (unless under some kind of great emotional discord or whatnot). So I think one thing to consider is if Betty, after seeing Barbara's very pleasant life, would trade her law education for a hubby. In this situation I'm not sure if Betty or Barabara is the one with the higher pleasure (or if one is greater than the other to begin with). One of the highest pleasures I can think of is education, but education for the sake of itself. For both Betty and Barbara they pursued education for some other means than the knowledge itself (assuming Betty wants to be a lawyer). Although I do want to make the distinction that Betty pursued her knowledge directly for a career, and so Mill might give the bigger thumbs up to Barbara because her education was learned, more or less, independent of her goal of attaining a husband.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Justin on Mill saying that Barbara was learning independent of her goal of getting a husband. From what I think about girls who are getting their MRS degrees, they don't do a whole lot of learning. I picture them just barely scraping by in the classes and not getting a very good education, which Mill would disagree with. He said that learning is one of the higher pleasures, and Barbara is not following this pleasure, but the pleasure of finding a husband. So if she is ignoring the higher pleasure for a lower one, Mill would say that this isn't a moral good. She would be the fool satisfied in that situation.
ReplyDeleteThis scenario is really interesting because it is so prevalent in our society today and many students (men or woman) struggle with the social stigma that comes with saying "I want to be a full-time parent." Mill's utilitarianism, like you said, aims at higher pleasures over lesser pleasures. That being said, I would have to agree that it is baffling how the desire for being a homemaker can be looked at as a lesser pleasure in comparison to being the bread winner. It seems that society has placed a negative connotation to being a full-time, housewife and mother because of an association to laziness and lack of education, disregarding how much hard work and value having an attentive parent can mean to a family. So, in this aspect it seems that the question is not whether which one is the higher good, but more so why some individuals in society find it necessary to look down upon other career and life-paths that are equally honorable? What makes your life-path "higher" or more socially acceptable?
ReplyDeleteWhen judging the moral worth of an action, Mill argues, we should direct our focus away from the individual but put in on the bigger picture. He claims that according to utilitarianism the right conduct leads to happiness not of the agent’s own but that of “all concerned” (17). Therefore, the personal pain and pleasure of the Betty and Barbara are not the bulk of a utilitarian calculus. To make moral sense of Betty and Barbara’s choices, we need to put them in context of all the moral subjects affected by them.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Betty, who has borrowed money from the government and still could not find a job is costing the society much more than Barbara, who by giving birth to children is creating more consumption of goods. However, the issue complicates when we see that Betty is an intellectual woman and may one day (when the recession calms) become an inspiration for other women who do not find pleasure in mere domestic chores; while Barbara by being seemingly happy in a domestic role is only reinforcing the traditional stigma that women fair better away from work fields. Looking at the possible influence of Betty and Barbara on other women’s intellectual growth, which according to Mill is a high level of pleasure, we can say that Betty’s decision to go to College is more virtuous than that of Barbara’s.
The recession demonstrates a possible weakness of utilitarianism: we cannot judge the moral worth of an action when its intended good consequences have not fully realized. This means that we have nothing but speculations about the moral worth of our choices when we are trying to make them. If we judge Betty and Barbara’s choices right now, we will say Barbara’s choice has caused more happiness than Betty’s. However 20 years from now, it is likely that we must revise our initial judgment.
I think that it depends on how the MRS lady is pursuing her end goal: Is she learning anything monumental in the process of scouting out for the perfect candidate? If so, she could simultaneously snag the guy with the addition of earning a degree in medicine. Or, she can live with one without the other. Either way it goes in this instance, she is pushing a higher, painful pleasure of attaining the degree in pursuit of the "lesser" pleasure of earning a husband. Plus, with the earned knowledge of medicine, she could possibly be able to utilize that knowledge to make others happier and healthier. However, I do believe that if she pursues the guy with the sole intention of latching on without gaining any knowledge or practice, this would be seen as a "lesser" pleasure and be "worse" to Mill.
ReplyDeleteCarrie,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that you have constructed an ethical issue in your example. I will try to narrow down your example so you can see my confusion. Each person is given a choice about how live their life. One chooses a degree of financial dependence on another human being, and the other chooses a degree of financial independence from other human beings. The person who chooses the dependence ends up accomplishing her goal, where as the person who chose the independence ends up failing to achieve her goal. Then you include the quality of life in regards to pleasure and to pain as the distinguishing factor. The person who chose dependence receives more pleasure and less pain. While the person who chose independence receives more pain and less pleasure.
I want to caution you, here, however because you seem to be mixing philosophies and misunderstanding what Mill intendeds by degrees of pleasure. Mill does not advocate and an advanced Epicurean system. That is, he does not claim that life should be lived avoiding as much pain as possible, and his proposed higherarchy of pleasures does advocate for the suffering of lesser ones for the end of achieving the higher ones. Justin points this out as well. Mill takes great pains himself in order to rid the world of this belief regarding Utilitarianism.
Also, the principle by which the moral worth of an action is determine is not simply pain or pleasure, but the Greatest Happiness Principle. A person could be financially dependent upon another, and end up creating more happiness at a greater degree than two financially independent people could. In fact, specialization is generally considered a positive thing, as we have seen how it has benefited society already. That is a mother or father who's primary job is to care for the children, educate them, nurture them, etc... would a do a better job than a person whose primary job is not child care. Simply by virtue of specialization.
Also, there is no restriction here that forces any of these individuals to be any particular gender.