1 Calculating Happiness, Sameer Sharma

Calculating Happiness
Utilitarianism is the belief that an actions morality is determined by the amount of happiness it provides to all sentient beings. It is a form of consequentialism in that the end result (more or less happiness) justifies the action that achieved that end. It relies on the principle that what is good is what gives the greatest happiness to the greatest number of sentient beings. While this may seem like a noble, moral and ethical principle at the outset, it is riddled with problems and questions, with these leading on to things such as the Mere Addition Paradox and The Repugnant Conclusion. The greatest question lies with how we are to set out what is the greatest happiness. How is this to be calculated? Going on the premise that a sound way of measuring each persons happiness (which in itself is a difficult task, as there has to be some objectivity), we are left with just one problemshould we take the average of each person, and therefore determine the average happiness level of a society, or should the happiness of a society be determined by the total amount of happiness of each person in the society? Addition of happiness is a way of defining the happiness of a society. A society of more happiness is worth more than a society with less happiness. Of two societies with the same population but the second with a higher overall standard of living, the latter is obviously better. However, it also states that an extremely high population with a low but worthwhile standard of living is better than a small population with very high standard of living if the total of the first society is higher than the latter. This is elaborated in the Repugnant Conclusion. A way of representing and explaining the repugnant conclusion is with the use of an example of different societies. We have society A, where everyone is happy. Then we have another situation of A+, where there are two isolated communities. One of these is the same of A, but the other is of a smaller population and less happiness level, yet still worthwhile, and these are added in a mere addition. In situation B, there is a society as large as the sum of both of the populations of A+, and the level of happiness is the midpoint level between the two societies of A+.

As the addition of worthwhile lives is not bad, A+ is proven to be as good, if not better, than A. From there, if we accept that equality is also good, then B is better than A+, and therefore better than A. This shows that a larger population with a lower but still worthwhile standard of living is better than a smaller population with a higher standard of living. While this may sound acceptable, when this is taken further, we refuse to accept it. From B, we acquire B+, and therefore C. From C we acquire C+, and then to D, and eventually to E, and to F, and then to Z, all the time lowering standard of living and increasing population. So finally we have two societies. A has a small population with a very high quality of living, but is worse than Z, whose inhabitants have a very low but positive quality of life,

2 Calculating Happiness, Sameer Sharma and where the population has increased to that absolute maximum that resources can allow. The idea that Z is better than A is counter-intuitive and repugnant, giving this conclusion its name The Repugnant Conclusion.

However, there is another way of calculating happiness. Taking the average of happiness of the inhabitants of a society would nullify the repugnant conclusion. The society A has a very high average, which is good. However A+ as a whole has a lower average than A because of the added society, showing that the addition of extra lives if they would lower or not increase the average is regarded as immoral, therefore negating the repugnant conclusion. However, averaging out the happiness levels of a society has its own problems. When averaging a societys happiness, it is given that another life added that would lower the average or not increases the average is immoral and bad. From this principle we see that giving birth to a child of moderate but not above the average happiness is a bad thing. While giving birth to a child that will be sad or cause sadness, for example one that is severely physical or mentally disabled should be avoided in a moral sense; the child in question is of moderate but not excellent happiness. This is counter-intuitive as we question how the addition of a worthwhile life is immoral. This mere addition is moral when finding the total happiness, but that leads to the Repugnant Conclusion. However, this mere addition when in conjunction with averaging happiness is extremely counterintuitive. This is the Mere Addition Paradox. Apart from simply accepting the Repugnant Conclusion, there are several responses to it. One of these was put forward by Christoph Fehige and David Benatar. They suggest that no lives have a positive welfare. The best possible lives do not have any positive welfare or standard of living, but simply dont have any negative welfare and are therefore neutral, and that only lives that are frustrated or are not the best possible count. This both accepts and nullifies the significance of the Repugnant Conclusion. If there were lives with a positive welfare or standard of living, then the Repugnant Conclusion would stand and be accepted. However, since there are no lives such as this, there is no significance or importance about this and the Repugnant Conclusion is turned into an empty truth. But saying that lives dont have positive welfare but that the best possible life is only neutral and the next best is negative also has implications. It says that leading a life where all desires are fulfilled for a day (best possible life) is just the same as a full life where all desires are fulfilled (also the best possible). While this is fine, it means that when comparing the fulfilled life for a day and a full life with just one thing missing, for example, the full life includes a day when one missed a train, the latter is not the best possible because of that incident, because had it fulfilled the desires it

3 Calculating Happiness, Sameer Sharma would have been better. So that one day is better than the second full life, and the second full life not worthwhile, which is also counter-intuitive. The Repugnant Conclusion is one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics. It has prompted many responses to this problem, however even these find it hard to avoid similarly counter-intuitive reasoning. The Repugnant Conclusion, coupled with the Mere Addition Paradox are the major problems not only for Utilitarians, but for anyone who wants to be morally good. Sameer Sharma BIBLIOGRAPHY http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Gustaf Arrenhius, Jesper Ryberg and Torbjorn Tannsjo, last revised 9/9/2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox, Wikipedia, and online encyclopaedia, last revised 1st October http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-repugnant-conclusion-and-humanrights/, Political Human Rights Blog, Filip Spagnoli, March 31, 2010 Relativism and Utilitarianism, A Handout Mr Barham