One way of making clear the purpose and method of Socratic reasoning is to
contrast it with a type of moral thinking called "utilitarianism." The British
philosophers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill are generally thought to be the
modern pioneers developing and popularizing this point of view.
Utilitarianism is the view that what makes behavior morally
good is that it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Here are some major contrasts in the aims and methods of utilitarian philosophical thinking.
#1. Utilitarianism is primarily concerned with social and political
questions: What rules should we teach to people to produce the best kind of
society? What should be the ultimate aim of political institutions and laws that
will be enforced on all? What kind of rules would I like other people to follow,
to make them most pleasant for me to be with? What should I do, to do my part to
make life most pleasant for other people?
The concern motivating S/P reasoning is the concern for
fundamental life-questions, addressed on an individual level.
It assumes an idealistic individual who wants to life not just an OK life, but a
great life. What is it that is going to make my life a great life? What for me
will make the difference between a great life, a mediocre life, and a wasted
life? At the end of my life, what will I want to look back on as what it is that
I can be most proud of, what will have made my life a great life? What do I want
on my tombstone?
A person engaged in S/P reasoning must play the part of
someone who thinks that her own admirable character -- the kind of person
she is, with particular "virtues" she has -- is the thing that she can be most
proud of. A "virtue" consists in the habitual motives, attitudes, skills,
priorities for concern and attention that make up a person's character. A virtue
spontaneously manifests itself in admirable behavior when the situation calls
for it.
A virtue-concept is something you yourself would want to use
for self-evaluation (not evaluating others.) What can you be justly
proud of? Which of your feelings of worthlessness or meaninglessness are
justified, and which are not? Using a virtue-concept for self-evaluation is
different, for example, from letting things beyond your control serve as the
basis for your sense of self-worth and meaning in life. For example, habitual
concern to promote the good of all might be a virtue-concept I could use for
self-evaluation. It doesn't seem good to feel I am worthless and my life is
meaningless if I try hard but fail to actually benefit many people
because of circumstances beyond my control.
#2. Utilitarian reasoning is a kind of "deductive" reasoning. Deductive
moral reasoning assumes that general moral principles are what we can be most
sure about. General moral principles define the nature of moral goodness, so
whatever is in accord with the general principles are good by definition.
Utilitarianism tries to establish a single moral
principle by which to define moral goodness: "Moral goodness consists in
promoting the greatest good for the greatest number." Once accepted, moral
reasoning just consists in deducing particular conclusions from this general
principle -- i.e. showing what conduct would be prescribed by this principle in
any particular situation one wants to consider. If personal perceptions in
particular cases conflict with what the general principle says, the personal
perceptions must be mistaken.
S/P reasoning by contrast is a kind of "inductive"
reasoning. Inductive moral reasoning assumes that personal moral perceptions in
specific cases are what we can be most sure about. General
principles, or general virtue-concepts, are only trustworthy to the extent that
they are generalizations from -- generalizations based on
-- such perceptions in specific concrete cases. If some new perception occurs in
a very clear case ("counterexample") which conflicts with some general principle
previously arrived at, the presumption should be that this shows a weakness and
imperfection in the general principle (not that the perception is mistaken
because it conflicts with the general principle.) General principles and
general concepts are always what are to be put in question in the light
of counterexample-stories.
#3. Taken completely seriously, utilitarianism is Absolutist. It proposes a
single principle as the one and only definition of
moral goodness. Cast in virtue-terms, it says that concern to promote the
greatest good for the greatest number is the only virtue there is,
the only character-trait that can make a person an admirable person leading an
admirable life. Other so-called virtues are only admirable insofar as they
promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
The "inductive" character of S/P reasoning necessarily
results in a virtue-pluralism. S/P reasoning is ultimately based on personal
perceptions of what is admirable and not-admirable in the case of clear concrete
stories. Since there are so many possible stories illustrating so many admirable
character-traits, it is impossible to limit ahead of time the number of virtues
there might be, or to exclude some possible virtue on the grounds that it falls
outside some general principle one has decided on as the single definition of
what a virtue is.
*********
Platonism and utilitarianism are not completely incompatible.
First, an habitual concern to promote the greatest good for
the greatest number is one possible virtue, one possible admirable
character-trait. Treatment of this as a virtue would need to focus on the
central Platonist question:
That kind of concern to promote the greatest good that is
admirable, what is the essence of what makes it admirable?
The essence of this concern as a virtue can't consist in a
set of rules for what such a person does, external behavior perceivable from the
outside. It must consist in something internal and invisible, such as motives,
attitudes, skills, priorities for attention and concern. So a Socratic
discussion of this virtue would have to focus ultimately on answering questions
like:
-- What is the best kind of motivation that motivates this kind of concern?
-- What skills does a person need to cultivate to improve the quality of her
concern to promote the greatest good?
Secondly, one could consider that Utilitarianism and Platonism address
different questions, and serve different purposes. For example: A person could
be a utilitarian for social and political purposes, holding that
"promote the greatest good of the greatest number" is the best basis for
political institutions and laws to be passed. The same person could be a
Platonist on a more personal and individual basis, concerned about
her own internal transformation, becoming a different and better person inside,
with better habitual internal motivations, skills, and attitudes. Most
likely such a person would regard "concern for the greatest good of all" as just
one among many virtues she would want to cultivate -- along with other virtues
that she might cultivate just for personal fulfillment for its own sake (such as
being a creative artist, being a great lover, love for wild nature, and so on).
"Absolutist" utilitarianism would necessarily exclude all
supposed virtues that are not social-virtues, virtues not directly beneficial to
other people, or not cultivated only because they are beneficial to others. The
early Buddhist spirituality we will be studying next focuses entirely on such
non-social virtues.
In this connection, students who want to pursue the history
of utilitarian philosophy further might want to consider the case of John Stuart
Mill. James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, was a prominent utilitarian
philosopher, and raised his son according to this philosophy. He did produce a
prodigy of learning and dedication to public service. But his philosophy gave no
place to emotion, and John Stuart Mill had a nervous breakdown in his early
twenties. Following this, after having been a public proponent of his father's
philosophy, John Stuart discovered the importance of things like poetry and
romantic love excluded from his father's thought. He also spoke a great deal of
the importance of "self-cultivation," cultivating one's own inner life for its
own sake. He did not give up entirely on utilitarianism, but broadened the
concept of what constitutes "the greatest good of all." Whereas Jeremy Bentham
and James Mill tended to define "the greatest good" as the greatest pleasure of
all, John Stuart Mill broadened to concept to include virtue itself. Designing a
society on this broadened utilitarian principle meant producing a social
environment most conducive to the development of virtue on the part of all
citizens -- the virtue of "personal autonomy" (thinking and deciding for
oneself) being the primary virtue that he valued most.