Philosophy by the river

Why not be a happiness pump? (Venue: by the river)

Sun, Jul 12 · 11:00 AM BST

Near The Mill. On the grass by the river with our bovine friends, The Mill, 14 Mill Lane, Cambridge, al, GB

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: By the river

The heatwave continues so let's meet outside by the river. You'll find joining instructions below or at: https://rbphilo.com/riverside.html

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Why not be a happiness pump?

Thanks to Stu for this week's topic.

We all like to think we live a moral life. We recognise selfishness as bad, and are generally willing to allow some self-sacrifice in the name of good. When utilitarianism is taken to its extreme, however, we end up with the obligation to become a happiness pump, where there are nothing but altruistic deeds and life becomes devoid of personal joy.

The Kantian perspective rejects happiness pumps on the grounds of a duty to yourself not to be used as a tool. And somewhere, we all have a line, where we feel we've done our bit and enough is enough. We stop at 'what's fair'.

The question is what informs where this level of fairness is? What do we refer to before we arrive at it?

Bernard Williams raised the 'demandingness objection' against extreme utilitarianism, saying that these blind obligations to do good deeds all the time require you to give up meaningful personal projects and passions, showing a misalignment between what we feel we want out of morality and the conclusions of utilitarianism.
Peter Singer counters with the claim that this is just a cop out (not his words). He says the demandingness objection simply exposes our moral failures, that the feeling that something just feels too hard is not a sufficient argument against having the moral courage to follow through on what we see to be right.

Is the answer just neuroscience? Cooperation and volunteering cause the VTA to flood the brain with dopamine, whereas a sense of unfairness lights up the insular cortex, which is responsible for processing disgust and physical pain. Does that mean 'fairness' is just a survival mechanism to keep us from being exploited, whilst benefiting from tribal inclusion? If so, does fairness lose its moral authority?

And how about culture and societal norms? If everyone spent an hour a week picking up litter on the streets that would be easy to do. If it were just you, you'd feel less inclined even though your contribution to the neighbourhood would be exactly the same.
If biology dictates our boundaries, then there is no objective answer to how much we owe each other. Is fairness a legitimate ethical compass, or just a sophisticated survival strategy?