Ten Books Part IX: Another big mistake
Wiker claims that Mill's theory was inspired by the Hellenic Philosoher: Epicurus. He claims that Epicurus believed that all matter was the result of the banging around of materials called "atoms (in Greek the word means "un-cuttable") thus making Epicurus the first Evolutionist. This is wrong on two parts: the first being that this theory of atoms isn't originally Epicurus' but rather two philosophers named Democritus and Leucippus. Secondly, there is no notion of any concept of Evolution in either of the three men's writings. The atoms combine in an orderly fashion because some have hooks, others have loops, etc. It might be easier to think of those atoms as being Lego blocks, because Legos don't undergo any sort trial and error growing into different creatures.

It might be a forgivable mistake, but if my Intro to Philosophy students can get this right on a test I would think that a PhD would be able to as well. Wiker rightly asserts that Epicurus developed a moral code based on pleasure and pain. Pleasure equalling good, while pain equaled bad. Then Wiker takes it one step further with a giant leap into failure, "adultery might be pleasurable for the alduterer, but what about the jilted spouse, or the children who are betrayed and confused when the marriage breaks up?"

Neverminding the fact that children aren't betrayed because no promise has been made to them, Wiker is severely wrong in this supposed application of the principles of Epicurus. It is true that the pleasure principle governs Epicureanism but if we actually do some basic work looking at the work we realize that Epicurus was not as simplistic as Wiker makes him out to be. Epicurus believed that abstaining from desires was the key to happiness. The only desires that should be fulfilled are what can be called "natural necessary desires." These are desires that are intrinsic to the body and necessary for its survival. Eating, drinking, clothing, and shelter pretty much round them out. Fancy food, gaudy clothing, and large mansions are artificial desires and should be resisted under all circumstances. These things might be pleasurable but since they have no permanent fulfillment they actually cause pain in the long wrong, they become obsessions.

What about sex, it's natual? Sexual desires are what Epicurus called a "natural unnecessary desire." It is intrinsic to the body but is not requisite to survival. Plus the fulfillment is so intense that catastrophic consequences are often ignored, such as the break up of a marriage and the abandonment of children that it should be resisted. It is specifically mentioned in almost all texts regarding Epicurus' theory as something that leads to misery. Wiker is trying to shoehorn a theory into his worldview that just doesn't work. Mill borrowed it for a reason: to cleave Utilitarianism from Hedonism. It's actually a great irony of Philosophy that modern notions of Epicureanism mean exactly the opposite of what Epicurus meant. Wiker should understand this, which leads to two possibilities.
       1: that he does and ignores the truth to further his argument.
       2: That he doesn't and is ignorant of some basic facts that he should be teaching in Intro to Philosophy courses.

Both are academic crimes which lead to a systemic failure in Wiker's criticism of Utilitarianism. By claiming that Mill is nothing more than a Hedonist he ignores the fact that Mill instituted sanctions in his theory against such behaviour. While it may be true that a Utilitarian could cover himself with olive oil and parade through the streets naked these sanctions would prevent him from doing so. Public sanctions, such as community shaming or excommunication would stop such behaviour. There are also legal recourses where harm extends to others, plus their are internal sanctions like sympathy and empathy that would prevent a person from becoming a wanton pleasure seeker.

The only criticism of Utilitarianism that holds any water is Wiker's attack on the quality value of pleasure. The classic example is that a disatisfied genius is happier than a satisfied fool. What would make a smart person happy (finishing a particularly difficult puzzle or learning Greek) is much more important in value than what entertains an idiot (NASCAR). The correct assault is that Mill is an academic elitist, but instead of concentrating on this aspect of the theory Wiker decides that it is better to be long winded and incorrect rather than terse and right. He picks quantity over quality, no wonder he hates Mill.

Technorati Tags: Wiker, Ten Books that Screwed Up the World, John Stuart Mill