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

[Illyrien]

"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."

Try reading that example again.

The problem with utilitarism is that it is okay to violate the rights of somebody as long as more people gain from it. A Rape is a good example of this. Sending 10% of the population into workcamps as long as the remaining 90% benefits from it, is the same.

[Drogue]

Yes, were that to create more happiness, Utilitarianism would be for it (IIRC). In the real world however, I doubt a rape could ever create more pleasure than the damage it causes, and the same about the workcamps. I don't think the benefit to the other 90% would be that great, but the damage to that 10% would be enormous.

A better example I see is about doctors in this country (the UK). There is a lack of them, and such many work extremely long hours (100+ hours per week for some. That is a large disadvantage to them, but the extra lives saved make up for it, and they are remunerated for this. In this way, if people pay and recieve the total social cost/benefit for a particular act, the market will sort out everything to promote the most happiness. However that would involve many subsidies/taxes to reach the true social cost, and moreover, it is impossible to get the true social cost for everything. However were it to be that that doctors worked worse because of lack of sleep due to long hours, the best thing would be to cut their hours.

[Az]

The problem with utilitarism is that it is okay to violate the rights of somebody as long as more people gain from it. A Rape is a good example of this. Sending 10% of the population into workcamps as long as the remaining 90% benefits from it, is the same

1) What are rights? why do people have rights? Do people have rights now?
2)There is NO way that the enjoyment of utter total complete extatic sex that would last for a couple of minutes, would be more than the mental scarring of a woman because she was forced to sex, not to metion the shock and the horror of the act itself. If it would be, it would be ok. BUT THERE IS NO WAY.
3)The work camps example: the amount of actual benefit that the 90% would get from slave labor would be rather minute. The rest of society will still have to feed them, and cloth them, and even that minute benifit would be overwhelmed by the agony of the people suffering in the slave camps.

, it is impossible to get the true social cost for everything.

sure it is, but you can get a good approximate. A good judicial system that would value these things is needed. How deep will they dig, how close will the try to stive? AS LONG AS IT IS WORTH IT, in utilitarian terms.

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

following the same logic, most utility comes from the entire world getting continuously stoned. However, for the long run, this will result in the death of humans.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Azazel
1) What are rights? why do people have rights? Do people have rights now?
2)There is NO way that the enjoyment of utter total complete extatic sex that would last for a couple of minutes, would be more than the mental scarring of a woman because she was forced to sex, not to metion the shock and the horror of the act itself. If it would be, it would be ok. BUT THERE IS NO WAY.
3)The work camps example: the amount of actual benefit that the 90% would get from slave labor would be rather minute. The rest of society will still have to feed them, and cloth them, and even that minute benifit would be overwhelmed by the agony of the people suffering in the slave camps.

I tried to say much of that, although I think you worded it much better.

Originally posted by Azazel
sure it is, but you can get a good approximate. A good judicial system that would value these things is needed. How deep will they dig, how close will the try to stive? AS LONG AS IT IS WORTH IT, in utilitarian terms.

Yes, i agree, I wanted to present the limitations though. Since it is so complex a problem, egtting close can be hard. Nevertheless, I agree it is needed, rather than letting private cost/benefit rule all.

Originally posted by Azazel
following the same logic, most utility comes from the entire world getting continuously stoned. However, for the long run, this will result in the death of humans.

I think ramo's view was valid. I have often heard that "a man is at his best when he is free from oppression". I believe this is partly true, and so overall happiness often comes from freedom. However, I think happiness, not freedom, is the overall goal. And rights are just a concept invented by people. I do not think there is such a thing as a 'natural right', but that rights are given by people, for mutual benefit.

[Az]

I have often heard that "a man is at his best when he is free from oppression".

yes, but when you go the libertarian way, it's a slippery slope. taxes are theft, remember?

[Drogue]

Yes. Libertarian, in some cases, is a good way to find happiness. However, I don't think freedom and happiness are necessarily intrinsic. You can be happy without freedom, and you can (very easily) be free without being happy.

BTW Azazel, what are your political views? You said before you were centrist, yet you're a member of the Apoyton Communist Party?

[Combat Ingrid]

[Drogue]

Um... What's that about? Am I being really thick or is that a joke?

[Combat Ingrid]

It's a joke.
The movie is about a tv-show where they kill people for entertainment, slightly utilitarian perhaps...

[Drogue]

Hmmmm.... And that entertainment is worth that persons death? I get the joke, but it seems a little strange trying to brand a ideal that wants to create the most happiness as immoral

[Az]

BTW Azazel, what are your political views? You said before you were centrist, yet you're a member of the Apoyton Communist Party?

I am a centrist in today's Israeli security dillema, and I vote for the Liberals, but that's only because they're the only political party with credibility left, and are anti-religious.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Drogue
I get the joke, but it seems a little strange trying to brand a ideal that wants to create the most happiness as immoral

I never said that utilitarism is immoral, overall I actually agree with it. It's just that you can get into weird situations if you follow it too strictly. I can imagine situations were you kill/rape/etc people and there will be a net happiness increase, like in the movie above (which btw is really cool!) but I don't think the increased happiness would justify it at all.

I say treat others as you want them to treat you

[Az]

I can imagine situations were you kill/rape/etc people and there will be a net happiness increase, like in the movie above

didn't actually see the movie.

[Ben Kenobi]

Process- how the decision is made
Outcome- what decision is reached

An efficient process makes moral considerations quickly.
An efficient outcome improves the way in which society/ people operate.

"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."

Intriguing. How does one compare time spent with improving the moral decision? What kind of calculus is used? If one can spare a life by spending another 6 months making a moral decision, is that time spent worthwhile?

"However one must remember, that to each action there are imm[edia]te, and long-term rep[er]cussions."

This is one of the problems- you cannot figure out all the consequences your actions will have. Could Einstein have foreseen the horrors created by the atomic bomb? If he did, would he still have embarked on his research?

I believe we are responsible even for the unforeseen results of our actions. Do Utilitarians believe the same?

As for the rapist example, what if the woman was killed after being raped numerous times? Is there any amount of pleasure/happiness equivalent to someone's life? If no, then why?

[Illyrien]

How do you deside what will help the most people the most?

And who should deside this? Greenpeace, UN, Oil companies or what?

And how about those that disagree? What should be done about them? Afterall they are fighting against the "Right" cause!



Azazel
The point with my Rape example was that if you are being truly utilitarian, you dont care about the rights of people. They prevent the greater good afterall....

One more thing, about those rights you ask about... well freedom to post your oppinions in this forum is a right... just imagine that somebody though that you positng your oppinions cause more damage then good, then they could, according to utilitarian though, take your freedom of speach away.