Utilitarianism

[Dante]

Well I'm not sure what you mean. But I was using 'necessarily true' to mean definately, certainly, categorically and unquestionably true. It's what objectivists think morals are. Ha.

[Anathema]

Wouldn't a society like Brave new world be acceptable in utilitarianism, even though it is completely against all ethics we hold?

[Caid Ivik]

Dust scout, I still don't understand you. Law can't be viewed from criteria of truth.

[Dante]

Who said anything about law?

[Dragoon Knight]

Wow... never expected to get this much interest in Dave's little predicament.

[Dante]

Realistically speaking I don't think I would, unless the guy in charge was reasonably forceful. Not on moral grounds (I hold few opinions based on morality) but becuse it is simply none of my business, and I don't have enough unbiased infomation to make a valid judgement. But mostly because it isn't my business.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, most possibly I would shoot that indian, but I wouldn't say my act was just or good. Necessary evil, but still an evil.

[Dragoon Knight]

I would say that the excuse of not shooting one of the indians because it is "none of your business" isn't exactly one of the best arguments to back up a moral decision; for that is what you are doing - making a moral decision.  By not shooting the indian, you have sentenced them all to death - thus, in essence, you have just shot them all, including the ONE indian you refused to shoot in the first place.  It seems to me that, in this case, the choice of shooting one to save the rest is the only rational thing to do.

On the topic of whether or not it is morally good... now that's a different kettle of fish.  Say for instance that one of the indians was a known terrorist... would that change your decision?  If you say yes, then why?  A terrorist is simply someone with different, albeit extreme, moral values to most of society.  It would be the same as shooting a Muslim becuase you are a Christian.  Essentially, this cannot be denied.  While there are OBVIOUSLY other factors that make up a terrorist (such as a killer instinct, obsessive patriotism and mild psychosis, for instance), if you change their moral stance from, say, "Kill American's" to "Kill Terrorists", then you have a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

So to sum up the last point in clearer terms... depending on the moral stance of the indian that you plan to shoot, your choice will INVARIABLY differ.  You cannot say that it is ALWAYS morally wrong to shoot someone to save many other lives.  Neither, then, can you say that it is ALWAYS morally right (as explained in EWS' point about "executing an innocent man").  So which is it?  For I assume that all of us, with the possible exception of our very amoral friend, Dust Scout, will want to do the morally just and good thing.

But what is it?

[Acriku]

Sure your example may be an example of utilitarianism, but others have said that extending it to reality, utiliatarianism can lead to morally worse ends, such as slavery etc.

[Caid Ivik]

Utilitarianism leading to slavery? We should define this term better before we turn this discussion to mistakes...

[Acriku]

Leading to the justification of slavery, I meant.

[Caid Ivik]

Can you show an example? With such feeling I can "justify" a murder, violence, but how enslaving?

[Acriku]

I only said they said that it does, I wasn't arguing it (look for Edric's post for the slavery bit).

[Caid Ivik]

I don't want to argue, just to know...

[Wolf]

Like all philosophies, utilitarianism is useful up until a certain point; a point where it either justifies or demands that we do things that either 1) we know to be wrong, 2) we feel to be morally distasteful, or 3) outright impractical. The knowledge that utilitarianism gives us up until this point can be valid, useful, and even justified, but once it goes beyond certain limits, it can no longer truly be justified. Perhaps this is the nature of all extremism.

[EWS]

Caid - By have 1 to do the dirty work of a family (of say 2), not paying him and making him work, then you are making the majority happy.  Therefore this can be justified by Utilitariansim.

[Dragoon Knight]

A true Utilitarian would never condone slavery or the exploitation of others, if they carried their theory through to the fullest extent.  A true Utilitarian would try to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, correct?  This means, as Edric pointed out, that he would try to make everyone happy.

In theory, then, a Utilitarian would not condone slavery.  True enough, this may make some happy at the expense of others... but what about guilt?  Remorse for slavery?  Those would be bad feelings.  Human ethics tend not to support slavery... and if you look at it in this way, then it is obvious that a society of people that are all content and equal is a happier society.  Edric's own Hedonic Calculus works too... a society of content AND happy people is HAPPIER than a soceity of happy and miserable people.  Utilitariansim works if carried through to the maximum.  Does anyone see any flaws, or still disagree?

[Acriku]

Seems like you're leaning towards the True Scotsman fallacy.

[EWS]

The True Scotsman fallacy? Elaborate

[Dante]

Yes, please elucidate. We're all dying to know...

Utilitarianism is objective and emotionless and too teleological. It doesn't function.

[Acriku]

Well, basically the True Scotsman fallacy involves arguing that a true such-and-such wouldn't do or would do such-and-such, when the idea of a true such-and-such is relative. Such as, a true Scotsman wouldn't wear pants, so any Scotsman wearing pants isn't a true Scotsman.

[EWS]

THat seems fair, however you would have to change the term to a traditional Scotsman.

[Dante]

There is no universal code that one must obey to be a Scotsman. There is however, by definition, a code that one must follow in order to be a Utilitarian.

Having said this, there is certainly more than one breed of that odd, objective species.

[Edric O]

Actually, the problem lies with Dragoon's choice of words, not with his argument. Since he talked about "true" utilitarians, you immediately thought of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But as Dust Scout pointed out, being a utilitarian is not a matter of interpretation - unlike being a scotsman.

The guiding principle of utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number, correct? So, obviously, the perfect scenario is when EVERYONE is happy. That is the first thing any utilitarian will be aiming for. If it is impossible to make everyone happy, then he will be aiming for the next best thing: Making the greatest possible majority happy, while keeping the remaining minority as content as possible.

Therefore, utilitarianism will not justify immoral acts (such as slavery or murder) unless there is no better alternative. But if you want to argue that these things are never acceptable, no matter the alternative, then there is a way to make utilitarianism take into account your moral views:

In the hedonistic calculus, give these inacceptable acts the value of minus infinity. Assume that slavery, murder and rape produce a quantity of suffering equal to minus infinity, and utilitarianism will say that any situation involving such acts is out of the question.

Of course, that leads to the conclusion that killing one million people is no worse than killing a single man...

[Caid Ivik]

Hm, so we're turning from utilitarianism to terms like tyranny of majority, vox populi - vox Dei, divine endorsement of democracy and building of a perfect society for all costs... Utilitarianism is a way of thinking, which can be seen when you say a thought about a specifical problem. Like when we say someone has liberal, villager or creative thoughts. It's no complex philosophy. No best