Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000US230,000

CGS HU 202 Study Guide - Final Guide: John Stuart Mill, Mind Control

149 views2 pages
orchidsnake471
16 May 2018
School
Boston University
Department
Humanities
Course
CGS HU 202
Professor
Jeffery Vail

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

• In what ways can Brave New World be seen as an attack on the Greatest Happiness Principle of
Utilitarianism?
• Brave New World is an attack on utilitarianism in that it truly is a world where the greatest amount
of people can be happy. However, there are a lot of things thats are lost in the process. This book
takes utilitarianism to the extreme and way too far.
o John the Savage: not truly happy because world state does not allow for literature and novels
that he wishes everyone to read. Forbids reading and developing personal thoughts and
ideas
o One way that Brave New World takes happiness too far, is that it takes away people's right
to be unhappy. It focuses so much on making people happy, that it forces them to do so.
▪ Especially by restricting the amount of literature and media available to people
and promoting Soma and meaningless sex to be the only forms of true
happiness
o The human race would need to sacrifice their right to be unhappy as well as their freedom to
make choices that might not end with happiness. John argues that humanity needs to be
able to experience unhappy situations and experiences in order to learn from them.
However, soma removes the opportunity from learning and that is shadows the
beauty of life. Therefore there is no meaning in the decisions that humans make,
because everything is predetermined, like social status. Camus would argue that this is
not the right way to be free because even though life is pointless because everyone will die at
some point, everyone should still strive to live a life of compassion and it is mankind's
special greatness and heroism that we overcome absurdity by continuing the struggle of
life regardless. However, because of soma, the people of the world state are unable to
experience the struggle of life.
o The greatest happiness principle is driven to its logical social conclusion in Brave New
World. Everything Mond does is based of this belief system that determines the
morality of an action based on the amount of happiness it would create. In monds
society, happiness and pleasure is maximized, while pain is minimized.
o Monds goes to such an extreme with the greatest happiness principle that even JOhn the
savage describes his rebellion as one where he claims the right to be unhappy.
o The end justifies the means - this is what utilitarianism is based on, so BNW disregards
completely any consideration for the individuals in society because the end justifies the
means. This means that no matter how happiness is achieved, as long as it is achieved, it
was worth whatever had to be done.
o Utilitarian ethics, when taken to their end, results in a world that reduces every person to a
mere statistic to be fed, clothed, and contented. How this goal comes to actual fruition is
of little matter. No matter how horrific the act, all that matters is the collective good. If that
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

In what ways can brave new world be seen as an attack on the (cid:498)greatest happiness principle(cid:499) of. Utilitarianism: brave new world is an attack on utilitarianism in that it truly is a world where the greatest amount of people can be happy. However, there are a lot of things thats are lost in the process. This book takes utilitarianism to the extreme and way too far. John the savage: not truly happy because world state does not allow for literature and novels that he wishes everyone to read. Forbids reading and developing personal thoughts and ideas: one way that brave new world takes happiness too far, is that it takes away people"s right to be unhappy. John argues that humanity needs to be able to experience unhappy situations and experiences in order to learn from them. However, soma removes the opportunity from learning and that is shadows the beauty of life.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers

Related Documents

CGS HU 202 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Aldous Huxley, Antidepressant, Mind Control
orchidsnake471
CGS HU 202 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Historical Criticism
orchidsnake471
CGS HU 202
Final Exam
Study Guide
CGS HU 202 Final: CGS HU 202 Final pt 2
orchidsnake471

Related Questions

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, “Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor,” Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, “Income, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,” Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and “Where Money Seems to Talk,” Economist, 12 July 200

proof read please

Society is changing constantly and families has different point of view of how to live their life or raise their kids. I think what we know so far as a family will change in the near future. Furthermore for my own personal experience I have seen great thing from the changes that have come over the past years to now and it was acceptable by the society however, People and society in general like good changes. My grandma at age of 13 yrs. old had kids and spouse and they used to stay home raising their kids and taking care the house, while spouse were working to bring food to their tablet and older kids in the household used to work to support their parent home too Versus now in 2016 that family are disintegrating, kids are isolating themselves from their family due to the technology and you see more divorce. I could imagine how family will be 100 year from now. I have seen that woman wants to be more independently and having kids is not their priority anymore because I feel that it won’t be no family 50 to 100 year from now. It will be a law that marriage couple are going to have 1 year marriage contract. I can say that many values come from our parents and most are very worthwhile and I pass those values to my kids and I would like to retain them, but Family values are different from culture to culture and tradition and there will be change by the time, based on these I could say that it won’t be moral and immoral activities 50 year from now. We are goings lose moral value and ethic and I will see population decrease causing higher dead and less birth because government will soon controlling family life by limit how many kids a marriage couple could have. Since technology offer a good and effectively way to keep in touch with family around the world, but I also think technology will also affect family in the household. However, technology is taking control when the one on one communication is falling apart. The social media preventing family from communicating and less interaction with family and the society won’t have too much talking. I probably happy to say that the only positive thing that I will see 50 to 100 year from now will be major diseases like Heart attack , diabetes and cancer will largely preventing by the time with new scientist and good technologies. As a family we need to know and stay focus of who we are, in what we personally think values stand for because our action won’t always stay of our deepest belief. There is gab between our life values, action and behavior and if we retain those values chances are that even though 50 year from now won’t matter how great the external rewards.

Please read this article. It discusses foreign currency issues for the Euro. Please elaborate and explain your thoughts on the article below.

The wisdom in the eurozone is that if the European Central Bank would only follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and move to far more aggressive monetary policy, which it is now doing, all will be hunky-dory.
Of course, drenching the single currency area in euros will help, and make it easier for banks to lend again.
It is also a brave act for the ECB’s Italian president, Mario Draghi. His promise to expand the balance sheet of the ECB by €1trillion flies in the face of historic German concerns about overexuberant monetary policy and the horrors of the Weimar Republic.
The bigger question, however, is whether the source of the eurozone’s problems is simply a lack of credit, or is it more deeply rooted?
Many euroland economies simply are loaded down with too much debt. The ‘troika’ solution offered by the IMF, European Commission and ECB to this has been austerity. But still the debt levels rise.
Even the IMF’s own internal monitoring group has questioned the wisdom of the policy. The traditional solution for countries in trouble are the double ‘D’ approach – devaluation and default. The first is impossible in a single currency area unless nations drop out, as happened in 1993 when the euro predecessor, the European Monetary System, fell-apart.
That leaves the eurozone with default. It sound horrible and irresponsible, but as Harvard’s Benjamin Friedman recently observed, the debt of the 18 countries in the single currency region is more akin to American municipal bonds, rather than national debt. And managed defaults of American state and city debt have long been a feature of the landscape.
Official Greek debt could, for instance, be restructured so that payments could be stretched out over far longer time horizons and the coupons paid slashed. This was how the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s, and some of the problems in East Asia a decade later, were fixed.
Standing in the way of such radical answers is Germany with its economic absolutes. Sometimes, however, German leaders choose to forget the fiscal history that they want to bury. In the 1930s it essentially defaulted on debts built up in the First World War and as a result of reparations.
At the London Debt Conference in 1953, the amount of debt Germany built up before, during and after the Second World War was halved and payment of principal suspended for five years and drawn out over 30 years to give a recovering and rebuilding economy breathing space.
That is the kind of precedent that Germany should be looking at now instead of insisting on hardship among its neighbours. It could also refrain from winding up friends by discouraging Brussels from presenting the UK with bills for £1.7billion in the knowledge that it would be a huge political embarrassment.
It is only by sleight of hand that the invoice has been halved.
Peace talk
The notion that Standard Chartered’s woes stem from the fact it was unfairly targeted by New York regulators is poppycock. The 29 per cent decline in the bank’s share price this year is representative of a much deeper malaise.
So far Standard Chartered has paid £400million in fines, in two tranches, to US enforcers, the most recent for failing to fix problems first identified in 2012: not smart.
Badly treated? Not if compared to BNP Paribas that had to stump up £5.5billion. As for the idea that foreign banks have been singled out – that also is ill-informed. Fines levied on JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have been in the tens of billions of pounds.
One person who is certainly not taking Standard Chartered’s sliding reputation for granted is chairman Sir John Peace. He admitted to investors in Singapore, home to its largest shareholder Temasek with 17.7 per cent, that it was too complex and ‘too bureaucratic’ and takes too long to make decisions.
One critical action still pending is the removal of chief executive Peter Sands, who sought to brush aside charges of Iranian sanctions-busting and now has presided over a series of profits warnings. Temasek this week expressed its unanimous support for ‘Peter and John’. Football fans will recognise the significance of that.
Slow coach
No one can question the determination of the Financial Conduct Authority to punish market offenders. But the speed at which it and the British courts deliver financial justice is farcical.
Julian Rifat, of hedge fund Moore Capital, was arrested on insider trading charges in 2010 but it was only yesterday that he was convicted of a £250,000 conspiracy as part of the Tabernula investigation involving six others.
Now we have another two month wait for sentencing.
The FCA says the probe was ‘painstaking’ but that is no excuse for a lethargic process.