Utilitarianism

[Dragoon Knight]

Utilitarianism, as you may or may not know, is a consequationalist, teleological and hedonistic theory of morality.

[Acriku]

If that is the true representation of Utilitarianism, then count me in! I totally agree on the former, what Dave would do. It just makes perfect sense to have the rest saved through the shooting of one. Of course, it wouldn't be easy to pick and then actually shoot the Indian, but it is for a greater good.

[Filo]

I agree too, it seems obvious.

Only a fanatic of religion or honnor could refuse to admit here the necessity to kill.

It would make a romantic dilemna to begin a story about conscience.

[Dante]

Personally I don't see any need for an objective moral code. It would be far easier to simply decide on a course of action via amoral (not immoral) logic.

Having said this however... It was recently brought quite harshly to my attention that being amoral is by no means an easy task. As emotional beings we can't do it. Not for an extended period of time at any rate...

Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory, as Dragoon stated. This means that it believes in objective moral 'facts' that exist in the same way as empirical or logical facts. Thus the three statements "Murder is wrong," "Paris is in France," and "Six added to six equals twelve," would be treated with equal degrees of certainty.

But where's the proof? Empirical proof certifies the second statement and logical proof the third but what does the first statement have going for it? Nothing. No proof. It is true neither by definition nor observation ('Hume's fork' approach).

That's why I don't think any objectivist moral theories could be considered truly useful or correct. As well as for several other reasons that might be brought up later...

Specifically against utilitarianism, there are several problems (not all of which I will mention simply because I think they will come up later and I'm feeling apathetic). One of which is that it can be used to justify acts which are far more 'immoral' that the shooting of one person. I use the speech marks because I'm a subjectivist, I don't believe in 'evil' and 'good' as it were.

Utilitarianism basically states that an action providing the most ammount of happiness to the largest number of people is morally 'good.' This has several inherant problems, though it might seem superficially pefect.

Slavery for example. Enslaving of a minority to keep the majority happy would be acceptable to a utilitarian because it brings happiness to a majority of people. And as we have already seen with Dave in the jungle, acts that are supposedly 'immoral,' like killing people, can be justified by the utilitarian.

[Acriku]

I think that Utilitarianism is a good doctrine to guide your life by, but of course it doesn't exist objectively.

However, I think that your argument with slavery is faulty as I understand utilitarianism as represented by Knight. There is a difference between determining survival of others, and happiness of others, and what one would do to achieve either. Hopefully, utilitarianism does not include just making the majority happy.

[EWS]

Nope, Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number Acriku.  So it doesnt cater for the minority

[Acriku]

Well, that's a bummer. Count me out  :-

[Caid Ivik]

Utilitarianism is a nonsense. It was God's twisted nature to spawn us humans around whole world in isolated communes. There are only two possible ways: perish or assimilate others. Tolerance can last for few centuries, but in fact leads to assimilation by others. That doesn't mean hegelianic nonsense we are to find a common point in ie hindu and christian morale, to make a synthesis of them, it means to fully replace one of them by the other one. All we can do to prevent conflict is to stay on traditions and maintain tolerance for all costs, as well as force others to be tolerant. I would say it is making of dependence, but not full destructive assimilation.

[EWS]

Thats why it is so flawed, as it doesnt look at the minority and you can justify "bad" acts.  Further, because it looks at consequences, take this examply.

Old Betty is needing help with her shopping.  So wee Billy helps her, however, as they are nearing the house (Billy is carrying the shopping) they have to cross a road.  Billy takes hold of Betty and guides her accross the road, however at the other side, Betty slips and breaks her hip.  According to a Utilitarian, Billy has just commited a wrong act!

These of course is absurd as Billy was doing good for Betty!

[Caid Ivik]

Why do we need to justify every act we make? It's plain hypocrisy. Like Macchiavelli said, there must be someone, who does the dirt work. It's evil and cruel, but important.

[TMA_1]

utilitarianism works in thsi world because it is an evil world. THat is one area where I am an optimist, because utilitarianism doesnt mix with spirituality. WIth the world though it does.

[Caid Ivik]

World itself isn't evil. World is a carrier of humans, beings which can do evil acts. However, world itself is a mindless, soulless and senseless.

[Warskum]

I am for utilitarianism, becuz i think that wenn the death of one man can save many then its "oke".

Ofcourse its not oke to kill someone, but if you dont kill that person, others will die. I ask myself the question: kill 1 and save 10 or dont kill 1 and let 11 die? well for me its obious that, kill 1 save 10, is better then to let 11 die. Maybe its hard to kill that one person, but if you dont you will actually be "killing" the rest, like dragoon said.

But there is another side to this i am a believer, and i also think that humans dont have the right to judge who will live and who will die, thats God's choice.

So i am not sure bout this, but wenn this would happen to me, i think i would kill one man to save others, but i would feel very very guilty.

[Edric O]

I support utilitarianism in most circumstances. Not as a moral system, but as a practical way of making the best decisions concerning the way society should be run.

Dust Scout made an objection to the utilitarian principle:

Utilitarianism basically states that an action providing the most amount of happiness to the largest number of people is morally 'good.' This has several inherant problems, though it might seem superficially pefect.

Slavery for example. Enslaving of a minority to keep the majority happy would be acceptable to a utilitarian because it brings happiness to a majority of people.

This may seem a valid point at first, but in reality it is not so. If utilitarianism advocates the greatest good for the greatest number of people, then the perfect solution is one that makes veryone happy. If not everyone can be happy, then the greatest number of people should be made happy, and the rest should be brought as close to happiness as possible.

Let me give you an example to make things clearer: Let's apply mathematics to society, by assuming one happy man means 1 point; one content man means 0 points and one unhappy man means -1 point. In this case, the purpose of utilitarianism is to get a society with the maximum number of points. Now let's assume we have a population of 100 people, and we can keep 60 of them happy by enslaving the other 40. We get 60 happy people and 40 unhappy ones, therefore a total of 20 points. This is in fact a very low score, and it is very likely that we could get more than 20 points by eliminating slavery (for example, in a slavery-free society you might have 30 happy people, 5 unhappy ones and 65 content ones - this is more than enough to beat the score of the slavery-based society).

Since slavery causes a lot of suffering to the enslaved minority, the happiness that it brings to the majority is not enough to justify it.

In conclusion, utilitarianism would support slavery only in a situation where all other options cause more suffering than slavery does. Utilitarianism only supports evil when it is the lesser evil (look at Dave for example: killing one man is evil, but in Dave's circumstance it is the lesser evil).

Nope, Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number Acriku.  So it doesnt cater for the minority

Wrong. The minority is always part of the equation. Utilitarianism doesn't just mean looking out for the maximum happiness, it also means looking out for the minimum suffering. If the minority suffers, that lowers the overall happiness score of your society.

[Anathema]

Your equations are a bit simplistic Edric, as you assume there are only 2 possible statuses: happy and unhappy.

What if it makes the majority of the people extraordinarily happy to make a relatively minor part of the population miserable? Should we then let the minority stay somewhat unhappy so that the rest can be joyful?

I feel that there's a minimum standard of wealth and happiness the state should try to provide for everybody, and that from there on everybody is responsible for their own happiness.

[Dante]

Actually, Edric's equation works quite well. It's just that he draws some odd conclusions. If a society has 20 points, in that example, then it is still a morally 'good' society for a utilitarian because there are more happy people than unhappy people. Even if it had only a single point it would be morally 'good.'

Utilitarianism will indeed support what could be called the 'lesser' evil, but that is a term that varies widely. 'Lesser' depends on opinion.

Wrong. The minority is always part of the equation. Utilitarianism doesn't just mean looking out for the maximum happiness, it also means looking out for the minimum suffering. If the minority suffers, that lowers the overall happiness score of your society.

Provided it never reaches -1, the society is morally 'good.' EWS was right when he said that utilitarianism doesn't cater for the minority. It cuts out those with little voices or the people who are weaker. Even if a decision makes a million people miserable, provided it makes a million and one happy then it's ok.

Having said that however, in relation to Anathema's point, there is indeed a utilitarian measurment of happiness. Two in fact... But I'll only put the first down here. It's called 'The Hedonistic Calculus.'

This states that happiness can be measured according to the criteria of

- Intensity

- Duration

- Certainty of achievement

- Nearness or remoteness of happiness

- Purity

- Fecundity (chances of getting the same pleasure again)

- The Number of people who can enjoy it.

These variables measure happiness. For example:

Persons X and Y and enjoying a cake together. Person X knows that there is another cake hidden nearby, Person Y does not. Assuming that the intensity and duration etc of their enjoyment of the cake is the same, they would both be equally happy. But Person X's pleasure is either diminished or enhanced by the knowledge that there is another cake nearby. Thus due to fecundity the happiness of these two people is not equal.

The Hedonistic Calculus was put forward by the originator of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, in order to quantify pleasure. It's basically a more complex version of Edric's points system.

Now since I don't believe in utilitarianism I can't just finish the post without throwing in a parting shot. Utilitarianism doesn't notice that we're human. It downplays emotions to a logical choice as to happiness.

A common example is that of the burning house. Inside it are two people; a loved one, and a scientist who has just discovered the cure for cancer. Unfortunately all the scientist's notes have been burnt, and the cure is only in his head. You can only rescue one person, who is it to be?

There would be no choice for the utilitarian. They would have to choose the scientist. For the greater good they would let their loved one die. As I pointed out before; we are human and subject all of the emotion that this entails. We are not emotionless logic machines (I have another theory on that, but that's another subject...). Utilitarianism takes no notice of this. Saving your loved one is a 'bad' act, making you 'evil.'

[EWS]

Utilitarianism doesnt care who suffers, as Dust Scout said, if more people are happy then suffer, then it is a good act.  However, if more people are suffering then happy, it is a bad act.  Hence going for the majority.

[Edric O]

Your equations are a bit simplistic Edric, as you assume there are only 2 possible statuses: happy and unhappy.

What if it makes the majority of the people extraordinarily happy to make a relatively minor part of the population miserable? Should we then let the minority stay somewhat unhappy so that the rest can be joyful?

That depends on two things: How miserable it makes the minority (if the minority is extremely unhappy - like if they are enslaved, for example - then this cancels out the extreme happiness of the majority), and what are your other options. Remember, the perfect situation according to utilitarianism is for everyone to be happy. But if you don't have that option, you have to pick the next best thing.

As for the complexity of the equation, it was just a quick example. Dust Scout explained further.

I feel that there's a minimum standard of wealth and happiness the state should try to provide for everybody, and that from there on everybody is responsible for their own happiness.

Well, that's the essence of socialism.

But keep in mind that when we talk about making people happy or unhappy (as part of the discussion on utilitarianism), we're not talking about the state doing those things. We're talking about the cumulated effects of society as a whole. The state is just one factor in it.

[Edric O]

If a society has 20 points, in that example, then it is still a morally 'good' society for a utilitarian because there are more happy people than unhappy people. Even if it had only a single point it would be morally 'good.'

True, but a society with more points is better.

EWS was right when he said that utilitarianism doesn't cater for the minority. It cuts out those with little voices or the people who are weaker. Even if a decision makes a million people miserable, provided it makes a million and one happy then it's ok.

It's ok-ish, and its moral justification depends heavily on what your other options are. If your only other options are to hurt even MORE people and make even LESS people happy, then this is indeed the best option.

Making a million people miserable and a million and one people happy may not sound "good" according to common wisdom, but if you don't have anything better to choose from, it IS good.

Utilitarianism DOES cater for the minority. If there is a way to make both the minority and the majority happy, utilitarianism will support that option. But if you have to choose between making the majority happy or making the minority happy, then utilitarianism will support making the majority happy, because this is the best possible course of action.

Utilitarianism supports making the minority happy whenever possible, but not at the expense of the majority.

The Hedonistic Calculus was put forward by the originator of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, in order to quantify pleasure. It's basically a more complex version of Edric's points system.

I'd like to make a comment here towards people who cry wolf when they hear the word "hedonism": I don't like hedonism any more than you do (in fact I believe that the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake can be highly immoral at times), but I recognize the fact that measuring happiness is the closest thing we have to a universally accepted standard of how "good" or "bad" a society is. It is not the job of society to defend any specific moral values, put forward by a religion or a philosophy. Those are personal matters. The job of society is to make people as happy as possible.

A common example is that of the burning house. Inside it are two people; a loved one, and a scientist who has just discovered the cure for cancer. Unfortunately all the scientist's notes have been burnt, and the cure is only in his head. You can only rescue one person, who is it to be?

The scientist, of course! I would probably feel guilty for the rest of my life for letting my loved one die, but I cannot allow my own petty feelings to get in the way of a cure that could save millions of lives.

The choice is the same as the choice between saving one loved person and saving millions of other people. Any moral person will choose to save the millions of people.

There would be no choice for the utilitarian. They would have to choose the scientist. For the greater good they would let their loved one die. As I pointed out before; we are human and subject all of the emotion that this entails. We are not emotionless logic machines (I have another theory on that, but that's another subject...). Utilitarianism takes no notice of this. Saving your loved one is a 'bad' act, making you 'evil.'

Yes. Saving a loved one at the expense of millions of lives IS a bad act.

[Edric O]

Utilitarianism doesnt care who suffers, as Dust Scout said, if more people are happy then suffer, then it is a good act.  However, if more people are suffering then happy, it is a bad act.  Hence going for the majority.

If your only choice is between hurting the minority and hurting the majority, then the only good course of action is to hurt the minority (since that will cause less suffering than hurting the majority). This is one part of utilitarianism that can be found in the vast majority of moral codes: Help others as much as possible and hurt them as little as possible (or not at all, if you can).

As I said before, utilitarianism supports making the minority happy whenever possible, but not at the expense of the majority.

The reason why I support utilitarianism is because it is a realistic, down-to-earth moral code that can be universally accepted in a world of subjective morals. All other moral codes define certain notions as "good" or "bad" and then stick blindly to those definitions, no matter if the "good" acts are hurting people and the "evil" acts are helping them. By saying that hurting people is the very definition of evil and helping people is the very definition of good, utilitarianism is the best foundation for a proper society.

[Caid Ivik]

When I would have alternatives like hurting majority and minority then I won't do anything, if I want to apply my morale. In fact main thing of any ruler should be preventing categorization of people into various groups. Every individual has own intentions, fact that some people have common thoughts doesn't mean they form a group. Then these groups start to call for their rights and it ends in conflicts, where they hypocritically justify their evils as "acts for common good".

Take for example concept of "justified war" as written in catechism. That's a plain hypocrisy.

[EWS]

You can justfy gang rape with Utilitarianism.  You can also justify executing an innocent man for a crime he didnt commit, and you can justify child pornography.  Three of the reasons why I hate Utilitarianism

[Caid Ivik]

Utilitarianism itself is a synonym for justification.

[Dante]

Utilitarianism is not a subjective moral code, it is objective in that it states that certain moral facts are necessarily true. This in itself holds several problems but I'd like to focus on the example of the burning house again.

I'm human (mostly  :P ) And as such I am not about to sacrafice someone I care for for the sake of people I have never met. The scientist's ideas will surface again eventually, but I will never be with that person again. I for one am not prepared to put faceless people in front of myself.

Utilitarianism takes no account of our emotion, one of the many reasons I dislike it, though I would never have said that a few months ago.

[Caid Ivik]

Necessarily true? Do you mean applicable or accepted?