The philosopher Jeremy Bentham being a comedian


jts

Recommended Posts

Greg the moralist reminds me of the following passage from Jeremy Bentham.
Jeremy Bentham:
Here is Jeremy Bentham being a comedian:
It is curious enough to observe the variety of inventions men have hit upon, and the variety of phrases they have brought forward, in order to conceal from the world, and, if possible, from themselves, this very general and therefore very pardonable self-sufficiency.

12. One man says, he has a thing made on purpose to tell him what is right and what is wrong; and that it is called a moral sense: and then he goes to work at his ease, and says, such a thing is right, and such a thing is wrong—why? 'because my moral sense tells me it is.'

12. Another man comes and alters the phrase: leaving out moral, and putting in common, in the room of it. He then tells you, that his common sense teaches him what is right and wrong, as surely as the other's moral sense did: meaning by common sense, a sense of some kind or other, which he says, is possessed by all mankind: the sense of those, whose sense is not the same as the author's, being struck out of the account as not worth taking. This contrivance does better than the other, for a moral sense being a new thing, a man may feel about him a good while without being able to find it out: but common sense is as old as the creation, and there is no man but would be ashamed to be thought not to have as much of it as his neighbours. It has another great advantage: by appearing to share power, it lessens envy: for when a man gets up upon this ground, in order to anathematize those who differ from him, it is not by a sic volo sic jubeo, but by a velitis jubeatis.

12. Another man comes, and says, that as to a moral sense indeed, he cannot find that he has any such thing: that however he has an understanding, which will do quite as well. This understanding, he says, is the standard of right and wrong: it tells him so and so. All good and wise men understand as he does: if other men's understandings differ in any point from his, so much the worse for them: it is a sure sign they are either defective or corrupt.

12. Another man says, that there is an eternal and immutable Rule of Right: that that rule of right dictates so and so: and then he begins giving you his sentiments upon any thing that comes uppermost: and these sentiments (you are to take for granted) are so many branches of the eternal rule of right.

12. Another man, or perhaps the same man (it's no matter) says, that there are certain practices conformable, and others repugnant, to the Fitness of Things; and then he tells you, at his leisure, what practices are conformable and what repugnant: just as he happens to like a practice or dislike it.

12. A great multitude of people are continually talking of the Law of Nature; and then they go on giving you their sentiments about what is right and what is wrong: and these sentiments, you are to understand, are so many chapters and sections of the Law of Nature.

12. Instead of the phrase, Law of Nature, you have sometimes, Law of Reason, Right Reason, Natural Justice, Natural Equity, Good Order. Any of them will do equally well. This latter is most used in politics. The three last are much more tolerable than the others, because they do not very explicitly claim to be any thing more than phrases: they insist but feebly upon the being looked upon as so many positive standards of themselves, and seem content to be taken, upon occasion, for phrases expressive of the conformity of the thing in question to the proper standard, whatever that may be. On most occasions, however, it will be better to say utility: utility is clearer, as referring more explicitly to pain and pleasure.

12. We have one philosopher, who says, there is no harm in any thing in the world but in telling a lie: and that if, for example, you were to murder your own father, this would only be a particular way of saying, he was not your father. Of course, when this philosopher sees any thing that he does not like, he says, it is a particular way of telling a lie. It is saying, that the act ought to be done, or may be done, when, in truth, it ought not to be done.

12. The fairest and openest of them all is that sort of man who speaks out, and says, I am of the number of the Elect: now God himself takes care to inform the Elect what is right: and that with so good effect, and let them strive ever so, they cannot help not only knowing it but practicing it. If therefore a man wants to know what is right and what is wrong, he has nothing to do but to come to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Greg the moralist reminds me of the following passage from Jeremy Bentham.

There's no need for all of those convoluted intellectual gymnastics when you can simply look at the verdict handed down on your life by the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg the moralist reminds me of the following passage from Jeremy Bentham.

There's no need for all of those convoluted intellectual gymnastics when you can simply look at the verdict handed down on your life by the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions. :smile:

Greg

You were talking about knowing right and wrong just by knowing. Now you know right and wrong by experience. I prefer the first method. The second method involves risk of costly mistakes. The problem with the first method is how it is possible.

A third way is to learn from other people's mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were talking about knowing right and wrong just by knowing. Now you know right and wrong by experience.

I prefer the first method. The second method involves risk of costly mistakes. The problem with the first method is how it is possible.

A third way is to learn from other people's mistakes.

Yes. There's a hierarchy, and you accurately listed them in order:

Knowing

Consequences

Observing others

I don't always pay enough attention to knowing, and so also learn through the consequences of my actions, as well as seeing what others do and not doing what they do.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were talking about knowing right and wrong just by knowing. Now you know right and wrong by experience.

I prefer the first method. The second method involves risk of costly mistakes. The problem with the first method is how it is possible.

A third way is to learn from other people's mistakes.

Yes. There's a hierarchy, and you accurately listed them in order:

Knowing

Consequences

Observing others

I don't always pay enough attention to knowing, and so also learn through the consequences of my actions, as well as seeing what others do and not doing what they do.

Greg

What is knowing just by knowing?

Is that what Ayn Rand called mysticism? Ayn Rand was thumbs down on mysticism.

Is that intuition? Intuition is based on experience, keeping in mind that experience is not merely what happens to you but what you do with what happens to you. For example Judge Judy claims to be a truth machine, that she can tell whether a person is lying. I assume she developed this intuition over many years of high quality experience plus natural talent.

Is that some kind of sense perception such as for example an animal knows whether something is fit to eat by smell and taste? Like the experiment done by several farmers on feeding corn to animals.

Is it hardwired knowledge, knowledge built into our brains that we don't need to learn? Like birds know how to build nests, apparently without learning. Perhaps another example is understanding facial expressions and body language, which most people have to some degree without learning but apparently aspies don't have without learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is knowing just by knowing?

Conscience.

Greg

Conscience is different for different people -- Christian, Muslim, Hitler (doing God's work), St. Augustine, Islamic terrorist, all have a conscience. It seems to be mostly a product of education. Is that valid epistemology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is knowing just by knowing?

Conscience.

Greg

Conscience is different for different people

It's the same for everyone... but everyone responds to It in different ways... and even some don't respond at all. That's where you get all the variations.

-- Christian, Muslim, Hitler (doing God's work), St. Augustine, Islamic terrorist, all have a conscience.

They all had different responses to the same Conscience.

It seems to be mostly a product of education. Is that valid epistemology?

That's the intellect and not Conscience. Our thoughts and emotions are reactions to Conscience, but they are not Conscience itself.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now