How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
you find "happiness" ambigous but you think that "welfare" is a clear-cut definition?

No, but I think it is less ambiguous, as happiness leads to people believing that killing people to make others happy is a Utilitarian thing to do, whereas using welfare prevents this in my experience.

Instead of 'pleasure' and 'happiness' the word 'welfare' is also apt: the value of the consequences of an action is determined solely by the welfare of individuals.

Originally posted by Azazel
define welfare, then

Benefit to society and the individual, if you want a definition.

[Az]

No, but I think it is less ambiguous, as happiness leads to people believing that killing people to make others happy is a Utilitarian thing to do, whereas using welfare prevents this in my experience.

If all of the consequences of the act make people more happy than more sad, it is the Utilitarian thing to do. Welfare, esp. as you define it, "benefit", is completely incorrect, and does not follow the principle of Utilitarianism. Something that will benefit a human being will many times not make a person happier. If lollypops were banned, it would benefit humans. But would it make them happier? no.

[Zero]

gladiator games are then utilitarian?

[tinyp3nis]

aww crap

[Az]

Originally posted by Zero
gladiator games are then utilitarian?

1st things first: most gladiators weren't killed. They were wounded in different degrees. Getting your gladiators killed would be stupid, since training them costed lots of money, so they generally didn't die, unless these were some special occassions.

Now considering the ethical value of gladiatorial combat: Things to weigh into consideration:

Negative Utility:
-Gladiators' injuries.
-The fact that they weren't free men.
-The violent to which the society was open, which creates many negative effects, that are bound to lower Utility.

Positive Utility:
-The enjoyment of the game by the people, for a short period of time.
- The fact that most Gladiators volunteered, since the life of a gladiator was preferred BY FAR to the life of a slave, and even opened the road for freedom.

I'd place it's utility, as a part of the Roman system as positive, but overall, negative, in other words, it bettered the Emperial Roman system, but I wouldn't have it today.

[Giant_Squid]

Gladiator games again create the problem that it transforms society from a basically free and decent place to one where you can be snatched up and used as lion bait any time someone else wants, a possibility which hurts far more than the original gladiators (especially since in Rome their way around this problem was a slave system, which is DEFINITELY a utilitarian no-no) Besides, if you're a violent cretin who takes pleasure in watching the bloody pain of others, you can just flip to a boxing match

[Az]

GS: Since we're describing the Roman system, INSIDE that system, this was indeed utilitarian, but generally, it is not. The people would still be slaves in the Roman system, yet they would be treated much more cruelly. Slaves WANTED to be gladiators.

[Velociryx]

I like this theory!

Paying my house off will make me happy.

If I kill the richest person I know, I can increase my happiness (and it's much easier than working for the money).

+ to happiness, instant gratification....sign me up! (oh, and since the person I kill will definitely have a - to happiness, I'll split the money with someone....++ to happiness. Works!

[Az]

indeed.

[Giant_Squid]

I HOPE that was a troll, but the reasons why that would decrease happiness are:

1. Even if you and your friend did pay off your houses, it still wouldn't add up to the amount of pain you've caused our hypothetical rich person and his family and friends.

2. You would go to jail, which would cause a lot of suffering on your part and make that nice house of yours pretty useless. Yes, a utilitarian society WOULD still have laws! Why? Because laws maximize utility. Everyone in a society where murder is illegal is going to be happier than the people in a society where murder is legal, with the possible exception of criminal psychopaths, who in most states are not a majority of the population.

J.S. Mill says that utilitarianism, far from opposing individual rights such as the right to life, is in fact the only legitimate BASIS for such rights. It makes sense. If we live in a society where people can't go around killing each other, everyone will be happier. If we live in a society where we can't go stealing from one another, everyone will be happier. This way makes a lot more sense than saying that there's some cosmic anti-murder law that just exists "out there" and that our reasons for not murdering are that we don't want to break this rule rather than that we don't want to cause pain to the people we're murdering and to their families.

[Az]

"murder is illegal" is wrong.

[Velociryx]

So...if I didnt' get caught, and nobody liked him anyway, happiness would increase!

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[Az]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So...if I didnt' get caught, and nobody liked him anyway, happiness would increase!

Uh huh.

-=Vel=-

[tinyp3nis]

So...if I didnt' get caught, and nobody liked him anyway, happiness would increase!

It would increase? It would if everyone _hated_ him. I don't like lots of people but only hate few. And if everyone hated him... well don't you allready have the chair for those people in America, why not make some money on the side?

[Velociryx]

Sure it would increase. It would increase a lot more if EVERYONE hated him, but if he had no friends, and everybody who knew him was ambivalent about it, then it'd increase on the basis of my happiness increase--well, and for the person I split the money with. (for everybody who was neutral, it'd be a "push")

-=Vel=-