Lesson 15

Defective Norms of Morality

Hedonism
Since Hedonism holds that the ultimate purpose
of living is to acquire pleasure then morality is
grounded on the pleasure or satisfaction that an act
brings about. Hedonism teaches that actions are
considered good if they can satisfy human desires or
needs; bad, if they produce pain and sufferings.
There are two general schools of Hedonism.
The Egoistic Hedonist School that promotes the
utmost self-gratification, irrespective of any painful
results for others. Therefore, each person should
only aim at maximizing his own pleasure or
happiness.
The Ideal or Altruistic Hedonist School is more
respectable because it holds that the person should
maximize the sum-total of everyone's happiness.
Theories of hedonism includes psychological or
motivational which claims that human behavior is
determined by desires to increase pleasure and to
decrease pain or to avoid it. Sometimes, it is
understood as egoistic attitude which means that
each person only aims at their own happiness. 
 Another theory is normative or ethical hedonism
which is not about how we actually act but how we
ought to act. This theory determines what we should
do or which action is right depending on whether it
increases pleasure or decreases pain. Its morality is
based on its results, which are measured in terms of
pleasure and pain. It is morally good if the result is
pleasurable; morally bad, if is brings pain. It is
different from psychological hedonism because
normative hedonism recommends or
prescribes rather than simply describes our
behavior.
In everyday language, the term "pleasure" is
primarily associated with the egoistic pursuit of
short-term gratification by indulging in sensory
pleasures like the enjoyment of food or sex. But in
its most general sense, pleasure includes all types
of positive or pleasant experiences including the fun
of sports, bonding with friends, the joy of listening to
music, seeing a favorite movie, or the delight of
gardening. 
Acceptance of pleasure and pain as important
factors in knowing the value of something does not
make a person a hedonist. What makes a person
hedonist is when he or she claims that only pleasure
and pain matter.
Aristippus
Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BC) was a
Hedonist who advocated immediate pleasures as
the highest goal in life. Since “pleasure” is the only
good, he highest good, he advised everyone to take
advantage of all opportunities to enjoy every
moment of pleasure. Aristippus seems to focus only
on reducing suffering and pain to gain pleasure. His
message is: “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow
we die.”
But his argument is morally objectionable to see
pleasure and pain as the only factors relevant to
what we should do because it seems to ignore, for
example, values of justice, love, friendship and
truth. 

Epicurus
Epicurus (342-270 BC) was also a Hedonist.
However, Epicurus did not agree with Aristippus,
because he often noticed that those who have tried
eating, drinking and making merry, “for tomorrow we
die,” did not die immediately, but lived to suffer the
results of excessive or ill-chosen pleasures. So,
Epicurus advised that a person must be selective
because some pleasant experiences should be
rejected entirely, for example, excessive drinking,
the use of prohibited drugs, or even too much
eating. On the other hand, certain painful
experiences should be endured for a better future.
For example, a sick person must undergo an
operation for the sake of the greatest good
-preservation of life.
For Epicurus, prudence is the greatest good; it is
the best criterion of good and desirable pleasures.
For him, some pleasures are both natural and
necessary, as in the case of food; others are natural
but not necessary, as in the case of some types of
sexual pleasures; and still others neither natural nor
necessary, as for example, luxury and popularity.
So, prudence can guide human beings toward
proper pleasures and away from improper ones, as
well as may encourage them to undergo pain for the
sake of a better future.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a theory very much like
hedonism. It makes utility/usefulness of an action as
the norm of morality. Utility is the source of pleasure,
happiness, benefit, good, or advantage. It holds that
an act is good if the effect or result of that act
benefits man or gives happiness to man. For
example, according to many students, the act of
cheating during exams is good because it helps
them pass. So, an act is bad if its effect obstructs or
hinders the attainment of a person’s goal in life or
desires. In other words, an act is bad if it does not
make you happy.
To repeat, Utilitarianism is a theory of morality
that advocates actions that promote happiness or
pleasure and opposes actions that may cause
suffering or harm. When directed toward making
social, economic, or political decisions, a utilitarian
philosophy would aim for the betterment of society
as a whole, so to speak.

What is the main idea of utilitarianism?

Again, Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that
determines right from wrong by focusing on
outcomes or based on results. More specifically, the
only effects of actions that are important or
significant are the good and the insignificant are the
bad results. Moreover, it holds that the most ethical
choice is the one that will produce the greatest good
for the greatest number of people.

The two types of Utilitarianism

(1) Egoistic utilitarianism is the type where the
norm of morality resides in the usefulness of an
action for the production of the temporal happiness
of an individual person. So, an act is good when it
gives temporal welfare and happiness to the
individual person, and bad if it hinders or hampers
this happiness.
(2) Social or altruistic utilitarianism is the type
which holds that an act is good when it is
advantageous to the welfare of the society/group of
people.

Jeremy Bentham
For Bentham, the human being is motivated by
two main drives: to seek pleasure and to avoid pain.
Pleasure is derived from activities such as eating,
drinking, listening to music, or talking to friends. For
him, “utility” means the feature or nature of a thing
which tends to produce pleasure, good or happiness
to the person whose interest is considered.
Bentham was called Quantitative Hedonist
because he believed that there is only one kind of
pleasure, and that pleasures differ only
quantitatively, that is, in amount, duration, and
intensity. For example, the pleasure of drinking
coffee is as good as enjoying a movie or having sex.
For him, there is no real distinction between a
sensual pleasure and a spiritual pleasure.
Quantitative hedonists, following Jeremy
Bentham, hold that an experience of intense
pleasure of indulging in food and sex is worth more
than the pleasure of playing basketball or engaging
in a conversation with friends, or even seeing a
beautiful sun-set.

John Stuart Mill

In contrast to Bentham’s quantitative pleasure,
Mill said that pleasures differ from each other in kind
and quality. The pleasures of the intellect have a
higher value than the pleasures of mere sensations.
For this idea, Mill became known as Qualitative
Hedonist. But Mill is also a Utilitarian whose principal
ideas are: 1) Those acts are right and good which
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of persons which means an action is right
insofar as it maximizes general utility known as
happiness; 2) An act derives its moral worth from its
utility; 3) Although it is the intrinsic worth of pleasure
which gives value to acts, some pleasures are better
than others in quality; and 4) The proof of the value
of pleasure is that it is desired, and the proof of the
claim that some pleasures are better than others is
that people prefer some pleasures over the others.
John Stuart Mill believed in a hierarchy of
pleasures. Although sensory pleasures might be the
intense, yet he argued that human beings tend to
enjoy higher order of pleasures experienced through
nice relationships, success in business endeavors,
loving God, or accomplishment in education.
  Qualitative hedonists, following John Stuart Mill,
argue that the quality is another factor relevant to
the value of a pleasure-experience, for example, that
the higher pleasures of the mind are more valuable
than the lower pleasures of the body.

Note
Hedonism and Utilitarianism explain very well
the emotional basis and aspects of human actions.
There is no doubt that most of the people are
motivated in their action by their desire for
satisfaction or happiness or well-being.

Defects of Hedonism and Utilitarianism

1. Both propose an earthly goal for man,
namely, the temporal welfare here on earth, when in
fact the ultimate and supreme purpose of man
cannot be found in this life.
2. Both tend to make morality relative (since
what is pleasant or useful to one may be painful and
harmful to another). Therefore, the relativity of
morality only leads to moral confusion and chaos.
3. Both theories make morality accidental
because they depend on the effect of an act, instead
of making morality an essential nature/natural part of
the act itself. They confuse the nature of the act and
the effect of the act as if these two different features
are the same. It is like identifying the symptom of an
illness as the illness itself.

Note:
Satisfaction or pleasure may complement and
accompany the doing of a good act. But, the act is
good, not because it brings satisfaction, but rather, it
brings satisfaction because it is good. In other
words, the satisfaction or pleasure is merely an
effect, but not the cause or the reason of the
goodness of an action.

Moral Positivism
In general, this is the theory that holds that the
basis or source of all moral laws is the laws of the
State. Anything good must be in accordance with the
laws of the State; bad is that which is forbidden by
the State.
Perhaps the greatest supporter of this theory is
the English philosopher, Hobbes. Let us expound
this theory in connection with Hobbes’ philosophy.
According to Hobbes, by nature man is a wolf
unto his fellowman (Homo homini lupus). Mankind
was in a state of war before the formation of the
State. There was no law, no morality, no distinction
between right and wrong. He declared that man is
not only basically corrupt but also quarrelsome. The
law of the jungle rules over the land. This condition
could lead to anarchy. Hence, there is a need to
check and control this evil, wolfish tendencies of
men in order that mankind may survive. To avoid it,
the people must enter into an agreement with
fellowmen to limit their freedom. They have to
sacrifice and give up their natural rights to attain
peace and order. Hobbes argued that the social
contract is necessary for social order and life
preservation. Thus, men came together to form the
State. Laws, rights, and duties were then
established. Morality then has its source, its origin
from the laws of the State, according to this theory.

Comments
Moral Positivism makes morality relative and is,
therefore, to be rejected as a defective norm of
morality. Moral positivism reverses the natural order
of the things. Before there was any State there was
already human nature with all its natural rights and
the law. Murder is always bad, even before there
was any laws against it. Murderer is forbidden by
law and is wrong. But why is it forbidden by law? It is
because it is clearly against human nature and
therefore bad. It is bad not because it is forbidden,
but it is forbidden because it is bad. The malice of
murderer does not follow from its being forbidden. It
was wrong even before there was any State to
legislate against it.

Moral Evolutionism

This is the theory of all those who hold that

morality is never fixed or absolute, but is continually
changing and evolving gradually into a perfect
morality. It is the application of the theory of
biological evolution to morals.
Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher,
believed that morality did not exist in the beginning.
It was originally unknown. The laws that we have
now are the laws derived and based on the
teachings of Christianity which stands for meekness,
humility, sacrifice, suffering, pity, mercy, poverty,
forgiveness and love. These, according to
Nietzsche, glorify and favor the weak and produces
weaklings. But we must produce the strong. The law
of nature is the survival of the fittest. The strong is
destined by nature to live and rule. The weak has no
right from nature to live. The weak who form the
majority must be eliminated in order to give way to
the aristocracy of the strong.
The end of all morality and society is to produce
the strong - the superman. Therefore might, strength
and power form the basis of true morality. Good,
therefore, is that one which makes one strong,
powerful, and most of all super human. Bad is that
which is productive of the weak. Hence, “might
makes right.”

Moral Sensism
This is an ethical theory which holds that man is
endowed with a special moral sense (other than
reason) by virtue of which man distinguishes
between right and wrong in much the same way that
our sense of taste can distinguish between sour and
sweet; or as sense of sight distinguishes between
dark and bright. This view is expressed when we say
he has “no sense of morality,” “no moral taste,” and
similar expressions.
There is no positive proof to show the existence
of such moral sense; therefore, the existence of
such a sense is a free assumption which may be
unnecessarily denied. This is the basis of the
principle of parsimony which demands that as far as
possible we must reduce to the minimum the
number of theories and hypotheses.
 Furthermore, it is absurd to think of a sense
capable of seeing such thing as the abstract relation
between a given act and the norm of morality. For
our senses perceive only tangible and individual
objects, and cannot by themselves perceive such an
abstract notion as morality.
The Moral Philosophy of Communism

Communism is primarily an economic theory but

it has some basic teachings related and intertwined
with fundamental moral principles. The moral
philosophy of Communism is known as dialectic
materialism. It means that matter is the only reality
which accounts for all the events and changes in the
universe. So, all phenomena of nature are nothing
else but the manifestation of this dialectic
materialism. This philosophy clearly denies:
1. The existence of God, since God is a spirit
and nothing exists but the material;
2. The freedom of the will, since matter, the sole
existent reality, is determined in all its movements by
the law of the dialectic; and
3. Immortality, since Communism denies the
existence of the spirit. Communism also teaches
that the goal of man is his earthly happiness in a
classless society.
For Communism, good is that which brings
about and hastens to bring about the realization of a
classless society. It is bad when it hinders or delays
it. The end of man, therefore, which is the classless
society is the norm of morality. So what matters in
Communism is the end, not the means. Revolution
and the like are good so long as they bring about the
desired end – the classless society. So, the end
justifies the means. Anything that leads to the
realization of a classless society is all good.
Communism is founded on the theory of change,
evolution and revolution. Hence, morals necessarily
change since everything changes.
For Communism, economics determines one’s
religion and even one’s mode of thinking and living.
So, morality is likewise determined by economics in
such a way that different economic conditions give
rise to different moralities, for example, we have
bourgeoisie morality and proletariat morality.

Evaluation of the theory of Communism

This theory is loaded with the fallacy of
“exclusiveness and mis-proportion.” While it is true
that man cannot live without bread, it is likewise true
that he does not live by bread alone. He has a
stomach but he has also a heart, mind, reason and
will. While he is an economic being, he is not an
economic being exclusively, nor primarily. While we
cannot disregard economic in life, we cannot make it
the sole and the most important in life. It may be the
basis or condition of worldly life but it is not the end
or aim of all human living, though it is a necessary
means to it.

Differences between Communist and Christian

ethics
1. Communism is based on the primacy of
matter. Christian ethics is based on the primacy of
the spirit.
2. Communism proposes an earthly goal of man.
Christianity is primarily for the other world.
3. Christian ethics is based on the existence of
God, freedom of the will, and immortality.
Communism denies all these and substitutes matter
for God; life in a classless society for immortality;
and the laws of the dialectic for freedom.
4. Communism says that the end justifies the
means while for Christian ethics the end does not
justify the means.
5. Communism subscribes to the evolutionistic
view of morality while Christianity maintains that
morality is absolute, immutable and eternal.
6. Christianity teaches love, right living, and
prayer as the road to eternal happiness in heaven.
Communism uses force, conflict, revolution for the
attainment of its goal – the classless society.

The Theory of Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer describes life as the continuous

adjustment of internal to external relations, the
adjustment of oneself to other people existing in
society.
However, life is progressing towards perfect
adjustment in a perfect society where the interests of
the individual will eventually harmonize and identify
with the interests of others. But man is not yet
adjusted. There is still too much selfishness, too
much egoism in man and too little of altruism at the
same time.
According to Spencer, the essence of morality,
and so with life, is the adjustment of the individual to
his fellowmen in a community. Good act, therefore,
is that which makes man well-adjusted to other
people and bad act is that which makes man
miserable due to maladjustment. In other words,
what makes man good is his good and well-
balanced relationship with others. Therefore,
Spencer’s essence of morality lies in human
relationship.