How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Zulu Elephant]

No. You are torturing someone, inflicting pain onto them and onto the person causing it (mentally) for no gain. If it would ave thousands of lives, then it could be argued to be good, and thus utilitarian.

I think this is the centre of the arguement - I would not torture or kill one innocent to save even a thousand lives (unless the innocent agreed to it - in which case it is a whole other argument)

[quote}Who are you to say what is or is not 'right'? I agree it would not be my choice of action, but that does not mean it is not right, it means I believe it is not right. Moral absolutism is a nasty little concept IMHO[/quote]

I am saying what I think is right, not saying what IS right. I am a liberal and would not be so presumptuous as to try to define the absolute right

[Q Classic]

i dunno. as long as it didn't weigh on my conciousness directly, i see no problem with a million people dying to make ten billion happy.

in other words, as long as i didn't have to carry it out, or order it, or have my hands dirtied by it. it's a lot easier and more fulfilling to protest the injustices of having that happen rather than actually having to perform said injustices yourself.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I think this is the centre of the arguement - I would not torture or kill one innocent to save even a thousand lives.

And that is where we differ. I would. One life is not worth 1000 IMHO, given that they are people at random. However it would depend on knowing the consequences, as it may work out that it creates greater utility by not doing it. The consequences is what would guide me, and which option has the 'best' consequences.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I am saying what I think is right, not saying what IS right. I am a liberal and would not be so presumptuous as to try to define the absolute right

Sorry I misinterpreted. My bad. In being a Liberal, we find ourselves in agreement.

[Giant_Squid]

Zulu - the soldiers may be volunteers, or they may be drafted.

Let me address the killing the hundred richest people thing - you're assuming it's a utilitarianally (ha! new adverb!) justifable thing to do and trying to question utilitarianism in the line of it's common sense just wrong. I believe that this line of action would, along with almost everything the average person finds to be "common sense"-ibly wrong, NOT be utiltiarian. Let me give some reasons:

1. This will create an atmosphere in which people live in fear that they will be killed for "the greater good". This will increase pain and decrease happiness compared to a society where everyone's reasonably sure the government will respect their desire to keep on living.

2. This will create a disincentive to be rich, and hence a disincentive to keep the economy turning. This sounds a bit Friedmanesque, but I do think it needs to be considered. There's probably a point at which the harm to the economy caused by wealth redistribution exceeds the benefit caused by poor people having more money - and I think that point is WAY before the scenario you envision.

3. Even if we decide that it IS necessary to redistribute this sort of wealth, it seems pretty evident that it would be far less painful to, say, give the rich an extremely high tax bracket level rather than just go around and kill them, which causes pain. There are NOT only the two choices of a stratified society and a society in which we, to take a phrase from O'Rourke, eat the rich. There are gradations that our modern American society and to a greater degree modern European societies have learned to work within.

[Az]

I am a Utilitarian. I am here. Bring it on, Biyaaatch.

If torturing, say, one thousand innocent people for the rest of their lives could increase the happiness/fulfiment of desires/whatever-you-want-to-define-it-as of the general population a hundred-fold how would you justify that?

Ahem, how is this scenario possible?

Oh and yes, what we pursue is happiness. That's the goal of people's lives. That's what people strive for. Therefore, maximizing it is the most ethical thing to do. I see that Giant_Squid and Drogue are here to pick up the slack while I will be in Uni, so... carry on.

On the "kill the rich" theme, GS has given a great answer, but since I am a socialist, my answer may slightly vary.

[Berzerker]

Oh and yes, what we pursue is happiness. That's the goal of people's lives. That's what people strive for. Therefore, maximizing it is the most ethical thing to do.

Then taking away someone's happiness is unethical.

[Az]

It could be ethical if more happiness is created by the act of taking.

[Dis]

I demand this thread be closed

someone asked how someone could be a conservative and that thread was closed.

but for the answer to the question, I will have to look that word up in the dictionary . I never really heard anyone use that word.

[Drogue]

Berzerker: In original, Act-Utilitarianism, Azazel is completely right. Take the welfare generated, minus the welfare lost, and then choose the option that gives the highest value for this. However there is Positive Utilitarianism and Negative Utilitarianism. The former of these wants only the maximisation of welfare, regardless of the negative implications, the latter wishes for the minimisation of pain and unhappiness, regardless of the benefits. These are not quite 'true' Utilitarianism, as per Benthams ideals, but are versions that have been invented.

Dissidents: Whether a thread or not is closed is notn just about the title, it is about how people react. People have reacted by having a discussion about Utilitarianism, which was the intention, and thus needs not be closed. If people acted by giving troll ratings, smilies and flaming, it would have been closed. If you want a definition, look at the one I gave a few posts above

[Az]

Negative utilitarianism is a bunch of bull****. If everyone were dead, noone would suffer, right?

Both "suffering" and "happiness" should be taken into the equation.

There is also "Rule Utilitarianism" which a bunch of crap.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Azazel
I am a Utilitarian. I am here. Bring it on, Biyaaatch.

Ur presence on this thread was like... so foreseeable.

[Drogue]

Well, maybe death is a release. I am not so quick to dismiss either, although I think total welfare should be what is important. However I do understand the attration of a stress and pain free life, even if it does not bring the rewards of a more 'full' life. All the forms of Utilitarianism seem a little superficial, for instance, Rule Utilitarianism is just where someone believes that keeping promises creates the most welfare. It is still Act Utilitarianism, since it is the option which creates the most welfare in total. Moreover, the more long term view, that keeping promises can lead to more welfare in the future, rather than just the short term effects that some people think of Act Utilitarianism, is a good idea IMHO. Utilitarianism should be viewed in the long term.

[Az]

Originally posted by Zero


Ur presence on this thread was like... so foreseeable.

I think I am becoming the David Floyd of utilitarianism.

Well, maybe death is a release. I am not so quick to dismiss either, although I think total welfare should be what is important. However I do understand the attration of a stress and pain free life, even if it does not bring the rewards of a more 'full' life. All the forms of Utilitarianism seem a little superficial, for instance, Rule Utilitarianism is just where someone believes that keeping promises creates the most welfare. It is still Act Utilitarianism, since it is the option which creates the most welfare in total. Moreover, the more long term view, that keeping promises can lead to more welfare in the future, rather than just the short term effects that some people think of Act Utilitarianism, is a good idea IMHO. Utilitarianism should be viewed in the long term.

I don't think that welfare is what people seek, but happiness. Some people will find happiness in welfare, i.e. peacefull, stressless existance. Others will take up extreme sports to spice up their lives.

[Drogue]

Azazel: Welfare is happiness. Welfare was what Bentham used instead of happiness to describe utility. Read utility or happiness instead of welfare if you wish, they are meant in the same way, although I find happiness to be a bit ambiguous and not quite what is meant personally.

[Az]

you find "happiness" ambigous but you think that "welfare" is a clear-cut definition?
define welfare, then