Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Utilitarianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Utilitarianism

    What are your thoughts on utilitarianism?

    I always thought it to be a reasonable philosophy because it considers improving the well-being of the greatest number of individuals as the primary goal. The basic premise is easy to understand and seems a reasonable way to improve the condition of the world. If people choose that philosophy as their main way to look at improving the condition of the world, then individual issues can be discussed with regards to their effects on human happiness.

    For example, stealing is considered immoral because the unhappiness of the person being stolen from is typically greater than the happiness of the thief. Also, stealing discourages useful work. This would make people unhappy when resources such as food are scarce, since no one had worked for it, preferring instead to steal.

    In my opinion, this is a good article that explains the benefits of consequentialism and utilitarianism: http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html.
    Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

    "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

    "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

  • #2
    Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
    What are your thoughts on utilitarianism?

    I always thought it to be a reasonable philosophy because it considers improving the well-being of the greatest number of individuals as the primary goal. The basic premise is easy to understand and seems a reasonable way to improve the condition of the world. If people choose that philosophy as their main way to look at improving the condition of the world, then individual issues can be discussed with regards to their effects on human happiness.

    For example, stealing is considered immoral because the unhappiness of the person being stolen from is typically greater than the happiness of the thief. Also, stealing discourages useful work. This would make people unhappy when resources such as food are scarce, since no one had worked for it, preferring instead to steal.

    In my opinion, this is a good article that explains the benefits of consequentialism and utilitarianism: http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html.

    Heck, there are a lot of good moral theories out there. I mean if all men just, sincerely, followed the golden rule, we would have heaven on earth. But that is the real problem - getting men to to follow these theories.

    BTW from your link:

    If God made His rules arbitrarily, then there is no reason to follow them except for self-interest (which is hardly a moral motive), and if He made them for some good reason, then that good reason, and not God, is the source of morality.
    God's rules are not arbitrary, they are grounded in His immutable moral character. And you have no way of assigning a non-subjective value to human beings.
    Last edited by seer; 12-06-2015, 07:19 PM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      What are your thoughts on utilitarianism?

      I always thought it to be a reasonable philosophy because it considers improving the well-being of the greatest number of individuals as the primary goal. The basic premise is easy to understand and seems a reasonable way to improve the condition of the world. If people choose that philosophy as their main way to look at improving the condition of the world, then individual issues can be discussed with regards to their effects on human happiness.

      For example, stealing is considered immoral because the unhappiness of the person being stolen from is typically greater than the happiness of the thief. Also, stealing discourages useful work. This would make people unhappy when resources such as food are scarce, since no one had worked for it, preferring instead to steal.

      In my opinion, this is a good article that explains the benefits of consequentialism and utilitarianism: http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html.
      I will give it more thought and reading. At this point I just consider it an interesting view. I do believe there is an element of utilitarianism in the reality human morals and ethics regardless of our attempts to explain human nature by one philosophy or another.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-06-2015, 08:41 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
        What are your thoughts on utilitarianism?

        I always thought it to be a reasonable philosophy because it considers improving the well-being of the greatest number of individuals as the primary goal. The basic premise is easy to understand and seems a reasonable way to improve the condition of the world. If people choose that philosophy as their main way to look at improving the condition of the world, then individual issues can be discussed with regards to their effects on human happiness.

        For example, stealing is considered immoral because the unhappiness of the person being stolen from is typically greater than the happiness of the thief. Also, stealing discourages useful work. This would make people unhappy when resources such as food are scarce, since no one had worked for it, preferring instead to steal.

        In my opinion, this is a good article that explains the benefits of consequentialism and utilitarianism: http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html.
        Utilitarianism has its merits. Like all philosophies, it also has its flaws. More to the point, it has some unstated/unevaluated aspects that make things very complicated. Some pretty major things that need resolved:

        1) Define 'well-being'. This is often construed as 'happy', but those are two different things. If you think about the movie "I, Robot", the artificial intelligence decided that humans would be safer if they were prevented from certain activities. But would you be happier? 'Happy' isn't the same thing for different people.

        2) Who gets to be in the 'greater number', and who decides that? The thief is happier because he now owns something he didn't before, but the victim is unhappier. This could be considered a net neutral change. The broader ramifications might tip the balance against stealing as a policy. However, you could also rationalize a context in where I steal everything to redistribute it more fairly. That would be a net good under utilitarianism despite the fact I'm stealing from every productive person.

        3) Is there a line that isn't to be crossed? Under strict utilitarianism, where greatest 'good' or 'well-being' is the goal, we could continually kill off huge numbers of people in the interest of the 'well-being' of all the survivors. Let's say, for example, that eliminating Christianity and all of its adherents from the world would be to the benefit of the rest of the world. The death toll would be ~2.2 billion people, but the remaining ~4.9 billion people are better off. We could follow that up with eliminating Islam and all of its adherents. That's another ~1.6 billion people killed, but we're left with ~3.3 billion people that are better off. At this point, we've killed ~3.8 billion people for the benefit of ~3.3 billion people, but at every stage we were completely justified within utilitarianism. (This is actually explored really well in the final episode of Fate/Zero, although they cast it as a version of the trolley problem.)
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I do believe there is an element of utilitarianism in the reality human morals and ethics regardless of our attempts to explain human nature by one philosophy or another.
          This definitely seems to be the case. There's a interesting series of questions that help illuminate how a person reacts to certain situations.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Heck, there are a lot of good moral theories out there. I mean if all men just, sincerely, followed the golden rule, we would have heaven on earth. But that is the real problem - getting men to to follow these theories.
            They would first have to understand what the golden rule intends.
            BTW from your link:

            God's rules are not arbitrary, they are grounded in His immutable moral character. And you have no way of assigning a non-subjective value to human beings.
            Doesn't matter seer, if there is no reason supporting a moral action, then there is no reason to act accordingly other than to satisfy ones own self interest, and if there is reason supporting a moral action, then it is reason itself and not God that is the source of the moral. Thats the point the article is making. Whether morals are thought to come from god or not, they are either arbitrary rules or they are rules based on reason. If arbitrary, then they are meaningless, if based on reason, then reason is their source, not god.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              Utilitarianism has its merits. Like all philosophies, it also has its flaws. More to the point, it has some unstated/unevaluated aspects that make things very complicated. Some pretty major things that need resolved:

              1) Define 'well-being'. This is often construed as 'happy', but those are two different things. If you think about the movie "I, Robot", the artificial intelligence decided that humans would be safer if they were prevented from certain activities. But would you be happier? 'Happy' isn't the same thing for different people.

              2) Who gets to be in the 'greater number', and who decides that? The thief is happier because he now owns something he didn't before, but the victim is unhappier. This could be considered a net neutral change. The broader ramifications might tip the balance against stealing as a policy. However, you could also rationalize a context in where I steal everything to redistribute it more fairly. That would be a net good under utilitarianism despite the fact I'm stealing from every productive person.

              3) Is there a line that isn't to be crossed? Under strict utilitarianism, where greatest 'good' or 'well-being' is the goal, we could continually kill off huge numbers of people in the interest of the 'well-being' of all the survivors. Let's say, for example, that eliminating Christianity and all of its adherents from the world would be to the benefit of the rest of the world. The death toll would be ~2.2 billion people, but the remaining ~4.9 billion people are better off. We could follow that up with eliminating Islam and all of its adherents. That's another ~1.6 billion people killed, but we're left with ~3.3 billion people that are better off. At this point, we've killed ~3.8 billion people for the benefit of ~3.3 billion people, but at every stage we were completely justified within utilitarianism. (This is actually explored really well in the final episode of Fate/Zero, although they cast it as a version of the trolley problem.)
              1) I mean "well-being"* as positive feelings minus negative feelings. Some of what makes people happy is similar. For example, nearly everyone wants food, water, shelter, clothing, family and friends. As for the differences, that's why it's important to give people the freedom to make themselves happy (so long as it doesn't cause significant harm to others).

              2) I was saying that stealing is bad as a general rule because in the long run it discourages productivity, making people unhappy. It's good to have laws increase net happiness in the long run so that each decision doesn't have to be decided individually. Also, couldn't redistributing wealth be done more fairly with taxation voted on by the people? That way people would have some influence over where their wealth went.

              3) I doubt preventing 3.3 billion people experiencing greater happiness would significantly offset the 3.8 billion people who are no longer capable of experiencing any sort of happiness. For example, would you rather live in a world where you had a 45% chance of being really well off and a 55% chance of being dead, or the one we live in today?

              *From here on out, I will refer to it as happiness for the sake of simplicity, even though they aren't exactly the same.
              Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

              "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

              "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

              Comment


              • #8
                Given a moral principle, say, "do not murder", could one please show that the principle can be derived from a finite set of reasons that are universally acceptable?
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Doesn't matter seer, if there is no reason supporting a moral action, then there is no reason to act accordingly other than to satisfy ones own self interest, and if there is reason supporting a moral action, then it is reason itself and not God that is the source of the moral. Thats the point the article is making. Whether morals are thought to come from god or not, they are either arbitrary rules or they are rules based on reason. If arbitrary, then they are meaningless, if based on reason, then reason is their source, not god.
                  But Jim, if the Golden Rule, is God's rule, then it is grounded in His immutable moral character. If not, you are back to fickle human reason, not all men believe Jim that the golden rule is a worthy ethical goal or worth following. And their reasoning is just as valid as yours - considering their goals.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But Jim, if the Golden Rule, is God's rule, then it is grounded in His immutable moral character. If not, you are back to fickle human reason, not all men believe Jim that the golden rule is a worthy ethical goal or worth following. And their reasoning is just as valid as yours - considering their goals.
                    The Golden Rule is relative and is not actually grounded in God's character, it is grounded in whatever you happen to find acceptable. Do unto others as you would have done unto you, correct? If you would like to be mounted from behind, does that give you God's moral authority to do it unto others? I kind of doubt it.

                    An arguably better version might be - do unto others as they would have you do unto them - or something along those lines.

                    Rules grounded in God's character would seem to be in the form of specific commands like - thou shall not ... , but these are legalities and not what I would usually call morality.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robertb View Post
                      The Golden Rule is relative and is not actually grounded in God's character, it is grounded in whatever you happen to find acceptable. Do unto others as you would have done unto you, correct? If you would like to be mounted from behind, does that give you God's moral authority to do it unto others? I kind of doubt it.
                      Of course Christ's use of the golden rule would be in context of Jewish law. What the law allows and doesn't allow. So yes, it is grounded in God's character.


                      Rules grounded in God's character would seem to be in the form of specific commands like - thou shall not ... , but these are legalities and not what I would usually call morality.
                      Legal law, could also be moral. Love your neighbor as yourself, is a law that is also moral in nature. Laws against rape are legal, but we have them because we believe that rape is wrong (moral).
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                        1) I mean "well-being"* as positive feelings minus negative feelings. Some of what makes people happy is similar. For example, nearly everyone wants food, water, shelter, clothing, family and friends. As for the differences, that's why it's important to give people the freedom to make themselves happy (so long as it doesn't cause significant harm to others).
                        But who decides what counts as a positive feeling? I wouldn't define food, water, shelter or clothing as things that make me happy. Some people might derive happiness from the type of food/shelter/clothing, but that's something different. A lot of my family doesn't make me happy. Quite the opposite. I agree that it's important to give people the freedom to make themselves happy, but that's not something utilitarianism necessarily stipulates.


                        Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                        2) I was saying that stealing is bad as a general rule because in the long run it discourages productivity, making people unhappy. It's good to have laws increase net happiness in the long run so that each decision doesn't have to be decided individually. Also, couldn't redistributing wealth be done more fairly with taxation voted on by the people? That way people would have some influence over where their wealth went.
                        Popular vote as majority rule does not guarantee fairness for anyone. It guarantees fairness for the majority as the majority defines fairness. Meanwhile, all the people who get outvoted will be complaining that the government is stealing from them to spend money on things they don't like. The thing is, utilitarianism doesn't care if some people are unhappy. That's expected. It cares that more people are happy than unhappy. It doesn't include any method for determining who the 'more' should be, and it doesn't have any inherent ability to balance short-term happiness vs long-term happiness.


                        Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                        3) I doubt preventing 3.3 billion people experiencing greater happiness would significantly offset the 3.8 billion people who are no longer capable of experiencing any sort of happiness. For example, would you rather live in a world where you had a 45% chance of being really well off and a 55% chance of being dead, or the one we live in today?
                        Exactly. Yet, within utilitarianism, each stage of killing people off is perfectly justified. Stage one is 30% dead with 70% better off. Go with the 70%. Stage two is 32% dead with 68% better off. Go with the 68%.



                        The problem with utilitarianism isn't the methodology. It's that the goals are undefined. Maximizing happiness or well-being sounds like a nice idea. Actually doing it is something else altogether. More importantly, utilitarianism doesn't have any limits on where to draw the line. Neither of us would really advocate killing other people. We don't advocate stealing or slavery or any number of things, but utilitarianism has no moral considerations beyond 'maximum possible good'. It's nice in principle, but it doesn't match how people actually think we should behave.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          Given a moral principle, say, "do not murder", could one please show that the principle can be derived from a finite set of reasons that are universally acceptable?
                          The universally acceptable set of reasons boils down to basic human needs and desires. A very nearly exhaustive list is as follows: food, water, shelter, life (and/or health), freedom to pursue your own ends, and social contact. Clothing is useful but I don't think it's a need or basic desire. I'd be willing to discuss anything you think is missing. Social contact is inherent to being a human, but it should be recognized that people's need for it can vary quite a bit. Freedom to pursue your own ends is a basic desire that will inherently account for pursuits of the other needs. It's just how we're wired. I haven't discussed form because that's not part of it. These things are fundamental, but their appearance varies quite a bit.

                          The finite set of reasons is ultimately cause and effect combined with recognition of social interactions. Acting against others will cause them to feel threatened and act to protect themselves in some manner. Depending on how threatened, they will potentially make it so that you are no longer able to pursue your own ends. Since that's a fundamental desire, it's in your own interest to not threaten that ability.

                          It should be noted that we can, and do, willingly limit ourselves in some areas so that we can better achieve our goals in others. That's the essence of cooperation, and it's the basis of human organizations (including government).
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Of course Christ's use of the golden rule would be in context of Jewish law. What the law allows and doesn't allow. So yes, it is grounded in God's character.
                            Legal law, could also be moral. Love your neighbor as yourself, is a law that is also moral in nature. Laws against rape are legal, but we have them because we believe that rape is wrong (moral).
                            Exactly morality itself is not legality, though legality may be derived from morality. This doesn't go the opposite way, morality is not derived from legality.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by robertb View Post
                              Exactly morality itself is not legality, though legality may be derived from morality. This doesn't go the opposite way, morality is not derived from legality.
                              Then God's legal law is derived from God's moral character. I don't see the big deal here.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X