Hypocrisy and Utilitarianism

Two interesting questions were raised for me in this week's seminar, the first being; Was Mary Wollstonecraft a hypocrit?

As discussed in last week's post, Wollstonecraft fought all her life for the recognition that she felt women deserved. Witnessing first hand the brutality with which her father treated her mother, she set out to open the public's eyes to the disadvantages and inequality that the fairer sex suffered from during the 18th Century, most noticeably through her writing of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Her arguments revolved around the superficial education that women received, as the male gender were regarded as possessing far more potential in life, while the future of the females was seen to be centred around the home and properly raising children. It was this lack of schooling, Wollstonecraft argued, which fostered the sensibilities that women had become associated with, forming a dependence upon their male counterparts. Indeed, it was regarded as a success in life for a woman to become married and reliant on a husband.

As one of the very first active feminists to emerge in recent centuries, she sought after equal rights for both genders and a fairer chance at future success, with greater prospects. She felt that women should stand up for themselves and become independent from their husbands and brothers. But, rather ironically, these calls for justice came from a woman who attempted suicide by jumping into the Thames, when she began to experience problems with her own lover...

I jumped at this action during the seminar, citing Wollstonecraft as a hypocrit and perhaps somewhat of a traitor to her beliefs. But as was pointed out, Wollstonecraft lived during the 18th Century herself, at such a time when society had drilled into her the current ideals of 'the woman's place'. Afterall, she herself had received a meagre education, but was fighting for future generations, so can she really be blamed? Perhaps you can still criticise her for not resisting more so, those ideals that she so despised, but I for one certainly hold my hands up in deciding to retain a certain amount of empathy for her situation.

The final brief point that I wanted to make was the debate over utilitarianism - the 'science of happiness'. My question is just that - can happiness, (or any other human emotion for that matter), be treated as a science? Jeremy Bentham was a great advocate of such, proposing that the exact nature of a person's happiness at a given time was down to a number of different factors and variables, including the length of time such happiness lasts. One of Bentham's students, however, a certain John Stuart Mill, rejected his theories somewhat, suggesting that some 'happy moments' are of a much higher standard than others, and cannot be compared with other inferior ones, (for example, the completion of a great novel or piece of literature, will always supercede the happiness gained from watching your favourite TV show).

In my own opinion, I would have to take sides with Mill. Human emotions are difficult to understand at the best of times and far too complex to interpret as methodically as Bentham perceived it possible to do so. This is entering territory, which may take mankind many more centuries to understand.