How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Az]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

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)

I don't think that property should be distributed completely equally. I think that people should be rewarded for their actions, which is also utilitarian thing to do. But the situation that exists todays is apalling, from an ethical pov.

[Giant_Squid]

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)

It sounds good in theory, but in practice it seems that communism ends out causing less happiness for almost everyone. A good utilitarian would, imho, accept that
fact, realize that capitalism increases utility, and stick with it (or try a Third Way type of thing). I suppose if some country proved that Communism could deliver on all its promises and really make people happy then utilitarians would have to become Communists, but I'm not holding my breath
Utilitarianism's interesting in that it doesn't really give you any answers, it just is a way to eliminate false leads. Utilitarianism can't tell you whether communism or capitalism is better, it can only strike down arguments like that such and such a system may not make people happy but has an inherent moral superiority. Finding out which is better is still as annoying and difficult a process as always.

[Az]

I want government control of the economy, but not equal outcome for everyone. It can be done, and with technology getting better and better, it is more and more feasible.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel
I want government control of the economy, but not equal outcome for everyone. It can be done, and with technology getting better and better, it is more and more feasible.

Yes, it would be ideal if people would get the money on the basis of what they really archive
so that for example a manager doesn´t necessarily earn so much more money than a worker despite the fact that the manager is some lazy moron who doesn´t benefit the Company very much, whereas the worker is very industrious, doing much overtime work and is making many Improvements suggestions.

[Whaleboy]

This is not about economics. This is about happiness

Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Define best.

The option that has the most desirable consequences. That creates the most happiness/welfare/utility.

Originally posted by elijah
You will find it impossible to do so without referring to a certain context, in which it will obtain an inherent subjectivity.

Nope, and even so, it wouldn't be so bad because of it. Judge it on its merits, not on its supposed objectivity.

Originally posted by elijah
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

True. A better position to see, but not necessarily a better position to act. Big difference. The objective has the widest view, and can see the most. However it may not be the best option.

Originally posted by elijah
the objective (or pseudo-objective to be precise) option is always the most logical.

Say you have a debate about Britain in the Euro. There are 3 people:
A nobel prize-winning economist specialising in trading blocs,
An opinionated person who knows nothing of the consequences of joining or not joining and
A person with no opinion, who knows nothing about he issue. The last is what you would term a psuedo-objective, he is not part of the debate, he is not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it. However it would almost certainly be a better option to choose the economist, who knows what he is talking about, as he is in a better position to decide. That would be more logical IMHO, even though he is not an objective.

Originally posted by elijah
who says you cant be an artist and a philosopher at once

Looking at your attempts at art, I do

Originally posted by elijah
"I paint pictures in your mind man"

No, with , you can paint pitures in your own mind, even though it may feel like mine

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Do you steal the money and save your young child's life, or do you adhere to your anti-stealing rule?

Steal the money.

Originally posted by Proteus_PST
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

I disagree. Although I would say to GS's question that you would steal the money. I think equality does bring happiness, however I think the ability to work yourself to better things, a meritocracy, creates more happiness. Not only does it increase productivity, meaning that people have the ability to choose from more things, but it also means that on average, people have more money, even though it is unevenly distributed. I think capitalism, with caveats such as tax and public services, creates more happiness/welfare/utility, however some income/wealth redistribution, is good, for instance having a “minimum quality of life guarantee”, whereby all people are guaranteed access to basic healthcare, education, shelter and food, the ability to live. If you work you earn more, but so that no person has to live in poverty. Hence I would favour raising the tax rate (in the UK), to pay for better public services, but under a capitalist system.

Originally posted by elijah
Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical, indeed, what is or is not logical is not for you to decide. The utilitarianism approach to happiness does not even need absolutism, as it is very open. The definition of happiness can be different, and thus people do not need absolutism.

And for the why, all but the most free market of economists would say that happiness is not the same as money, and thus productivity does not necessarily bring happiness. Azazel was just pointing out to obiwan that it is about happiness, not economics.

[Whaleboy]

The option that has the most desirable consequences. That creates the most happiness/welfare/utility

A subjective utilitarian interpretation. You have done as predicted and applied a context, thus wildcards.

Nope, and even so, it wouldn't be so bad because of it. Judge it on its merits, not on its supposed objectivity

But its merits are only so in a context, which is unrelated to the validity of an opinion.

True. A better position to see, but not necessarily a better position to act

By definition, when a psuedo-objective acts along with a subjective, it becomes that subjective. However, the process of objective judging is preferable to the judging of one subjective, over another unrelated subjective, which, independent of the view of the first subjective, is equally valid.

A nobel prize-winning economist specialising in trading blocs,
An opinionated person who knows nothing of the consequences of joining or not joining and
A person with no opinion, who knows nothing about he issue. The last is what you would term a psuedo-objective, he is not part of the debate, he is not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it. However it would almost certainly be a better option to choose the economist, who knows what he is talking about, as he is in a better position to decide.

Thats not more logical, thats a strawman . The informed person, the over-opinionated, under informed person (you're not having a go at me are you jk ) and the ignoranus.

The economic choice is say, two different options. The three people have different wildcards, qualified, opinionated and uninformed, with which they make different decisions about that choice. That is precisely because of the wildcards.

However, hypothetically, you can take the three positions, and then, in a different higher context (remember the house of cards?), can then judge the three deciders. The wildcard you possess of the economic argument being better than the ignorant argument, is precisely that... a wildcard, which you are applying to judge another concept.

In the absense of something that would make a view less valid than others, all are equally valid.

[Whaleboy]

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical

Only when dealing with the subjective with which it is concerned.

[Whaleboy]

See the cultural relativism thread for peoples opinions of relativism. Absolutism is not illogical

Only when dealing with the subjective with which it is concerned.

[Whaleboy]

Ah jesus!!! When they going to replace the servers?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
A subjective utilitarian interpretation. You have done as predicted and applied a context, thus wildcards.

In saying the most happiness? No, the wildcards lie in what you believe that happiness is, and in what consequences would causes the most happiness.

Originally posted by elijah
But its merits are only so in a context, which is unrelated to the validity of an opinion.

But everything has a context to be applied. I am talking about applying Utilitarianism, hence it is in a context.

Originally posted by elijah
Thats not more logical, thats a strawman . The informed person, the over-opinionated, under informed person (you're not having a go at me are you jk ) and the ignoranus.

No, that wasn't it at all. 2 people, the economist and the overopinionated person are having a discussion, the third, the man with no opinion, is the judge. He is the pseudo objective, yet he is not in a better position to judge. What's the strawman in that.

Originally posted by elijah
The economic choice is say, two different options. The three people have different wildcards, qualified, opinionated and uninformed, with which they make different decisions about that choice. That is precisely because of the wildcards.

No, the 3rd person, without an opinion and who is "not part of the debate... not influenced by it, and he has no opinion on it", does not have wildcards. He is simply there as an objective jduge, yet he is not an better person to decide than the economist.

Originally posted by elijah
In the absense of something that would make a view less valid than others, all are equally valid.

But you have never proved that. I still find the idea of complete moral or cultural relativism as laughable as complete moral or cultural absolutism. Both are extemes and both defy logic IMHO.

Originally posted by elijah
Ah jesus!!! When they going to replace the servers?

And when will yous top posting multiple posts in a row. With 1 double post, you manage 4 posts There is no need, use 1

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah


Why? The utilitarian approach to happiness requires some inherent absolutism which is illogical at best. I prefer utilitarianism tempered with relativism, resulting in the Mill Limit, where people are merely given the means by which they can be happy on their own, with no person having less opportunity than another.

I prefer a sandwich with pastrame. It doesn't make the sandwich an ethical theory.

But you have never proved that. I still find the idea of complete moral or cultural relativism as laughable as complete moral or cultural absolutism. Both are extemes and both defy logic IMHO.

It depends under which context are we talking. under a context of small decisions, there is no point in arguing or changing, since there is little utility. Of the big questions, any choice would be noticeably more or less utilitarian, and thus, if you're "relativist" you can't be utilitarian. Utilitarianism is just one of those "equally valid positions" ( ) together with the baby rapists, capitalits, Jehova's witnesses, anarcho-commies, and whatnot.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
I prefer a sandwich with pastrame. It doesn't make the sandwich an ethical theory.

A second sig line within a day, and nowhere to put it

[The Mad Monk]

How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

I first read the title as, "How can anyone be a Unitarian?"

[Az]

What do you think about the question in hand, TMM?