How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Drogue]

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.

[Whaleboy]

Not everything beyong the Mill Limit involves absolutism

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.

Indeed, in imposing the Mill Limit on a nation regardless of democracy could be seen as absolutist

Not if the ML is the pseudo-objective for that given context. It is not an absolute and is thus not applicable to all, or indeed anything outside of that context. In the utilitarian sense, the Mill Limit would prevent you from forcing utilitarian views, i.e. killing a person, onto another, despite the logic used to back up that action by the Utilitarian, the logic is as subjective as that position and would not justify forcing it onto another, to whom it does not necessarily apply.

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

Which works for you, but that position and the logic you use to back it up, or the logic a utilitarian society uses to back it up, does not justify forcing it onto another, i.e. carrying out that action by killing someone, nor would it classify that action as logical because of that very same reason... it is being forced onto another to whom the assumptions used to base ones utilitarian views need not apply.

It just means I want to maximise total happiness/utility

Then the utilitarian would advocate that point of view, however, in the case of a utilitarian, or a utilitarian society, vs the individual whose death it would justify as being beneficial in a utilitarian context, one has a simple debate in society, to which the society must judge, and any sociological model would do so. In my case, it would be the Mill Limit, although in any relativist (non absolutist) system, it would apply, that that extra wildcard of relativism would prevent it from choosing the total utilitarian approach.

[Drogue]

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.

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. Laws against hard drugs is active impedance, but it works better for todays society than ones without. When we are ready for the Mill Limit, as you have said, it will also be Utilitarian, as it will be the option that creates the most happiness. However for the world we live in today, the ML would not work, and thus is not the 'best' option.

Originally posted by elijah
Not if the ML is the pseudo-objective for that given context.

Which it isn't. You are using that as such, I am using Utilitarianism as such. As you know I do not believe in pseudo objectives in the way in which you do.

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.

And I find the idea of choosing what is the 'best' option for society to be the most consistent.

[Whaleboy]

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

Any relativism-based system (i.e. one that is not based on flawed absolutist principles) can be dropped in place of the ML. I'm merely using it because I find it to be more consistent out of the myriad of possible rel. based systems.

Which it isn't. You are using that as such, I am using Utilitarianism as such

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. 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 find the idea of choosing the most logical and objective choice for society to be most consistent, of course, by definition that is the case

[Drogue]

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.

There is not conflict here. We are discussing Utilitarianism. To bring in another concept, the Mill Limit, is not more and objective than Utilitarianism. Indeed, even with a conflict, just because it is between the two, does not make it objective.

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 case

As you know, I do not believe that the most objective choice is the best one, necessarily. And I think quailty, what is best, is more important than consistency. I mean, does anyone really care if their gravy is too thin when talking about political philosophy? Consistency matters little

[Whaleboy]

Indeed, even with a conflict, just because it is between the two

The conflict I am debating is between the utilitarian and the individual who he advocates killing for the greater good etc. In this case, an objective with relativist/Mill Limit wildcards will not choose the absolute utilitarian path of killing that person, because it is precisely an absolutist action, as previously posted, dont get me copying and pasting this late!

I do not believe that the most objective choice is the best one, necessarily

Define best. You will find it impossible to do so without referring to a certain context, in which it will obtain an inherent subjectivity. As such, I fall back to the notion that the most objective (due to "field of view", so to speak, consideration, and the wildcards of probably higher concerns) is in a better position to see, but then, again from a non-absolutist point of view, the objective (or pseudo-objective to be precise) option is always the most logical.

Consistency matters little

In that sense in which you speak, I agree, however, in the bigger picture, philosophical consistency means that concepts can be woven together and reconciled with much greater logic, ease and power. Also, I believe in the aesthetics of a concept, and I find ideas and concepts to be more beautiful and aesthetic in an artistic sense, when they are consistent, of course, in this context is not important, but who says you cant be an artist and a philosopher at once .

"I paint pictures in your mind man"

[Ben Kenobi]

Utilitarianism involves us knowing all the consequences.

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.

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.

[Giant_Squid]

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.

I think this is one of the best arguments FOR the utilitarian position (note that I am arguing from an atheistic standpoint here - you can't argue utilitiarianism very well from a traditional religious viewpoint, though I'm sure someone could try). In a deontological stance, you claim to know fundamental moral laws of the Universe - laws that are beyond normal human laws and therefore superior to them. You claim to know these laws so well that they are important enough that you should follow them even if following them causes pain to a lot of people.
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?

[Az]

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.

Precisely.

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.

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 don't believe in god.

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.

[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?

[Az]

there is the entire "lawlessness" factor, but yes, I think that this would be a good thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I doubt abortion based on Utilitarianism.

Well then I wasted a fine post.

But there are also some arguments for abortion, such as economical status, etc.

I would think zeroing the child's productivity plays a much larger role than any effect on the mother's productivity, from the standpoint of economics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Giant_Squid

I throw one at the anti-utilitarians now?

It's a free country.

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?

What would I do?


He already said no?

Take the money.
Leave a note saying you took the money.
Try to repay over the years.
Enjoy your child.

[Az]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I would think zeroing the child's productivity plays a much larger role than any effect on the mother's productivity, from the standpoint of economics.

This is not about economics. This is about happiness.

[Proteus_MST]

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?

there is the entire "lawlessness" factor, but yes, I think that this would be a good thing.

So somehow you can say that Utiliarism should be Communist, because in Communism (if properly applied) you have no single persons who own a lot of money, but it is more equally distributed, because most of the larger Industries are administrated by government.
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)