BECHAYDA, TRISTAN JERALD B.

BSA-2A ETHICS – GEC 7

Republic of the Philippines

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

City of Ilagan, Isabela

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE & TECHNOLOGY

GEC 7 - ETHICS
Semester/A.Y.: 2nd Semester, SY 2021-2022

ACTIVITY 2
Choose and discuss at least 3 among the given questions for 5 points each.
1. Are all pleasures commensurable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale? Can some goods, like
friendships, be balanced against other goods, like money?

2. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for "higher" pleasures. Which pleasures are higher?

3. Mill proposes that "higher" pleasures are those preferred by the majority of people. Do you agree that
this is a good way of distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures? Can a well-informed majority
prefer higher pleasures?

4. Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What if violating the civil rights of a minority increases
the sum total of pleasure of the majority?

5. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions
are directed toward pleasure?

6. Are all pleasures comparable, even objectionable pleasures? What if the majority derives pleasure
from being sexist?

7. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there basketball fans, than to build a hospital
because there are fewer sick people?

8. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?

BECHAYDA, TRISTAN JERALD B. BSA-2A ETHICS – GEC 7

1. Are all pleasures commensurable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale? Can some goods, like
friendships, be balanced against other goods, like money?

BRIEF EXPLANATION:

No, it does not. Not only are not all joys comparable, but you couldn't even develop a scale to
measure and compare the enjoyment of biting into a flawless piece of cheese pizza among all persons.
Some people dislike pizza. Pizza aficionados have varied notions about what should and should not be
included in a perfect piece. Pleasure shared by two persons in the same activity cannot be compared
since there is no way to compare on a level! There is no such thing as a meter for pleasure. There is no
conventional unit of measurement, and there is no means to measure.

So, what might this scale be used for? How might the measurement be performed? Orally?
Language? Ask each of them how they thought it went. No, it will not suffice.

Pleasure, even inside one individual, is incomparable, in my opinion. The pleasure of slipping
into a hot bath is nothing like the pleasure of tart sherbet slipping icily down the throat, which is nothing
like the pleasure of anticipation awaiting something good you know is in the mail, which is nothing like a
really good kiss - which is, frankly, very little like a really good kiss from someone else. Each of these joys
is in no way comparable to the others, and there are many more. Most of them don't feel like they're on
the same scale.

Some joys have their own scale that no other pleasure activates. Sure, some of them engage the
same fundamental pleasure senses, but in very different ways. I doubt you'd get anything other than the
sloppiest, most sentiment-charged, and emotion-obscured "measurements" from the person
performing the feeling.

Also, I do not consider money and friendship to be in the same category of "good." If
you look at a psychological study such as Maslow's hierarchy of requirements, you will realize
that having money is a way of guaranteeing the lower level fundamental wants but not of
reaching the higher level needs of self-actualisation. As a result, many wealthy individuals are
miserable and may lack the joys that family and companionship may provide.

5. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions
are directed toward pleasure?

BRIEF EXPLANATION:

I have to say that I disagree with that concept of happiness.

When we direct all of our efforts toward the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of
suffering, we will only cause dissatisfaction in our life when that ultimate objective is not realized
or met.
BECHAYDA, TRISTAN JERALD B. BSA-2A ETHICS – GEC 7

So we'll be living a stressful ludicrous existence, constantly looking for pleasure and
avoiding pain, relying on our emotions to lead and direct our path, while we all know life is a mix
of various experiences, some of which will not be very pleasant.

To me, the notion of happiness is inextricably linked to the concept of acceptance.

For me, genuine happiness is being able to accept whatever comes your way while not allowing
it to affect your state of mind or inner peace.

Happiness is a state of mind in which you devote your life to doing what makes you
happy, with total self-awareness and clarity that enables you to rely only on your own
perspective of the world.

To me, being happy does not imply constantly smiling and agreeing with everything that
occurs around you. It means to expect that stuff will happen from time to time, but to keep
going since you are in charge of your trip.

When you rely on what is going on around you to make you happy, you give up control
of your life; you become a slave to emotions and external events, which dictate how you feel.

Happiness should be defined as freedom, not enslavement.

It is up to you to regulate your emotions and utilize them to your advantage, rather than
allowing them to take over your life and tell you how you must feel at all times.

If you're in charge, all you need is for yourself to be happy because you choose to be
that way. That is complete clarity and liberation. That's how it's done.

8. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?

BRIEF EXPLANATION:

Torture, in my opinion, can never be justified.

Torture does not provide "truth." It yields the desired outcomes for the tormentor. And
it's not even taking into account the potential that the "suspected" criminal isn't the "real"
criminal and doesn't even have the information the torturer seeks.

It's simple to defeat. Consider the following scenario: you have a suspect who you think
stole a child and abandoned them in a location with a restricted oxygen supply. Do you torture
them in order to get knowledge that will allow you to rescue the child? If their intention is to kill
BECHAYDA, TRISTAN JERALD B. BSA-2A ETHICS – GEC 7

the child, all they have to do is give you convincing but incorrect information — perhaps
sending you to a location miles away from the actual one, perhaps someplace he'd prepared in
advance for just this scenario — and the child will be dead by the time you realize it's wrong.
Because of this, the "ticking clock" situations are the simplest for the evil guys to beat.

We do not torture because of the victims, but rather because of who we are. In the
movies, the good men wear white hats, but it's not the hats that make them the good guys. It's
what they're good at. How are we different from the criminal who tortures and murders his
victim if we torture?