Who's Happiness?

This is a continuation of my discussion on ethics. If haven't read my last few blog posts, you might want to read the ones on purpose & morality for some context first.

Three Systems

Once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is about the happiness of intelligent agents, there follows a very important question: Who's happiness should I be morally concerned with? There are three schools of thought on this question:

1. Egoism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with one's own happiness.
2. Altruism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with the happiness of others.
3. Utilitarianism: The idea that morality is concerned with both one's own happiness and the happiness of others.

While we examine these three ethical systems, it's important to understand that we are, fundamentally, attempting to define what we mean when we say "morality." A good definition needs to be:

1. Useful (giving us a method for determining the morality of a given action.)
2. Objective (giving us the same answer regardless of who's perspective we happen to have.)

Usefulness

As far as usefulness is concerned, all three systems seem to fit the bill. It is clear established weather or not the happiness of each affected entity should be weighed. Egoism is cognitively the easiest because there is only one entity to consider. Altruism and Utilitarianism, however, are more complex because more than one entity may be under consideration. In political decisions, even entire populations would have to be considered.

How much weight of consideration would we give each affected entity under Altruism or Utilitarianism? The rational answer to that should go back to the root of morality and values: intelligent agency. The degree with which an agent is "intelligent" is the same degree with which we give it moral consideration. This has some fascinating implications with respect to controversial issues like abortion & the humane treatment of livestock. But we'll save exploring that for another time.

Regardless of the added complexity associated with Altruism and Utilitarianism, they are still very useful and provide clearly defined guidelines for establishing the morality of a given action. All three systems pass this first test.

Objectivity & Equality

As far as objectivity is concerned, only Utilitarianism gets a passing grade. It should be clear that Egoism and Altruism are subjective (by definition) since they define morality in the context of a particular perspective. Consider what would happen if two men stumbled upon a diamond in the dirt at the same time:

1. If the two men were Egoists, they might fight each other for it if the happiness derived from walking away with the entire diamond is worth more than the cost of taking a few punches. The outcome is both good (for the man who walks away with the diamond) and bad (for the man who lost.)
2. If the two men were Altruists, they might encourage the other man to take it leading to an endless tautology of selflessness: "You take it"; "No, you take it"; "No, I insist, you take it". In the end, one of them might give in. If so, that outcome would be morally bad (for the taker) and good (for the other man).
3. If the two men were Utilitarian, they might recognize that their interest and right to the diamond is objectively equal. They would seek out a way to maximize the happiness derived from the diamond between the two of them. This might mean taking it together to a pawn shop and splitting the earnings. Both men derived happiness from the event and no one was left in a state of unnecessarily suffering.

The interest of any man, if viewed objectively, is no more important than the interest of any other. This observation of equality is foundational to establishing a proper understanding of morality. Utilitarianism, then, is the proper moral system of choice.