Is unhappiness morally more important than happiness?

Abstract

This paper asks the question whether and at which point it is morally justified to decide for a certain course of action that brings about happiness but also inflicts (some) unhappiness. If the consequences of a certain course of action do not only affect 1 person but different people the decision-making becomes more complicated. You can’t just add up positive and negative consequences and determine in a mathematical manner at which point to go for the action and at which one to decide against it… The author poses the question whether the Negative Doctrine is correct (48) or in other words: whether it is morally desirable and useful in all cases to use this philosophy as a guideline. (The Weak negative doctrine states that eliminating suffering is more important than promoting happiness + if 1 action entails happiness and unhappiness the latter weighs more.) Griffin concludes that it is more useful to treat cases „by appeal to justice“ rather than following the weak negative doctrine strictly because as long as benefits and burdens are distributed equally (in a just manner) it may make sense to go for an action even if the burdens outweigh the benefits. In interpersonal cases though (or intergenerational ones)… that is in all cases where the beneficiary and sufferer are not the same person one has to be careful! “When it comes to inflicting suffering on another person, it takes a good deal more benefit to justify the same amount of suffering“ (53)… Paper is useful for my question – happiness beyond all means?! Useful for all 3 works: Charlotte Temple, Strange Interlude, Age of Innocence