Wolf rejects self interest theory in ethics. Both Egoism and Utilitarianism is based on self interest, though they differ from each other in a significant way. Egoism seeks happiness for the individual, whereas utilitarianism seeks happiness for the majority. It seems to Wolf that self interest is grounded on purely subjective phenomena, and hence, declares the subjective feature of a life. The problem she identifies with utilitarianism is that the theory needs something more than happiness ‘because meaning requires us to be open and responsive to values outside ourselves, we cannot be preoccupied with ourselves. If we want to live meaningful lives, we cannot try too hard or focus too much on doing so.’[2010:52] Hence, meaningfulness is an
…show more content…
Objects are three types; natural, non-natural, and super natural. These three objects differ from each other, hence, any endeavor to define or to explain one quality by the other would create a fallacy. Ethical naturalist such as Mill had committed this fallacy. This fallacy will occur ‘when a person confuses good which is not in the same sense a natural object whatsoever with any other natural object’.[1903:13] Mill argues in his Utilitarianism, ‘…happiness is a good, that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and therefore that general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons.’ [1863, ch. 4] We can formulate his argument in the following way;
(Each person’s) happiness is (a) good (to that person).
Therefore (General) happiness is (a) good (to the aggregate of all persons).
Therefore Happiness is good.
It is obvious that Mill defines good in the aid of happiness where the former one is something non-natural and the latter one is something natural. Hence, a fallacy occurs. But, the terms ‘happiness’ and ‘meaningfulness’ do not conceive the opposite qualities like happiness and good, rather there is a similarity exist between them. A dialectical diagram will help us to understand their inner relation. We can render the statement A into statement B, statement B into statement C, but never to statement D.
A: subjective attraction meets objective …show more content…
It is redundant to say that snow is snow, in the same manner redundant to say that loving object is worthy of love. Moreover, the word ‘love’ is an ambiguous word. Let us explain one of Wolf’s examples. If I go to the hospital to see my ill brother, this event does not make me happy rather it gives me pain. Hence, not happiness but, acts of love motivated me to see an ill person. Pain means simply the absence of happiness or pleasure. When my brother became cure; does not it give me the happiness? We then, from the explanation of Wolf, can conclude: illness gives me pain and cure gives me happiness. Wolf might have argued that my brother’s illness gives me pain and his recovery from illness gives me happiness because I love him. I positively engaged him at the time of illness as well as at the time of recovery. If I do not love him, then his pain or his pleasure does not affect me. It may be happen that my brother does not love him though I love him. In that case, he would not be happy to see me. Does then the act of love make meaningfulness? It had better to concentrate on the phrase ‘positive engagement’. Undoubtedly, engagement may take the form either positive or negative. The reciprocal love between two objects can be regarded as positive engagement, whereas the one faced love between two objects can be regarded as negative engagement. Wolf’s definition of positive engagement actually fit to the negative definition when she says
Objects are three types; natural, non-natural, and super natural. These three objects differ from each other, hence, any endeavor to define or to explain one quality by the other would create a fallacy. Ethical naturalist such as Mill had committed this fallacy. This fallacy will occur ‘when a person confuses good which is not in the same sense a natural object whatsoever with any other natural object’.[1903:13] Mill argues in his Utilitarianism, ‘…happiness is a good, that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and therefore that general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons.’ [1863, ch. 4] We can formulate his argument in the following way;
(Each person’s) happiness is (a) good (to that person).
Therefore (General) happiness is (a) good (to the aggregate of all persons).
Therefore Happiness is good.
It is obvious that Mill defines good in the aid of happiness where the former one is something non-natural and the latter one is something natural. Hence, a fallacy occurs. But, the terms ‘happiness’ and ‘meaningfulness’ do not conceive the opposite qualities like happiness and good, rather there is a similarity exist between them. A dialectical diagram will help us to understand their inner relation. We can render the statement A into statement B, statement B into statement C, but never to statement D.
A: subjective attraction meets objective …show more content…
It is redundant to say that snow is snow, in the same manner redundant to say that loving object is worthy of love. Moreover, the word ‘love’ is an ambiguous word. Let us explain one of Wolf’s examples. If I go to the hospital to see my ill brother, this event does not make me happy rather it gives me pain. Hence, not happiness but, acts of love motivated me to see an ill person. Pain means simply the absence of happiness or pleasure. When my brother became cure; does not it give me the happiness? We then, from the explanation of Wolf, can conclude: illness gives me pain and cure gives me happiness. Wolf might have argued that my brother’s illness gives me pain and his recovery from illness gives me happiness because I love him. I positively engaged him at the time of illness as well as at the time of recovery. If I do not love him, then his pain or his pleasure does not affect me. It may be happen that my brother does not love him though I love him. In that case, he would not be happy to see me. Does then the act of love make meaningfulness? It had better to concentrate on the phrase ‘positive engagement’. Undoubtedly, engagement may take the form either positive or negative. The reciprocal love between two objects can be regarded as positive engagement, whereas the one faced love between two objects can be regarded as negative engagement. Wolf’s definition of positive engagement actually fit to the negative definition when she says