Will to power Vs. Utilitarianism

[Dencalk]

Out of general curiosity does anyone consider Nietzsche's will to power a better explanation for human motivation than utilitarianism? If so why?
I have been toying with the idea for some time. Nietzsche says, not in these words, that utilitarianism does not account for actions like envy, hate, rage, etc. And so he posits his will to power to better describe all human action. It seems that one could view human motivation through both and come out a winner. Even an act perused out of hate could I suppose yield in the end some type of satisfaction, which is a type of pleasure i.e. Utilitarianism The will to power also can describe actions like hate or rage, which would be done in seeking some type self-assertion. Is will to power defunct, or is utilitarianism defunct? Or neither? What do you all think?

[owleye]

Out of general curiosity does anyone consider Nietzsche's will to power a better explanation for human motivation than utilitarianism? If so why?
I have been toying with the idea for some time. Nietzsche says, not in these words, that utilitarianism does not account for actions like envy, hate, rage, etc. And so he posits his will to power to better describe all human action. It seems that one could view human motivation through both and come out a winner. Even an act perused out of hate could I suppose yield in the end some type of satisfaction, which is a type of pleasure i.e. Utilitarianism The will to power also can describe actions like hate or rage, which would be done in seeking some type self-assertion. Is will to power defunct, or is utilitarianism defunct? Or neither? What do you all think?

At the outset I'd say you are comparing two ideas that aren't comparable in the way you'd like us to respond to them. In particular, utilitarianism isn't intended to explain human motivation, at least that's not how I see it. Nietzsche, with his will to power, I believe, is being a psychologist, whereas utilitarianism's idea refers to what an ethicist might make use of. Since you seem to think they are comparable, what is it about utilitarianism that makes you think it would help us in understanding human motivation?

James

[lichtung]

Out of general curiosity does anyone consider Nietzsche's will to power a better explanation for human motivation than utilitarianism? If so why?

Nietzsche's will to power is a diluted version of the ancient concept of virtue. He purportedly takes the idea from Schopenhauer, but I suspect it has roots going back to Spinoza, which in turn is a reinterpretation of the classical emphasis on arete or excellence. Once you strip the will to power of its rhetoric, it's pretty hollow.

As for utilitarianism, I simply don't get the popular appeal of this position. Applied to the individual it seems reasonable that you would want to "maximize" X,where X is usually a vulgar form of hedonism. Of course, it could be more sophisticated. Define X for me and I'll have a more informed opinion.

[cantab1956]

The one I favour is Kant's categorical imperative which I think speaks to those looking for an alternative to the capitalist dogma of the market.

[Dencalk]

At the outset I'd say you are comparing two ideas that aren't comparable in the way you'd like us to respond to them. In particular, utilitarianism isn't intended to explain human motivation, at least that's not how I see it. Nietzsche, with his will to power, I believe, is being a psychologist, whereas utilitarianism's idea refers to what an ethicist might make use of. Since you seem to think they are comparable, what is it about utilitarianism that makes you think it would help us in understanding human motivation?
James

Well it seems to me quite obvious. Utilitarianism though, i agree, is most often times viewed as an ethical system. However when one looks at it and tries to see beyond the ethics we see that what Bentham, Mill and the rest are saying we see that they are giving a kind of psychological explanation for the motivations behind the actions of humans i.e. they seek pleasure. The words of Bertrand Russell in his book A History of Western Philosophy give us a clue, "Bentham held not only that the good is happiness in general, but also that each individual always pursues what he [or she] believes to be [their] own happiness."(775)

In short people are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure, and this can explain most (all, many, some?) of their actions. Nietzsche did not follow this and proposed his will to power to, at least in his mind, explain all human and by the way all animal motivations.

hope that makes my mind set clear.
Dennis

[owleye]

Well it seems to me quite obvious. Utilitarianism though, i agree, is most often times viewed as an ethical system. However when one looks at it and tries to see beyond the ethics we see that what Bentham, Mill and the rest are saying we see that they are giving a kind of psychological explanation for the motivations behind the actions of humans i.e. they seek pleasure. The words of Bertrand Russell in his book A History of Western Philosophy give us a clue, "Bentham held not only that the good is happiness in general, but also that each individual always pursues what he [or she] believes to be [their] own happiness."(775)

In short people are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure, and this can explain most (all, many, some?) of their actions. Nietzsche did not follow this and proposed his will to power to, at least in his mind, explain all human and by the way all animal motivations.

hope that makes my mind set clear.
Dennis

Thank you for that clarification. Let me note that you are no longer asking a question about an explanation of motivations, as in your first post, but rather are seeking an explanation for our actions. Despite the references you highlight, I don't think it was a good choice to invite us to think utilitarianism represents an explanation for our motivations. Rather, I think, utilitarianism is an interesting (and for many an important) attempt to make use of some inner principle (within the general faculty of desire, including the desire to avoid -- fear) on which to found a principle for the general good for all. While some utilitarians take this good to be rooted in pleasure, others, for example, merely specify 'preference'. I would tend to agree that utilitarians, generally, aren't keen on thinking that rationality, duty, virtue, care, or anything else outside the faculty of desire can be a motivator so their ethical theories wind up being more or less exclusively within this domain.

In any case, the domain of desire could include the desire for power, fame, fortune, children, provisions, knowledge, companionship and a whole host of things. What you seem to be saying is that Nietzsche is picking a fight with raw pleasure or other base desire, in favor of power, with respect to being the principle or fundamental motivation we all have. Well, maybe he's right. However, one could also argue that the acquisition of power is based on it giving one pleasure -- indeed, a raw animalistic pleasure.

Well, first, Nietzsche was basically insane. He was not a man who thought much of temperance. He went for the extreme position, as far as I can tell. There isn't much in the way of self-control in his way of thinking, though I hear he could be charming, was a good lecturer, and had quite a following in his early life. (My guess is that he would be diagnosed as Borderline today.) Nietzsche could be said to be one of Jung's caricatures, something in us that allows us to identify with what we see, even in the extreme, exhibited in others. Perhaps it is in that sense that his will to power can be said to be an explanation for at least some (very small number of) our actions.

I confess I'm not up to snuff on current theories of action, but it would surprise me to think the two choices you would have us think about are the only two which a respected theory would consider.

James

[jcl]

James,
Nietszche was an honest man with honest observations which he shared. He was by no means perfect but your dismissal of him is a little shocking. Nietzsche shook the foundations of the earth, you ought breath his name with the same sigh and reverence as when you call your deity. For those of small minds and weak constitutions, yes, he may seem uncontrolled and mildly insane but to the honest ones, those 'free spirits', there is the ring of a hammer in his philosopher. I find it appalling that he still is misunderstood, but I suppose he would have wanted it that way.
The argument of will to power vs utilitarianism is misguided. Nietzsche's will to power is part of a larger explanation of how morals and moral structures come into being. Utilitarianism is a form of morality that people argue for or against. I've never heard of someone suggesting that all morality derives from utilitarian concepts but rather that we ought replace current moral structures (ie judeo-christian), based upon ideas that 'were passed down from gods', with utilitarian moral structures based upon more 'modern and rational thoughts'. Nietszsche did not argue for a morality based upon will to power he argued that all morality, all moral structures, were formed by a will to power. It should also be noted that 'will to power' is a play against Schopenhauer's 'will to nothingness' and without understanding Schopenhauer's 'will to nothingness' I would think it hard to understand Nietszche's 'will to power'.
By the bye, James how would you defend your statement as not being an ad hominem attack on Nietszche? You called him insane and uncontrolled and therefore one need not pay him any heed, and that seems dismissive, ignorant, and less than becoming of an 'honest philosopher'.

[owleye]

James,
Nietszche was an honest man with honest observations which he shared. He was by no means perfect but your dismissal of him is a little shocking. Nietzsche shook the foundations of the earth, you ought breath his name with the same sigh and reverence as when you call your deity. For those of small minds and weak constitutions, yes, he may seem uncontrolled and mildly insane but to the honest ones, those 'free spirits', there is the ring of a hammer in his philosopher. I find it appalling that he still is misunderstood, but I suppose he would have wanted it that way.
....

You are right to chasten me. Nietzsche, of course, plays an important role in the history of western philosophy, one which I shouldn't dismiss lightly, and indeed I should find something beneficial if I'm able to. From the little I understand of him, his insights into what is taken to be moral are worthy of merit. His particular character might be said to be responsible for finding fault in prevailing theories, something worth considering in the sense that a foil is often beneficial to progress.

I don't mind being wrong. Someday I may even get around to studying Nietzsche. I actually knew I was being over-the-top provocative in my response. I'm glad to see I was able to get a rise out of someone. I very much appreciate it.

James

[Dionysus]

I would first critique the question. To limit confusion the apporpriate question should have been oriented towards a Fruedian pleasure v. Nietzschean power psychology. As for the utilitarians, at least the naturalistic utliltarians, base their ethical system on the psychology. Even though before Frued, Bentham said that pain and pleasure were given to us by nature. That pleasure should be increased and pain decreased.

I think an adequate explanation of will to power is needed. Will to power is an individual's ability to overcome themself and their own situation. To accept one's life and one's situation essentially. It does not mean political power or domination over others. This was explained by Martain Heidegger in the 1930s when he quoted Nietzsche: "I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!" As for the will to power itself, it explains vastly more than the pain and pleasure idea. This is because pain and pleasure cannot explain actions we take in which we do things which increase our pain and decrease our pleasure. For example, religious martrys which are killed for their religious beliefs. It can be said that they are awaiting pleasure in the afterlife but this is a weak answer. Rather it is that they wanted power over their beliefs and to be authentic they died for their beliefs.

I also saw that Kant and his categorical imperatives were mentioned. I will first disagree with Kant on the epistemological stance. He believed that our minds constructed our experience through a single objective rational lenses. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at NYU, refuted this first by the view from nowhere assumption. The view from nowhere, or the objective rational pov, is like trying to take a picture of the national monument from neither the North, West, South or East. I disagree with Kant because I think that there are multiple ways of structuring our experiences and are driven by our nonrational nature. Also, to oppose Rawl's veil of ignorance, I believe it to be impossible to seperate oneself from their own subjective interests and desires. Also, our gender and sexuality play a role in our search for knowledge, or rather creation of knowledge. Now to move onto Kant's actual deontological ethical system.

Kant says that we have to found ethics on something unquantifiable. He uses practical reason and gets a good will. He says that nothing on this Earth can be considered good without a good will. He then derieves two categorical imperatives. The first being adherence to a universal law. That if you use your reason, which we all have according to his epistemology, then if you commit an action that if applied to the universal law and a breakdown of principles occurs then this action is morally abhorent. Then there is his second categorical imperative in which people should be considered an end in itself (Contrasted to the utilitarians idea that pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value.) This is because we are rational agents and we are autonomous. I would disagree with this because it relies on a good will being unquantifiable. That just seems like a cop out in my opinon. Also, to attack the categorical imperatives with my epistemological critiques that we aren't rational creatures. All the reason and logic in the world was created by us.

Will to power is what I affirm. That all matter has this will to power and can explain almost all of human behavior. Pleasure is merely a by product of power. But power also requires an extreme amount of suffering. It even explains what is important to me. The will to connect and I believe power explains it that we strive for the power of our situation and break the chains which separates us is one of the ultimate expressions of will to power.