In this chapter, Mill says he will explore what built-in sanctions utilitarianism can provide; in other words, what punishments the philosophy might impose upon those who do not abide by it. There are External and Internal Sanctions. Internal Sanctions of duty, can be summed up as your conscious, it is a feeling in our own mind which lets us know whether or not what we are doing is ethically moral or not. External sanctions exist externally to the human agent as an individual; they may take the form of peer pressure, the fear of their disapproval, or of divine pressure, the fear of his wrath. Mill argues that these motives could just as easily be associated with utilitarianism as with any other moral system.
It would seem now, that internal sanctions would be the most powerful in influencing the moral decisions. It is one thing to have peer pressure put upon you. But when it is your own conscious it would seem that internal sanctions may be the ultimate sanction. This statement is correct, because our conscious influences our moral actions and decisions. Thus, if internal sanctions provide the strongest influence over people's actions, utilitarianism must appeal to people's inner sentiments in order to exercise a binding force on them.
Mill then goes on to say that moral feelings must be acquired and that society is moving towards a feeling of unity. Mill then goes on to say that society can teach these feelings of unity through education and law. He asserts that if we imagine that this feeling of social unity were taught in the same way religion is taught, and thus implanted as an internal sanction, then utilitarianism would exercise a binding force sufficient to influence behavior. Basically, Mill is stating that if we are taught moral behaviors from the time when we are little, society over time would grow to became a complete moral society.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Though we stand by own personal values and morals, sometimes I think that external sanctions really do have more power over us than our internal ones. I think that perhaps our own internal sanctions derive from society's embodiment of conventional morality. Perhaps we would not experience feelings of guilt, if society's legal penalties and informal social rules did not exist in the first place.
I agree with Lis. We base a lot of our moral decisions on whether or not society approves, and how we are raised in society determines what the driving force in our moral actions are. Like we said, we can feel guilty about not helping an elderly lady cross, so we help. There's very few times we make the morally right decision just because we can or purely want to, regardless of any consequences.
Mill says that if we are taught moral behaviors from from a young age, then society will eventually become a complete moral society. I disagree with this statement because educational institutions have always attempted to teach us morals from a very young age. I remember being in kindergarden and listening to the teacher tell all the students not to steal because it was wrong, in other words, immoral. Despite her teachings, there were several problems with thievery throughout the later years within my classes. Moral behavior can be taught, but there is no reassurance that it will actually make a difference. It all depends on the person the moral behavior is being taught to and how they have been socialized from an early age.
I agree with most of what Mill is saying here, but I think that it is too bold of a statement to say that if we are taught moral behaviors from the time we are little that society would grow to become a complete moral society, because it is the same external sanctions from society that can cause immoral actions. While society can teach us how to be moral (don't steal, don't lie etc), at the same time it pressures people to fit a norm and sometimes people will do whatever it takes to reach that norm and use immoral means to reach it.
I would tend to think that internal sanctions have the final say, as opposed to the external. Peer pressure or civil law may tell us that we should act a certain way if we want to achieve the highest good. However, I think there are limitations to external sanctions. If we fail to act morally, our conscious would tell us so and motivate us to act in such a way that would minimize the discomfort we feel when we violate duty. I don't think our conscious is nor should be shaped by external sanctions. If society were to say that it is ok to kill, our conscious should still act in such a way that we would ignore societal pressures.
I think that for me internal sanctions are the most powerful thing influencing moral decision. But I also think that it often depends on the person. We have all known those people that tend to be pushovers and cannot stand-up to peer pressure; for these people I would argue that their actions and moral decisions are more heavily influenced by external sanctions, and the question of what will other people think if I do this instead of that.
I would like to believe in what Mills says about morals being teachable at a young age. However, I have seen even with schools attempting to do so, they were not always successful. Red Ribbon Week promotes kids not to smoke and do drugs from K-8th grade yet i still found classmates smoking in high school. So that's why I think it depends on the person in regards to which type of sanction has a greater influence on moral decisions.
I feel that when a person acts on their own accord without any outside source of the will, internal sanctions will prevail almost always. I think that when external legilations towards the will affect someone, they veer away from interal sanctions and focus on external santions because they are concerned with the consequences of their actions. This peer pressure / peer acceptance is a powerful force at all ages in life, especially to those who have yet to realize their own rational being.
Post a Comment