What are the epistemological problems with utilitarianism?

According to utilitarianism, the action that can create the vastest amount of happiness is the best action. If however, it cannot create any happiness, the action that creates least amount of unhappiness is the best action. This is called the greatest happiness principle, which is based on the statement that the goal of a human being is to be happy. However, what is happy?

According to Bentham, happiness consists in pleasure, and the unhappiness consists in pain. He went further and claimed that the happiness is commensurably. For instance, say fried likes playing football and shopping, whereas Jim likes programming and playing tennis. It seems that they do not have much in common. However, fried will get pleasure from playing football and shopping, whereas Jim will get pleasure from programming and playing tennis. All these hobbies they have are broken down in to pleasures which are very much in common, so it is commensurably. Furthermore, if a person gets pleasure from philosophy and another gets pleasure from hide-and-see, we they are all broken down to the kind of pleasure level, it seems that the only distinction is the quantity of the pleasure. Apparently Bentham was too concentrated on the quantity of the pleasure, but not the quality of the pleasure. Because there are, I think, some difference between the pleasure that is produced by hide-and-see and the pleasure that is provided by philosophy.

Mill’s utilitarianism responds it by saying that there are, indeed, distinctions, with is called higher and lower pleasure by Mill. Obviously, the pleasure that produced by philosophy is higher, and the pleasure the person gets from hide-and-see is lower. However, it is quite hard to draw the horizon between the higher and lower pleasure. For example, is drinking a higher or lower pleasure? It would be a lower pleasure for some people, because alcohol can make people dizzy and do all sort of silly things. On the other hand, it is a higher pleasure, in fact a great pleasure, for some other people, in fact a great pleasure. As Ernest Hemingway wrote in his book on Bullfighting Death in the afternoon:


Wine is one of the most civilised things in the world and one of the natural things of the world that has been brought to the greatest perfection. One can learn about wins and pursue the education of one’s palate with great enjoyment all of a lifetime. A person will increasing knowledge and sensory education may derive infinite enjoyment from wine.
(Hemingway 1987)

Obviously, it is quite ambiguous for Mill’s utilitarianism in the sense that it is quite difficult to draw a conclusion.

In addition, we can also criticise on the fact that he claimed that one is familiar with both higher and lower pleasures will always choose a higher over a lower pleasure. Because it is not always correct. For instance, though it is no doubt that a person who enjoys philosophy very much will not willing to lose it in his life; occasionally he will leave philosophy and choose other ‘lower pleasure’ like watching TV, eating pasta etc.

the hollow moon

we can see the moon basically every night, because of the bright colour, the moon is thought to be a sign of sullen and, somehow, romantic. people think all the time that we know awful a lot of it; well in some sense, we do know quite a lot, but do we really understand it? not really..... here are the reasons

1. Is moon our natural satellite?

We may think that moon is our natural satellite, if it is, it would be a pretty unordinary one. Check out the data below and you'll find out

· The diameter of the earth is 12756 km; the diameter of the moon is 3467 km which is 27% of the earth.

· The diameter of the Saturn is 120000 km; the diameter of the biggest satellite is 4500 km which is 3.75% of the Saturn.

· The diameter of the Jupiter is 142800 km; the diameter of the biggest satellite is 5000 km which is 3.5% of the Jupiter.

· The diameter of the Mars is 6787 km; the diameter of the biggest satellite is 23 km which is 0.34% of the Mars.

As you have probably noticed that the size proportion is no more than 5%, but the size of the moon is actually 27% of the earth, which I would conclude EXTRAORDINARY. If this cannot convincing, well, you’d better keep reading.

2. Moonquake experiments

· When Apollo No.11 got to the moon, it put a very sensible Moonquake detector on the surface; its sensitivity was so high that it can even detect the steps of the astronauts. At 4:15 American time on 20th of November, 1969. Apollo No. 12 hit the moon surface and hence caused a Moonquake. It lasted for 55min and it took 8min to reach the climax. It was like ringing a bell.

· The passengers of Apollo No. 13 did the same experiment again by using a remote control craft. This time, the Moonquake lasted for 3h 20min.

· According to a great amount of measurement, the scientists have finally concluded that there is a hard formation inside the moon which is approximately 40 miles thick. The sound can reach a speed of 6 miles per second in the material, if you’ve done GCSE physics, it is not hard to tell that the sound speed in rock definitely cannot be this high. But the spreading speed can easily reach 6miles per second if it is travelling in metals. Scientist speculated that there is a metal shell inside the moon and it is covered by 10 to 20 miles of rock.

3. Moon’s density argument.

· The average density of the moon is 3.33g/cm3, whereas the average density of the earth is 5.5 g/cm3, so the hypothesis is that the moon may be hollow.

· The rock density of the moon is 3.2 g/cm3; the rock density of the earth is 2.7 g/cm3, but the mass of the moon is only the half of the earth. Therefore the only possible explanation is that it is hollow.

In conclusion, the moon that we are familiar with is not familiar to us anymore. It is the time to discover a brand new moon.

how moral obligation can be derived from the categorical imperative?

According to Kant, the fact that we can consciously do things is because we all abbey hypothetical imperatives, which is a kind of imperative which will reveal the consequences of an action. For example, a typical hypothetical imperative would be ‘if I don’t want to fail the philosophy exam, I must work very hard’. So Kant believes the fact that we are doing things is because we all have these hypothetical imperatives, which is also the reason that makes us rational beings. Kant pointed out that we are having many hypothetical imperatives (which was called maxims by Kant) all the time; for instance, ‘I will starve to die, so I must eat.’ Of cause there are also other negative statements. For example, ‘I don’t have enough money to buy my favourite clothes, so I must steal.’
The reason why we will feel morally guilty if we steal things is because there is also another kind of imperative which is in a higher order so that it can be implied to the hypothetical imperatives in terms of judging it and hence tell the rational beings whether this hypothetical imperative is acceptable.
Thus, Kant concluded his theory so called ‘the first formulation’ which is also known as the formula of universal law’
Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Kant said in order for a categorical imperative to be implied to the hypothetical imperative and judges it; the hypothetical imperatives must be taken through a process which is so called ‘Universalise’.
For example, for a hypothetical imperative like ‘If I like the book in the store, I should steal it’ after we derive the hypothetical imperative into a categorical imperative, it would be ‘If everyone wants the book, they should steal it’. Apparently, this action is universally unacceptable, because, according to Kant there is a contradiction in this imperative, which is ‘if everyone steals, no one can steal’. It is concluded by Kant that it is called teleological contradiction interpretation, because the consequence is in a dilemma.
So in conclusion, the morally obligations are derived from hypothetical imperative and further judged by categorical imperatives, which are in a higher order, by universalise it. If there was a contradiction in it, it would be morally unacceptable; if however there was no contradiction, the hypothetical imperative would be an acceptable one.