Conatus: REVISED EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

something that happens to us but also something that includes our actions and purposes.)

So people do not seem to buy into pleasure as a worthy aim in and of itself. But pleasure doesn’t seem too unreasonable an aim for individuals — it’s only when other people are included that things get difficult! Utilitarianism seems to be suggesting that pleasure can be spread out fairly amongst everyone in order to achieve a maximum. But it’s probably reasonable to say that this is done largely on the basis of trying to add up all the individuals’ self-interested happiness — so it assumes an egocentric view of happiness. There is not so much concern over what would serve the common good, for instance, or the bio-sphere, taken as a whole.

‘Negative utilitarianism’ is to frame ethics and morality towards the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness. Karl Popper (in, The Open Society and Its Enemies) was its chief proponent. Trying to eliminate harm, rather than promote pleasure, seems like a much better approach, especially as a policy for nation states, but unfortunately negative utilitarianism seems to get a lot less attention than utilitarianism in its traditional forms.

Adding to our egocentric discussions above, philosophy distinguishes between ‘psychological egoism’ — which says we simply are this way — and ‘ethical egoism’, which suggests that we ought to design ethical rules based on this assumption of self-interest. This is to contrast psychological hedonism with ethical hedonism. (In other words, we do seek pleasure, is

228