What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian )

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
If science could construct a machine that, while keeping your body in perfect health, tricked your mind into believing it was very happy, could achieve anything and you lived in your personal perfect utopia, do you think it would be morally correct to enter such a machine? If you've seen the film The Matrix, think the very first matrix built where humans were constantly happy and believeing they lived in paradise.

If not, why not?

How you feel about any situation is all neurochemistry, and how you respond to particular stimuli. In some regards, yes - cogito ergo sum

[Drogue]

Re: What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian )

Originally posted by Azazel
I believe that the goal of life is life itself.
Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible. All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.

But it seems that I am not a true utilitarian after all.F.E. Utilitarians speak about spreading happiness, in general. My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race, not including animals, etc.

I know that many of you have doubts about utilitarianism. I had my doubts as well. You're are free to ask questions, counter my arguements, and present your own theories.

I agree with almost all of that. The more happiness, the better. Although I think the needs of the individual has to come in somewhere, so would not always follow whatb is best for society, but in the most part, I agree.

About farting in public, I think the utilitarian point of view would be to generally allow it. It is more of a benefit to the individual to expell it than it is to society not to have the smell IMHO. I guess it just depends on what you believe creats more happiness. However, since that does affect the rights of others, what would be the Libertarian point of view? In some case, would what's best for society be more what's best for the individual than the Libertarian point of view, since Utilitarianism means you can affect gthe rights of others?

[GePap]

As individuals are transiatory, the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent: now, the question is how one can best achieve that. Giving individual mebers a significant amount of liberty ahs been shown to increase the overall happiness and productivity of the whole.

[Drogue]

I agree. Which is why is support the legalisation of drugs, and socially liberal policies (with the exception of guns). "A man is always at his best when he is free from oppression"

[Ben Kenobi]

The biggest problem I have with Utilitarianism is trying to define happiness. What counts when trying to maximise happiness, and what does not?

One could argue discomfort is less harmful then the smell since the smell affects many people, and discomfort just affects you.

It's very difficult with utilitarianism to look at a moral problem without coming up with opposite arguments and having both equally valid under the presuppositions of utilitarianism.

Also, it can be time-consuming to calculate the greatest good for each moral situation. Sometimes you don't have that time available, but still have to decide.

One response to these criticisms is to modify utilitarianism with deontological maxims, or rules to regulate what is moral. These rules are designed to maximise happiness, so that they remain consistent with other forms of utilitarianism. This approach is called Rule Utilitarianism.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian )

Originally posted by Azazel
I believe that the goal of life is life itself.

Agreed. As long as it this doesn't make you an egotistical bastard

Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible.

What happens when the happyness of one goes against that of the other?

But since I believe that this is a false dihlemma....:*1

All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.

....I could rephrase this as such: Everything that helps people understand *1 is good.

My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race

Agreed. But not forgetting to have fun too in the meantime

You're are free to ask questions,

What is the best Ministry CD?

[Tuberski]

Re: Re: What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian )

Originally posted by paiktis22

What is the best Ministry CD?

You kill me sometimes......

ACK!

[Az]

As individuals are transiatory, the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent: now, the question is how one can best achieve that. Giving individual mebers a significant amount of liberty ahs been shown to increase the overall happiness and productivity of the whole.

Over all, I agree.

One response to these criticisms is to modify utilitarianism with deontological maxims, or rules to regulate what is moral. These rules are designed to maximise happiness, so that they remain consistent with other forms of utilitarianism. This approach is called Act Utilitarianism.

I am not sure, actually, what you describe sounds more like Rule Utilitarianism. The problem is that while certain action may increase the overall happiness, but when this action comes within a complex of desicions, it may not be the most efficient/effective.

What is the best Ministry CD?

"The Land of Rape and Honey"

[Ben Kenobi]

Edited earlier post for rule/act utilitarianism. I always get them mixed up.

Good catch.

[Az]

But what do you think about my answer?

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:

"when this action comes within a complex of desicions, it may not be the most efficient/effective."

By efficiency, do you mean the most efficient process, or the most efficient outcome?

If you mean process, this is one of the major flaws, at least with an act based utilitarianism. It is very hard to maximise happiness from our own limited perspective, while taking into account time allotted for decision-making.

If you mean outcome, then you need to be more clear on what constitutes a 'complex of decisions'. It's a rather vague term as it stands.

[Az]

By efficiency, do you mean the most efficient process, or the most efficient outcome?

could you please point out the difference?

If you mean process, this is one of the major flaws, at least with an act based utilitarianism. It is very hard to maximise happiness from our own limited perspective, while taking into account time allotted for decision-making.

why is it so? the utility of preparing the best decision/solution for the problem/issue is not a linear function of the time invested into contemplating that decision. consider the most utility extracted from a certain decision (without considering the consequences of pondering it) as a certain value, and asimptote, to which the value of 'utility of decision' strives. After a certain amount of time, it's not worthwhile pondering that decision anymore, since the "cost" in utility of pondering will actually be bigger than the amount of utility that can be extracted from it.

[Illyrien]

"Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible"


Well, it is a beatiful though, the only problem with it is this: Is it okay to rape a woman, if you get more pleasure out of it then her suffering... afterall this act does produce more happiness then is lost.

I dont believe it. I believe that the rights of the individual outweights anything else. This is why I am a liberalist (well, I think the term is Libetarian on these boards).


GePad
"the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent"
That just raises 1 questions. What is best for Humanity??? Since such a best does not exist (unless you are a Red, who tend to believe that it does, and that they alone know what it is), we should not try force "a best for Humanity" on people.

[Ramo]

One can say that my views are utilitarian as well, only with the qualifier that happiness is maximized when freedom from authority is maximized.

[Az]

One can say that my views are utilitarian as well, only with the qualifier that happiness is maximized when freedom from authority is maximized.

I am glad to hear so. However one must remember, that to each action there are immidate, and long-term repricussions.

Well, it is a beatiful though, the only problem with it is this: Is it okay to rape a woman, if you get more pleasure out of it then her suffering... afterall this act does produce more happiness then is lost

NO It's NOT! THe woman will probably be mentally scarred for the rest of her life! Also, lots of people will be afraid to walk around safely. The rapist will get just an enjoyment of a couple of minutes, and will feel bad about himself later.