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

[Ramo]

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

Yep. I tend to weigh the long-term implications more than the short-term implications, but not by that much.

[Az]

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.

If i'd start mudslinging someone for no reason whatsoever, I don't think it's a right I wish to cherish. people should be accountable to the things they say. Rights?! they don't exist.

Ramo: I don't think that the happiness of future generations weighs less than our own. That's why am rather pro-enviromentalist. However, for example in the case of abortion rights, an individual won't be created at all, so his happiness is not trampled. The society will exist in any case, but if will suffer tremendously.

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?

1) "If I only had known, I would've become a locksmith" A. Einstein.
2) I don't agree with Einstein (and with you as well) the benefits of his theory outway the dangers of the nuke, in all aspects of life, including electronics, chemistry, etc. And that's even if we don't include the restraining effect it had on wars.

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

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

I imagine a juducial system could be created, not so different that our own, but would use different standards and values.

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

what do you think we'll do to them? kill them? starve them to death? that sound more like the libertarian way to run things.
It all depends on utility, (as always). If they start violently targetting these policies they'd be treated as criminals, jailed. If they organize some kind of warefare, they'll be destroyed. this, once again depends on utility. If the resistance to the actions would reflect higher discontent of change (natural human conservatism) than the meausres would create, the government should delay the plan, and should start explaining why would the actions be better for everone. in any case, it would be utility that will decide.

[Az]

BUMP

[Ramo]

Other way around, Dal. I think the future should weigh more than the present.

[Az]

Well, obviously, the future is more important than the present. After all, it lasts for much longer. The future is nearly infinite, while the present lasts in the broadest term for a decade or so.

[Ben Kenobi]

"I don't agree with Einstein (and with you as well) the benefits of his theory outway the dangers of the nuke, in all aspects of life, including electronics, chemistry, etc. And that's even if we don't include the restraining effect it had on wars."

-Azazel

Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

Compare Einstein's discovery with the discovery of Penicillin, which saved many people's lives, and can you not see his anguish? How many different kinds of research revolutionise the way we do things without the same cost in human lives?

I'm inclined to follow Einstein's own assessment of his research.

[Lorizael]

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?

My only problem with this is that if everyone is inside the machine living happy lives, then their is absolutely no room for improvement. At this point humanity has essentially stopped advancing and has accepted its current level. There needs to be someway of beneficially affecting humanity outside of the machine so that everyone is as happy as possible.

Odds are the machine wouldn't be perfect to start with, so you would need someone on the outside to maintain and improve the thing. The difficulty here is that the people on the outside won't be living a perfect, care-free life like those on the inside would be. This creates a separation of class, which of course has all the terrible problems we know about.

Utopia is difficult. But if the machine could be perfected, it'd be okay.

[Az]

Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

I think that ships are a terrible invention. look at how sailing caused slavery, and the deaths of millions of native americans. the japanese used ships in warfare, to attack pearl harbor. It's terrible, terrible. the germans used U-boats.

Terrible, JUST TERRIBLE. I think we should ban ships and scrap this field of science, to be banned for eternity.

see how this line of reasoning is illogical and non-productive?


Lorizeal:
exactly. IF the machine was as large as the universe, and would use up resources perfectly, and wouldn't break down? I'd be for it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

Compare Einstein's discovery with the discovery of Penicillin, which saved many people's lives, and can you not see his anguish? How many different kinds of research revolutionise the way we do things without the same cost in human lives?

I'm inclined to follow Einstein's own assessment of his research.

You're only looking at the bad points. It is an awful price, but it is as enormous benefit. Is the death of those people worth the lives of all the other people that would have died if Japan had continued fighting for a time, plus the extra energy from nucleur power, that would otherwise have to use more fossil fuels for, plus all the benefits of the knowledge we have, both now and in the future, of nucleur physics, plus all the other effects that I'm bound to have forgotten ? Which is better for humanity? Having saved those people that have died from atomic bombs, vs having saved the people that would otherwise die if we had no nucleur deterrents, from all the other wars that would have happened, from the extra deaths that would have happened had we prolonged WW2, and all the other benefits, economic, scientific, past and future from that knowledge. From a utilitarian point of view, I would say it's probably worth it. It has worked as a deterrent, and the two bombs dropped, combined with the one major disater (Chenoble (sp?)) are worth the sacrafice. It is an awful price, but it is as enormous benefit. However, also, as Azazel hinted at, it wasn't just the bombs that killed people, it was the people using them. With strict safeguards and reegulations we can avoid another Chenoble, and with detterents and pacifism we can avoid another Hiroshima or Nagosaki.

[Az]

I'd only would like to point out that I am not a pacifist. I think that a even when the world would have a united government, It should have a military (used as police) force, against terrorists, bands and organized crime, which is bound to only be more strong, with the removal of boundries. there will always be bad people sadly. the government's job is to minimize their number.

[Tripledoc]

The utilitarian utopia fails in that while it is able to produce 'happiness' it is unable to provide any existentialist meaning. To the contrary the 'happier' or rather more efficient we are the less meaning life holds for us.

That life holds any meaning for society as a whole is an absurd notion. Ultimately meaning is derived from the fact that each person is hos own universe - which makes each individuals integrity unbreachable. This means that if a person is happy it is because he has found meaning in what he does, not that 'happiness' has been provided to him from an external social construct.

[Az]

That life holds any meaning for society as a whole is an absurd notion.

right.

Ultimately meaning is derived from the fact that each person is hos own universe - which makes each individuals integrity unbreachable.

no it's not. What meaning does it give life, success etc.? unless it's something religious, of course, which is an innocent lie, at best.

This means that if a person is happy it is because he has found meaning in what he does, not that 'happiness' has been provided to him from an external social construct.

whatever a person finds happiness in, utilitarianism is for it. The question is, what do people want? to be individuals? to be free? or to simply, be happy? I know these do not contradict, the question is, what is the part, and what is the whole, what is the cause, and what is the effect?
The reason people usually want to be free ( people don't always want to be free, freedom is about making decisions, and people don't actually want to make decisions all the time ) is that for some reason, making decisions on their own makes them HAPPY, decisions and that's what they seek, and that's why they usually seek freedom.

[Tripledoc]

The universe is the whole - that universe is ultimately defined by the worldview of each individual. Life cannot be planned from A to Z. rather life is a trial and error process. If the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then some fundamental rules has to be laid down by some authority that works beyond and against the individual.
Regarding the cause and effect of happiness. What causes happiness, or rather a lack of despair, is in my opinion the human spirit and it often express itself in the 'small things' in life - in reality these things are what really counts.
If the tyranny of the majority is to decide what is good then one might say the people are free. The majority percieve themselves to be free because they are in possesion of power - meanwhile the minority percieve themselves to be unfree because they have to submit. In reality it is the other way round because the majority has shackled itself while the minority has been shackled by the majority.
The minority might then find happiness that their despair is not of their own making while the majority is not afforded such an escape route.
Hence the pursuit of happiness as laid down by the majority actually contradicts itself - because the unfree are the most happy.
The maximisation of happiness for the greates number of people must then logically be defined by a dictatorship by the fewest number of people - one man. Monotheistic religion is then to absolve that last unfree man, the dictator or king, and make him free because now ultimate responsibilty rests with the single god entity.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Azazel

The reason people usually want to be free ( people don't always want to be free, freedom is about making decisions, and people don't actually want to make decisions all the time ) is that for some reason, making decisions on their own makes them HAPPY, decisions and that's what they seek, and that's why they usually seek freedom.

When I am leaving my decision to be carried by somebody else, I think of it still as free will, (I am free to not make a decision and base my decision to someone else's judgement) so I do not think people never ever want to be "un-free".

[Az]

Life cannot be planned from A to Z. rather life is a trial and error process. If the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then some fundamental rules has to be laid down by some authority that works beyond and against the individual.

what this has to do with... anything really? I am saying that the things that cause the most happiness, i.e. happiness in more people, or more happy people. or people happy for a longer time.
the perfect government would adhere to these laws. period. that government would have a legal system that would work according to these laws.

I don't understand the rest of your post, at all.

Calc: Ok, so let me get this straight. So when people choose a dictator/king to reign over them. ( This contrary to popular belief happened in history ) and he then controls the life of the country and their lives as well, until he dies, this is still an expression of free will?