Explain how the development of quantum mechanics has changed the way some scientists view reality:

Quantum mechanics is the study of both matter and energy at a microscopic level. It observes how the physical laws which apply to macroscopic objects do not apply to those at a subatomic level, as shown by their unusual behaviour. This behaviour has opened a gateway for the questioning of all such laws that previously had been confirmed and acted as a stabiliser for understanding the concept of reality, the universe as a whole and our place within it. Such development therefore has completely distorted this preconceived view of reality and the following explores in what ways and how quantum mechanics has done this.

The physical laws which remain the foundations of our very existence were first discovered by Isaac Newton whom, as a Christian, was determined to find order and purpose in the universe to fulfill the arguments design qua purpose and design qua regularity which are the classical argument for God’s existence as creator. Newton used gravity and the idea of motion to propose laws, which all bodies obeyed in every circumstance – making it possible to predict behaviour. Whilst Newton maintained that these proved the existence of God, other scientists felt that he had unlocked the key to understanding the entirety of the universe, providing science with the tools to fill in the gaps religion relied upon. However upon the development of quantum mechanics in the following century such ideas were lost and science went from being understood and predictable to being filled with uncertainty.

Such uncertainty occurred over the ideas of waves and particles. Every object at every level - be it micro or macroscopic, was thought to behave in one of two ways. For example, Newton believed that light was made up of a continuous stream of particles called photons. Whilst this is partly true Thomas Young expressed that it seemed to behave in a wave-like motion and so light proved under experimentation to function as both a wave and a particle; wave-particle duality. Furthermore in 1922 Louis de Broglie extended this duality to matter in an experiment whereby he confirmed that a beam of electrons, matter made of particles, diffracted as a wave under particular conditions. However, whilst it has been shown that both energy and matter can act as both wave and particle they can never be both at the same time. An alternative experiment which portrays this is the double-split experiment which in essence forces the electron to behave as either wave or particle as it can not pass the slit as both. When left unobserved the electrons diffracted as a wave, however upon observation they returned to behaving as a particle. Why then does the introduction of an observer determine the results? Scientists remain perplexed even today as they enter from knowledge and understanding into faith, being forced to acknowledge quantum mechanics whilst it transcends all human understanding.

Erwin Schrödinger embraced such scientific and logical contradiction and embodied it within his paradoxical mind experiment commonly known as “Schrödinger’s Cat”. The experiment defines a cat, which has been placed in a potentially lethal box, both dead and alive simultaneously where we, the observer, cannot know its fate. Whilst highlighting the semi-farcical nature of quantum mechanics this paradox of superposition emphasises science’s lack of understanding of the universe as a whole and provides a platform for even the most mind-blowing interpretations to become viable theories. The principle of Ockham’s Razor, whereby the simplest explanation is the most probable, seems now redundant and no longer in keeping with modern day science as physicists and theologians look to the unimaginable in search of comprehension.

An example of such extraordinary interpretations is that of Hugh Everett’s “many-worlds”. The idea uses the concept of superposition, the absence of an observer means an object remains in all possible states, to propose that at every point in life where there is a viable choice to be made an alternative or parallel universe is born out of all the possibilities of that choice. For example if someone were stood at a crossroad and decided to turn left, whilst they are only conscious of the universe in which they turned left, Everett suggests that there are universes in which the same person turned right or went straight on and which develop independently. Such a proposition allures thoughts of infinite universes and infinite “versions” of every human being and though this remains completely unthinkable the fact that celebrated scientists and the greatest minds on the planet give time, and even preference in the case of Stephen Hawking, to thinking of its possibility shows the distance science has come from the rigidity of Newton’s laws and the simplistic ideology of Ockham’s razor.

It seems that quantum mechanics has completely overturned science and led it to an uncomfortable state of uncertainty. Though defined by its need for evidence and conclusions, in the absence of both, science throws its hand out desperately to the complex and the unimaginable – relying on faith and belief to answer a question knowledge alone can not. In doing so quantum mechanics has changed the way many view reality – no longer are things clear and structured but rather undefined and whilst the distance between religion and science was thought to be greater than ever, quantum mechanics seems almost to intertwine them with the key principle of faith.
Bethany Stuart 12DH

Bibliography:
- AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion pg 122 - 127

Singer's Utilitarianism

Peter Singer represents a somewhat more modern view to utilitarianism, sharing his views in his works Practical Ethics in 1993. He uses the same principle of utility but distorts it from greatest pleasure for the greatest number with his idea of PREFERENCE.

"This other version of utilitarianism judges actions, not by their tendency to maximise pleasure or minimize pain, but by the extent to which they accord with the preference of any beings affected by the action or its consequence."

As previously states Utilitarianism is an umbrella term and whilst already having discussed its two main branches, ACT & RULE, another branch is that of PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM or BEST CONSEQUENCE. Rather than pleasure and pain being our motivation, one should consider the INTERESTS of those persons involved. In this way Singer eliminates the persecution of minorities, which in theory could have justified things such as the slave trade, and facilitates Bentham's original flexibility.

One may question however how viable this theory is as although arguably it relinquishes any idea of majority outruling the minority it seems impossible a task to weigh up every individual's perspective. It is also a self-confessed theory for "special occasions" and may not be used in every day life whereas RULE or ACT certainly could.

Mill's Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill was around at a similar sort of time to Bentham. He was somewhat of a child prodigy and was arguably the greatest British philosopher of the 19th century working for the East India Company and as a Member of Parliament. His works relating to utilitarianism were collected as a series of articles in 1863.

Mill maintained that the well being of an individual is of the utmost importance. However, whilst accpeting Bentham's principle of utility he was concerned that it was a purely quantitative measure (as discussed in the previous post) rather than qualitative. He famously stated;

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

He therefore came up with the concept of Higher & Lower Pleasures which categorised pleasure and made some more desirable or of more worth than others. He also stated that pleasures of the mind were of greater value than pleasures of the body. In this way Mill's utilitarianism is more in keeping with religious, in particular christian, teachings aboult self-sacrifice and how relinquishing your own pleasure for the benefit of others creates the same idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This version of utilitarianism may also be described as RULE.

Utilitarianism acts as an umbrella term for many different variations. The two most prominent are ACT and RULE. The main difference between the two is their ideology over what may be classed as good. Bentham's HEDONIC utilitarianism is more in keeping with ACT as it maintains a teleological argument of the end justifying the means. Thus an ACT utilitarian has the benefit of flexibility. RULE utilitarianism on the other hand expresses a disregard for such flexibility and believes in a more deontological approach that states the end does not necessarily justify the means. The means are therefore questionable regardless of how much pleasure is created. Some other features of RULE are in how one must obey rules/the law and therefore society's happiness before thinking of your own.

Mill's utilitarianism is therefore more of the RULE branch as he begins to lay the foundations of distinguishing pleasure to ensure that society as a whole has a rule base in which to live their lives. It is therefore arguably QUANTITATIVE as well as QUALITATIVE and may be described as an answer to the flaws in Bentham's as it overcomes some of the implications set down by such flexibility.

BENEFITS OF MILL'S UTILITARIANISM:

Viability - Mill's utilitarianism enables society to live within the confines of the law and yet still aim for the basic principle of utility and the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is therefore more realistic as it removes some of the flexibility of Bentham's theory.

Quality - Quality of pleasure was disregarded in Bentham's utilitarianism with all pleasure being generalised as good. In this way Mill further aids people in living a good life, showing preference to the arts etc than pleasures such as eating.

CRITICISMS OF MILL'S UTILITARIANISM:

Inflexibility - Whilst we have discussed the implications of too much flexibility, lack of it means that in situations that require breaking the law or society's set rules a RULE utilitarian would be unable to do so as laws take priority, regardless of whether following them causes ultimate pain. For example, if lying is breaking the law or such set rules but in doing so you would be saving a life - is it viable for a RULE utilitarian to disregard saving a person's life in order to maintain a strict moral fabric? In this way inflexibility shows how RULE utilitarianism may be unrealistic.

Society over Family - In keeping with the law coming first RULE utilitarianism seems to disregard basic primitive instincts people feel towards their family, the maternal instinct for example which in certain situations would hinder a person's moral decisions as nature takes over. Should this person be then punished for thinking of one person's happiness over society?

Bentham's Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham lived in the 18-19th century in times of great scientific and social change, i.e. the Enlightenment. With revolutions in France and America there was an outcry for human right reforms. Bentham's answer to this was written in The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) in which he proposed the theory of Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism may be divided into 3 main components:

1. Motivation - Pleasure & Pain
2. Principle of Utility
3. The Hedonic Calculus

Motivation - Pleasure & Pain:
Bentham was a HEDONIST and therefore believed that human beings were motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters; pleasure and pain."

He saw this as a moral fact and maintained that pleasure and pain embodied good and bad. Utilitarianism may therefore be described as a hedonic theory.

Principle of Utility:
After establishing that pain and pleasure were the determining moral factors, Bentham developed the principle of UTILITY. This word comes from the latin "utilis" meaning useful and therefore Bentham concluded that the rightness or wrongness of an action may be judged by how useful it is OR, as indeed he was a hedonist, how much pleasure or good it created.

"An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number"

Utilitarianism may therefore be described as a teleological theory and the end result, happiness or pleasure, justifies the means. Furthermore the theory is democratic as it relies on a quantitative measurement of pleasure, not just pleasure for one person.

The Hedonic Calculus:
As an action may have several different consequences other than just good or bad, pleasure or pain, Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus as a means in which to measure the usefulness of an action and therefore determine whether it is good or bad on a larger scale.

The Hedonic Calculus relies on 7 factors to determine how much pleasure or pain has been caused by an action:

Intensity - How great is the pleasure or pain?
Duration - How long will the pleasure or pain last?
Certainity - How definite is the pleasure or pain?
Propinquity - Refers to the proximity of pleasure/pain.
Fecundity - Are there any repurcussions of pleasure or pain?
Purity - Opposite to fecundity.
Extent - How many people will it affect?

The action that leads to the most pleasure for the most people is the morally right one.

BENEFITS OF BENTHAM'S UTILITARIANISM:

Flexibility - Has the ability to take into account any given situation individually rather than creating set rules. Furthermore it would accept the breaking of laws if greater happiness was the result of doing so.

Measurability - The Hedonic Calculus is unique in that it enables you to evaluate an action mathematically and come out with a conclusion.

CRITICISMS OF BENTHAM'S UTILITARIANISM:

Ambiguity - Has the potential to justify almost anything if in such as case it produces the greatest amount of happiness.

Quantitative - As the greatest amount of happiness is used as the embodiment of what is good the theory seems to neglect the quality of such happiness. For example is pleausre of the mind not more qualitative than pleasure of the body?

Neglects Minorities - For example, in India Sikhs are in a massive minority to both Muslims and Hindus. If someone were to annihilate all the Sikhs for the happiness of the Muslims and Hindus then according to Bentham's theory the majority would be happy and thus the action causes good. This therefore highlights the flaws in such a theory.

However... the context in which Bentham created Utilitarianism was to serve LAW REFORMS and therefore serves it purpose within the confines of that context. When we expand the theory into the realms of universal there are of course flaws as this was not Bentham's intention.