I sat in a lecture yesterday on Utilitarianism which can be crudely summarised as: the act which is morally right is that which provides the greatest happiness.
During the lecture we looked at David Hume who thought human nature was not self interested due to empirical evidence. It was the existence of sympathy which manifests when we cry during a film, feel hatred for a fictional villain, do not step on the feet of injured men etc. He argued that there are a great number of instances where our actions cannot be accounted for by self interest.
During the lecture we looked at David Hume who thought human nature was not self interested due to empirical evidence. It was the existence of sympathy which manifests when we cry during a film, feel hatred for a fictional villain, do not step on the feet of injured men etc. He argued that there are a great number of instances where our actions cannot be accounted for by self interest.
The power of the argument didn't really hit me until I had my next encounter with sympathy. My friend had electrically burnt his thumb by accident. When he displayed the wound I involuntarily repulsed and was swept with an emotional state of displeasure to witness his suffering. The suffering of another brought about displeasure in my self. Surely this demonstrates that at least my human nature is not one of naive self interest.
If one were to accept the utilitarian criterion then deriving the greatest happiness entails minimising the suffering of others and maximising their pleasure also. This is because we are sympathetic creatures.
Some would argue that by helping others we are just inducing pleasure or minimising displeasure in ourselves. Thus still behaving selfishly. I believe this is a fallacy and will expose this in a future entry.
I'd be interested in hearing about other stories of sympathy so please comment!
No comments:
Post a Comment