Hey guys, just a discussion on all that is Utilitarian. What is the best version of it, why it fails, why it succeeds,and worst misunderstanding of it you've come across. Remember the basis of all utilitarianism
Principle of utility: The greatest happiness for the greatest number. (An essay on the principles of Govt Jb preistley).
How would you describe happiness?
Utilitarianism is hedonism.
>>317093
I mean you can only sling that mud at Bentham because his the only one who defined happiness as pleasure. I would argue that Bentham's theory is more refined then simply hedonism, he even has a calculus. Do you like the theory or nah?
>>317098
For economics, there is no alternative to utilitarianism. And in public consciousness, utilitarianism won. This has positive points and negative points.
>>317113
> public consciousness, utilitarianism won
I would argue that there is no society that is truly Utilitarian because the public conscious would reject it. In modern western democracy the common idea that everyone should be catered to, and protected, the rights of minority groups are pervelant in the public psyche.
>>317086
>Utilitarianism
top kek OP top kek
>>317205
I mean yeah I like Kant as well, but I'm not sure if his arguments completely succeed against Utilitarianism.
>>317086
Riddle me this, OP: if 50 people hate one person so much that his continued existence would cause them more combined anguish than him being painlessly killed in his sleep would cause him, is killing him morally justified?
>>317242
Depends on which type of Utilitarian you are. Bentham would say yes, Mills would say no, Peter would say yes. This is because Bentham would go according to the hedonic caclus, and since that person's existence is directly causing pain for a greater amount of people, then he has to go. Mill would argue that your infringing on this person's autonomy, which isn't ok. Also he would ask what type of Society are the people in, is it the rule to kill people who cause displeasure? What type of displeasure is he causing, is it merely physical or his he causing some higher mental anguish. Personally I would say its fine
>>317368
>Mill would argue that your infringing on this person's autonomy, which isn't ok
Is this something that can be derived fro the utilitarian principle of increasing happiness?
>Personally I would say its fine
And this is why reasonable people habe every reason to steer clear of anyone who proclaims himself an utilitarian.
>you have a moral obligation to cause the greatest good
>even at your own expense
>you have a moral obligation to sacrifice yourself to save 2 other people
>you have a moral obligation to donate to charity at all costs
>you have a moral obligation to get a high-paying job so you can donate more to charity
bravo, bravissimo
I heard STEMlords and assorted science autists are fucking obsessed with utilitarianism, what gives?
>>317392
steer clear of anyone who proclaims himself an utilitarian
Have you ever heard of the orginastion NICE? Their a regulatory body inside of the NHS which dictates which drugs to research. For example if there is a rare type of cancer they would evaluate how much money it would cost to research as opposed to using that to buy more drugs for existing illness that affect more people. Most society's are Utilitarian (this is what a democracy is) and most people do make Utilitarian decisions on a day to day basis. Otherwise it'd be immoral to fight in WW2. It is human to evaluate.
> your own expense
Yeah no Utilitarian is arguing against this point.
>STEMlords and assorted science autists are fucking obsessed with utilitarianism, what gives?
Because the nature of Act Utilitarian (which is hte most common and known form Utilitarianism) is quantfible, you litteraly use a caculus in it. This makes it attractive as it's more clear and "scientific" to make the right decision. It's much easier and usable than say, Kant's ethical theory.
>>317410
It is the anempty theory for empty people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
Reminder utilitarianism is basically just despotism in ethical form.
>>317410
>STEMlords
>sane
Just look at the "lesswrong" cult and their "donate to our AI research that has never actually done anything or get killed by our robot overlord that will be built any year now!" bullshit.
These people belong in a mental asylum where they are forced to do science all day
Guys "look up this or that" isn't a discussion, its letting someone else speak for you. >It is the anempty theory for empty people.
Why is it empty? For me its a very practical theory that helps guids us into doing the right thing. It's also extermly human because its one of the only theory's that allow for "circumstances" i.e factors in a situation actually affect how moral your action is. This means you can apply it to complex situations, something you can't do with any de-ontological theory.
>>317671
What are you talking about?
>>>317582
That is a will full misrepersentation of Utliternaims simply because it wouldn't be allowed as your letting the pleasure of an individual get over a group. A better critic is if you had a group of people who were sadist and got more pleasure from torturing one person etc etc
>>317511
>Most society's are Utilitarian (this is what a democracy is)
That doesn't make any sense. Also, nothing you said before that nonsensical statement had anything to do with utilitarianism.
>>317732
How does it not make sense? Democracy's operate under majority rule, at its heart Utliternaism is Majority rule "Giving greatest good to the greatest number. Before that I was giving an real world example of real world humans using the ethical theory. An organzing body is pirotizing life saving research into certain drugs, how does it do that? It evaluates how much impact that research would make and crucially how many people it would impact. Seems like Utilitarianism to me
>>317732
There are real critiques about majority rule you could have argued, could have said it leads to the subjection of minority's, but no you had to be an ass.
>>317790
Democracy isn't reduced to "majority's rule" and wasn't conceived as such. The purpose of democracy is to allow a violentless shift of power, and to give legitimacy to counterpowers.
>>317790
>at its heart Utliternaism is Majority rule
I'm pretty sure that utilitarianism is not a system of rule at all. Utilitarianism is not concerned with the participation of the majority in the politcal process, but only with their happines.
>An organzing body is pirotizing life saving research into certain drugs, how does it do that? It evaluates how much impact that research would make and crucially how many people it would impact. Seems like Utilitarianism to me
Ok fuck it, I give up. I can't explain to you why I think utilitarians are mistaken if that means I have to explain all the things utilitarianism is and isn't. Do yourself a favour and read a book.
>>317805
Ok so at its heart in western society how does a democracy operate? What makes Engalnd a democracy as compared to ruling families of Saudi?
>>>317814
>utilitarianism is not a system of rule at all
Of course it's not, its an ethical theory, but like all ethical theory's you can extrapolate it to most situations because crucially, their meant to be used.
>Ok fuck it, I give up. I can't explain to you why I think utilitarians are mistaken
Sorry for being rude before, but im extermly intrested in what you deem utiltiarinism to be? And explain to me how my example doesn't apply?
>>317086
Defining happiness/suffering, or what disproportionate weight should be granted to either, isn't even the hardest part. It's the utter chaos and intractability of actually trying to reconcile clean utilitarian "calculation" with reality.
>>317887
Thats why Mill (Bentham's freind) updated the theory. Im assuming (probably wrongly) your not to familiar with it i'd like to get your thoughts? He basicaly rejected the caculus and instead went for a more qualtitive apporach, he was much more concerned with the quality of the "happiness" than the amount. I dont think its that hard to make a clean utilitarian calculation, in fact i would argue its pretty innate to humans to do so.
It's been awhile since i shit on utilitarianism but am happy to do so. First is Mills and Bentham theory has one big down fall and that is they only take rational reasoning into their format ethics, which is everybody followed would be the most rational thing to do, but that make us no better than robots. They forgets to take into "the self" by which i mean what's good for you may not be good for everyone else, but would cause the individual more pain/happiness if you did not have that good and distributed equally for others. So people think half emotionally and half rationally and their failure to recognize that makes their theory not relatable to the real world.
>>317852
Ok look, for starters, democracy is older than utilitarian theories, and it has quite a sizeable faction among its supporters who believe that democratic freedom is in fact more important than happiness.
Second, why your example doesn't apply, has it crossed your mind that the ethical goal of saving human lives, for example by medical research, is not in any way exclusive to utilitarianism? That there might be other ethical reasons for such acts than increasing happiness? For example, it also fits perfectly well with the kantian obligation of treating each human being as an end in itself.
>>318470
But with kants third formulation of natural law, you can't have an organization like NICE (which i was talking about, not the concept of medical research as a whole, you misunderstood me) because you are basically evaluating life. NICE is an intrisnically utliterain thing. As is when a hospital stocks up on certain drugs over others (the reasoning being it'd benefit more people choosing this drugs over others) when they have budgetary constraints. So I think my example still applys
> democratic freedom is in fact more important than happiness
As would a rule utilitarian.Are you trying to say that a working democarcy isn't a majority rule? Then explain voting. Utltiarinsim was born on from discourse on democracy, its key principle is from a book that talks about govts, so there is I believe an intrinsic relationship between both.
> "the self" by which i mean what's good for you may not be good for everyone else
I would agree that on the surf that seems like a good counterargument but it fails to completely "shit" on Utilitarianism for 2 reasons. 1) The calculus does take into account a person's on personal pleasure, the critique only works with Mill who try's to define pleasure as low and high happiness (and therefore it is valid to it's very subjective what "high" and "low" pleasure is) 2) Unilateralism (Im a phony i can't spell it fuck me) is a teleological theory, that means it intrinsically is there to relate to the world. Look how it doens't make any call to "moral law " or "duty" but observable natural facts in the world. Its inherently grounded in reality.
>>318365
I hope I don't come of as incendiary in my replies i really like to hear more critiques. Is there a better theory do you think that is more relate to this world?
>2015
>Still believing that pain and pleasure are "opposites" of each other
>>318770
You can derive pleasure from commonly thought of as painful acts yes. So what is the point your trying to make my friend?
>>318784
Pain and pleasure are two completely different stimuli that have nothing to do with each other.
They are only conflated into a dichotomy by philosophers and nobody else.
>>318796
Pain is caused by a large number of action potentails reaching the brain, doesn't matter to much about the stimuli (sorry just nitpicking). Second I'm a bit confused as what your trying to say friend?
>>318814
I'm saying a better way for Utilitarians to go about things is by defining their philosophy around the dichotomy of "Happiness/Suffering" rather than "Pain/Pleasure"
>>318823
Rule Utilitarian due. But the definition of pain/pleasure does recognize that their two separate things? The goal for Act utlitarnis is to reduce the pain and increase the pleasure. It's not about dichotomy when it comes to utilitarianisms but i am interested in why you think it is?
>>318837
I'm mostly just wondering what utilitarianism is even based on to begin with.
"We should reduce pain and increase pleasure"
Why?
Because of your feelings? Because it would be nice? Yeah we'd all like nice things.
>>318846
It's based on the paramagntic idea of "increasing utiltiy for the greatest number". Yeah we would all like nice thing, someone thought that it would be a good idea to create an ethical theory that allows the most amount of people to have nice things when faced with moral dilemma. Do you feel that an ethical theory should be divorced of feelings? Like Kants?
>>318855
Ethics and morality are group-survival strategies endowed to us by evolution which primarily function to keep societies running smoothly without devolving into barbarism and (both literal and metaphorical) cannibalism.
Ethics should thus be based on that, and that alone - survival. Specifically, survival of the society that adopts said ethical system. Everything else comes after.
>>318866
Are you saying that people in the 21centuary should still follow the moral codes of Neanderthals? That seems incredibly useless ethical theory as it won't apply to most people i.e major societies are no longer going to "devolve into barbarism". Luckly though your more than abel to apply utltiarinsim into survival situations, and I'm sure you'd be pretty successful. For example the nomadic tribe who leave children behind if they can't cross the desert as they'd be a burden to the rest of the tribe (that'd be A-OKAY according to bentham)
> Everything else comes after
So life, love liberty, freedom, satisfaction and human rights aren't important ethical issues to talk about and consider when making a theory?
>>318911
>For example the nomadic tribe who leave children behind if they can't cross the desert as they'd be a burden to the rest of the tribe (that'd be A-OKAY according to bentham)
Except that would be a-okay, and is something that happened many many times in ancient history I can bet you. Would you rather the majority (or all) of the tribe just die?
>So life, love liberty, freedom, satisfaction and human rights aren't important ethical issues to talk about and consider when making a theory?
Yes.
Its very hard to have any of these things if your society is destroyed/conquered/in ruins/self-destructed
Survival comes first. Everything else comes after.
>>318911
>That seems incredibly useless ethical theory as it won't apply to most people i.e major societies are no longer going to "devolve into barbarism".
Consider how wild and savage people get over Black Friday deals.
Now consider what would happen if they were fighting over food instead of TVs.
Every civilization, no matter how advanced and "civilized", is just a few shortages and disasters away from anarchy and collapse.
>>318951
In western society by and large societies are way more cohsesive then they were years a go.
>Would you rather the majority (or all) of the tribe just die?
That is a Utlitarin stance, one the guy who created it (bentham) would agree with
>society is destroyed/conquered/in ruins/self-destructed
While that is true, I'm not sure if it is a valid critque, maybe you can expand upon it a bit more? I dont think that there are any ethical theory's that stops a society survival.
>Every civilization, no matter how advanced and "civilized", is just a few shortages and disasters away from anarchy and collapse.
To many examples of western society's surving and becoming much more progressive after a "disaster". Germany post WW2. Any number of natural disasters to hit America. etc.
>>319075
>In western society by and large societies are way more cohsesive then they were years a go.
Oh you sweet summer child, if only you knew how bad things really were.
>While that is true, I'm not sure if it is a valid critque, maybe you can expand upon it a bit more? I dont think that there are any ethical theory's that stops a society survival.
There are many ethical theories that are detrimental to a society's survival. Pathological altruism being the chief among them.
>To many examples of western society's surving and becoming much more progressive after a "disaster"
"Progress" is a modernist myth. In many ways Germany is worse off now if you don't count petty ideological things like "muh equality"
>>319087
> bad things really were
So your saying that things are better now?
>There are many ethical theories that are detrimental to a society's survival. Pathological altruism being the chief among them.
In all my years I've never heard of "Pathological altruism" could you care to explain? Cheers!
>"Progress" is a modernist myth
No it isn't. Less people are dying from dumb diseases. There is less crime relative to the total percentage of the population (talking about UK) . Way less people have to fight for their next meal. There is a middle class. Slavery doesn't exist
>petty ideological things like "muh equality"
equality isn't a petty ideal.
What type of ethical theory do you follow?
>>319122
>In all my years I've never heard of "Pathological altruism" could you care to explain? Cheers!
Look up the book by the same name.
>No it isn't. Less people are dying from dumb diseases. There is less crime relative to the total percentage of the population (talking about UK) . Way less people have to fight for their next meal. There is a middle class. Slavery doesn't exist
All of these things exist as byproducts of technological advancement. Not "progress".
>equality isn't a petty ideal.
I'd say it is, yeah. Does this shock you?
>>319147
>I'd say it is, yeah. Does this shock you?
No not really, some people don't believe people should be equal, unfortunate but at least it's less of a majority idea.
> by-products of technological advancement
I think thats where we have to agree to disagree. What about the fact that Britain became a wellfare state after WW2? Isn't that because of an ideological shift?
> Look up the book by the same name.
There isn't an ethical theory called "Pathological altruism". From what I've read at least it seems to be a book that is trying to say that sometimes altruism can hinder rather then help.
