Oh it is, to a complete degree. I still think it is the best method we have to decide on something, but I will admit it is not perfect. As a perfect system would require perfect knowledge, which can never exist.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How can anyone be a Utilitarian?
Collapse
X
-
Not everything beyong the Mill Limit involves absolutism
Indeed, in imposing the Mill Limit on a nation regardless of democracy could be seen as absolutist
Also I use the ML as an example, any comparable system would work, I just find (although I am biased) the Mill Limit to be a more consistent approach.
I am saying the framework I use for deciding what is best
It just means I want to maximise total happiness/utility"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by elijah
I know, but forcing ones will onto another, in the sense you are talking about does, indeed any active sense as opposed to passive or influence.
Originally posted by elijah
Not if the ML is the pseudo-objective for that given context.
Originally posted by elijah
Also I use the ML as an example, any comparable system would work, I just find (although I am biased) the Mill Limit to be a more consistent approach.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Comment
-
Since I do not believe in the Mill Limit, and since we are talking about realism, as in here and now, in which the Mill Limit,a s you have said, would not work, I do not think that matters
Which it isn't. You are using that as such, I am using Utilitarianism as suchIn the conflict between Utilitarianism (a society or possibly an individual etc) and an individual, one can insert a relativist system on top there and say that it has to choose between the two. In reality, that could be the part of an objective observer (in this sense, independent of the conflict between the two), and as a relativist, if I were that observer, I would not choose to kill that person for precisely the absolutist reasons I have specified.
And I find the idea of choosing what is the 'best' option for society to be the most consistent"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by elijah
Is too!In the conflict between Utilitarianism (a society or possibly an individual etc) and an individual, one can insert a relativist system on top there and say that it has to choose between the two.
Originally posted by elijah
I find the idea of choosing the most logical and objective choice for society to be most consistent, of course, by definition that is the caseSmile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Comment
-
Indeed, even with a conflict, just because it is between the two
I do not believe that the most objective choice is the best one, necessarily
Consistency matters little.
"I paint pictures in your mind man""I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Utilitarianism involves us knowing all the consequences.
Rather than performing the calculus, you follow a set of rules that allow you to make quicker decisions.
Now, I'm not a Utilitarian because of the source of the rules. I trust people less than I trust God to make an accurate set.
Azazel:
I find it interesting that you doubt Utilitarianism based on the abortion issue. Now, I can argue as a fine utilitarian why you should oppose abortion.
Look at the life of the child, in an abortion, that person will not get a chance to live a life, have children and to start their own family.
What is on the other side of the balance for the mother? Will she die without an abortion? In some cases, ectopic pregnancy, she will. In all other cases she will not.
Therefore, the life of the child does not balance the rights of the mother, since the permanent happiness loss of the child far outweighs the temporary happiness loss for the mother while pregnant.
In fact, I could argue that most unplanned pregnancies will increase the happiness of the mother over the course of her lifespan, short term pain for long term gain.
After the abortion, the mother may be happier, for the short term if she does not suffer complications. If she does, then she will be unhappier after the abortion.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Utilitiarianism is a hollow shell. We humans only just barely understand the world around us, and this strikes me as a clumsy attempt at value assignment to justify whatever acts or actions one desires.
It seems to me very arrogant for anyone except a religious person (who thinks he knows these laws because God told them to him) to think he knows this stuff so well. In fact, saying you know such universal moral principles is almost putting yourself in the shoes of God and engraving your own little "thou shalt nots" which are naturally superior to everyone else's (and of course not all that many people really agree as to what these rules are) On the other hand, we do at least have *some* power to predict our actions - otherwise we'd never be able to live a normal life, constantly wondering whether we were making a mistake by not slapping our friends in the face for no apparent reason (which by SOME conceivable chain of circumstance could end up helping him). The argument that we can't predict the consequences of our actions perfectly is one that has rarely stopped us in any other walk of life.
Since everyone got to play "make up silly scenarios for the utilitarians", can I throw one at the anti-utilitarians now? You live in the Third World in a country without decent medical care. Your young child gets an illness that will lead to an extremely painful death within a few months. It can be cured by a thousand-dollar treatment, but a thousand dollars is more than you earn in years in your sweatshop. One day the CEO of the company comes into the sweatshop for a routine inspection and asks you to hold his coat. He's a multibajillionaire, so you ask him for money, but he refuses. He then goes on some inspection, and you've got his coat, which it so happens has a few thousand dollars in bills in the pocket. You know he probably wouldn't even notice it's gone. Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?"Although I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to hear me tell you how wrong you are."
Comment
-
Precisely.Vel: It also depends how big the +s and -s are, nut just the number. Dying is a big -, whereas money is a much smaller +, in most cases. It may take millions of small +s to make one big -, if you do it like that.
Drogue: So who can say what the value of a human life is? That seems to be a rather difficult thing to nail down, yes?
Since the point is to have as much people as happy for longest period of time, a person dying is the the the (negative) utility of the actual dying, minus the value that utility of that person continuing to live.
Exactly, which is why we cannot know what the Utilitarian action, the 'best' action, is. We must make judgements on the available information though, and we have to make judgements. I believe that a desire for the maximum happiness/welfare/utility is the best way to guide each action and it's consequences, making allowance for the fact that we do not know all the consequences. We can speculate the best cause with Utilitarianism, but without it we cannot even do that and we must leave it all up to chance. If we have to choose, we should do it aiming for what creates the most happiness/welfare/utility according to all information we have IMHO. That is if we have to choose. Thus if you hav to choose between 1000 people dying, and 1 person dying, all chosen at random, we should choose the 1 person. Yes a human life is invaluble, but would any person say that their life is worth more than the lives of 1000 other people? I doubt you would find many. Therefore, forced to choose, I would choose the one.
A perfect utilitarianism would require us to know all the consequences of our actions. Since this is impossible, we have to settle for faulty measurements. This is one of the reasons people favour rule over act utilitarianism, since rule utilitarianism provides a set of rules designed to maximise happiness.
But since they look at the utilitarian value of single actions, and totally dump the global context, rule utilitarianism is... well.. not utilitarian.
Rather than performing the calculus, you follow a set of rules that allow you to make quicker decisions
Which are not the most ethical ones.
I don't believe in god.Now, I'm not a Utilitarian because of the source of the rules. I trust people less than I trust God to make an accurate set.
I find it interesting that you doubt Utilitarianism based on the abortion issue. Now, I can argue as a fine utilitarian why you should oppose abortion.
I don't doubt Utilitarianism based on abortion. I doubt abortion based on Utilitarianism.
Look at the life of the child, in an abortion, that person will not get a chance to live a life, have children and to start their own family.
What is on the other side of the balance for the mother? Will she die without an abortion? In some cases, ectopic pregnancy, she will. In all other cases she will not.
Therefore, the life of the child does not balance the rights of the mother, since the permanent happiness loss of the child far outweighs the temporary happiness loss for the mother while pregnant.
In fact, I could argue that most unplanned pregnancies will increase the happiness of the mother over the course of her lifespan, short term pain for long term gain.
After the abortion, the mother may be happier, for the short term if she does not suffer complications. If she does, then she will be unhappier after the abortion.
Pretty much my arguments against. But there are also some arguments for abortion, such as economical status, etc.
Comment
-
So if I steal 1 million dollars from some rich person, who has 100 million more dollars. Therefor it would be a a relativ minor loss to him.
Than I feed with the money 1.000 children in africa or somewhere for 1 year (or even longer...) who would other wise starve.
It would be finally the utilitarian thing to do?
Saved 1.000 lifes for 1 year = 1.000 big +++
1 Person lost 1% of his money = minor -
any flaws?If its no fun why do it? Dance like noone is watching...
Comment
-
I doubt abortion based on Utilitarianism.
But there are also some arguments for abortion, such as economical status, etc.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Giant_Squid
I throw one at the anti-utilitarians now?
You live in the Third World in a country without decent medical care. Your young child gets an illness that will lead to an extremely painful death within a few months. It can be cured by a thousand-dollar treatment, but a thousand dollars is more than you earn in years in your sweatshop.
One day the CEO of the company comes into the sweatshop for a routine inspection and asks you to hold his coat. He's a multibajillionaire, so you ask him for money, but he refuses. He then goes on some inspection, and you've got his coat, which it so happens has a few thousand dollars in bills in the pocket. You know he probably wouldn't even notice it's gone. Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?
He already said no?
Take the money.
Leave a note saying you took the money.
Try to repay over the years.
Enjoy your child.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Azazel
Originally posted by DanielXY
So if I steal 1 million dollars from some rich person, who has 100 million more dollars. Therefor it would be a a relativ minor loss to him.
Than I feed with the money 1.000 children in africa or somewhere for 1 year (or even longer...) who would other wise starve.
It would be finally the utilitarian thing to do?
Saved 1.000 lifes for 1 year = 1.000 big +++
1 Person lost 1% of his money = minor -
any flaws?
So, instead of an uneqally distribution of money (and therefore the chance to buy "happiness") where few people have lots of it and most people possess much less, money is distributed more equally among the society which therefore should also lead to an increased mean-happiness within the society
(as I said, if Communism is applied properly and such thing as Mass Murdering/Mass Deportations of people thought to be dangerous for the government don´t take place and the formerly Bourgoisie isn´t just replaced by Members of the ruling party)Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"
Comment
Comment