.
Laten we dan eerst J. S. Mill zelf aan het woord laten. Uit Utilitarianism (1871):
Now, such a theory of life excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure – no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit – they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French and English assailants.
When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.
If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other.
The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.
I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic as well as Christian elements require to be included. But their is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imaginations, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensations.
It must be admitted, however, that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostlines, etc., of the former – that is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they might have taken the other, and, as it may be called, higher ground, with entire consistency.
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.
Onnauwkeurig, niet ‘some will do that’, ‘many actually have done it’; niet ‘opponents will assume’ maar ‘do assume’. Maar de riposte van de Epicureërs is effectief.Mill worries that some will reject hedonism as a theory of value or happiness fit only for swine (II 3). In particular, he worries that opponents will assume that utilitarianism favors sensual or voluptuary pursuits (e.g., push-pin) over higher or nobler pursuits (e.g., poetry).
Critici maken de vergelijking met zwijnen. Utilitaristen doen dat niet. Ze onderscheiden wel ‘higher pleasures’ en ‘lower pleasures’, ‘pleasures that are more desirable and more valuable than others’. Maar daaruit volgt nog geen onderscheid tussen hogere en lagere mensen.Maar de manier waarop hij dat doet maakt het erger. (…) Iemand die niets met muziek en/of poëzie heeft zou volgens deze benadering een lager mens zijn.
Dat gezegd zijnde, wat vinden we van iemand die van kinderporno houdt?
Hoe volgt dat? Het gaat daarbij niet om ‘pleasures’. In die zaak gaat het om wensen en vrijheden.In het kader van de discussie wordt dus islam zonder hoofddoek als een 'higher pleasure' gezien als islam met hoofddoek.
Bladwijzers