Conatus: THIRD EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

generally taken to mean acting for one’s own self-interest — but few of us are so out and out egocentric. Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia) gives the example of a ‘happiness machine’ of some sort — rather like the way in which people are hooked up to a simulated reality in The Matrix series of films. People, it turns out, are reluctant to enter the machine. In part, this suggests that we are not natural utilitarians — out simply to maximise our own pleasure. (Nozick’s happiness machine is also rejected because happiness is not just 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. 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

191