Utilitarianism

[Anathema]

Think of the Roman arena games. If setting a single man in an arena with a bunch of ferocious predators (wich will undoubtfully make him very unhappy) will entertain (and thus make happy) millions, since we live in the age of TV, it's still unethical but acceptable in utilitarianism because it creates more "happiness points" then it costs.

From what I understand, there is no minimum standard of happiness that needs be provided in utilitarianism. If the total amount of happiness gained by a number of people is high enough it justifies anything done to a single person, or a very small minority. Minority rights become meaningless because they are relative to what the majority gains from it.

[Dragoon Knight]

Anathema, your statement does not take into accout the Principle of Utility, which states the goal of Utilitarians as being "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".

[Anathema]

Can I conclude from your post that in most cases utilitarianism does not justify immoral acts because when one is unhappy, we are all unhappy?

Of course people would start rallies about it nowadays, but not in the Roman days. People loved seeing gladiators butchering eachother and watching people get torn apart by lions.

Then again, Rome had grown to become an immoral society. Most people today wouldn't experience pleasure from seeing such events because they know it is morally outrageous. That way, I suppose utilitarianism could lead to satisfying results.

[Dante]

There is more than the one flaw in the theory you know. Besides the fact that it can be used to justify supposedly immoral acts, there is also the problem of teleologic.

An act with perfectly benign intentions that somehow results in chaos, death, destrction and mayhem would, according to a utilitarian, be an evil act. This to me at least is inacceptable.

And then the problem of emotions. Utilitarians expect us to act altruistically for the good of the majority, or if possible everyone. What about yourself? What about your family and friends? We are human and we have our own needs that could/should take precedance.

[Dragoon Knight]

You make good points, Dust.  These are the main reasons for why Utilitarianism is not accepted.  To counter-argue, let me take an example from the Reverend Tome of All Righteousness... otherwise known as The Lord of the Rings.

When Isildur chose not to cast the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom, he was under the belief that he could put it to better use.  He had the greatest intentions - to heal the land, and make Middle-Earth a better place.  Near enough the same thing happened with Boromir; he had only the best intentions for everyone in mind.  But when Isildur refused Elrond's council, he condemned Middle-Earth to a great many deaths, and much suffering.  So, too, did Boromir seal his own fate.  There is no doubt that the madness of Isildur and Boromir were nothing but "good intentions", but were totally immoral acts nonetheless.  If, however, Isildur or Boromir had considered the true consequences, their choices would have been much different.

As for your complaint regarding the altruistic nature of Utilitarian thought... you do not carry the theory out fully.  If everyone is looking out for everyone else, doing the right thing in society, then it follows that everyone is looked out for.  The individual, the majority and the minority: all catered for.

[Dante]

I bring your attention once against to the burning house example.

As for the *bow scrape bow* Lord of the Rings, the men made bad decisions but they didn't mean to. Not only was it a form of madness affecting them but also I don't feel that they should be so demonised when they truly wanted to help people. You can't really criticise someone who can't think straight. It's not their fault that their ring-guided actions ballooned so much.

[Dragoon Knight]

Could it not be said that The One Ring's influence is a analogy of the "self-convincing" we subject ourselves to when we try to justify an action?  That little voice that tells us "wouldn't it be better to do X instead of Y?"  The lure of power is no stranger to the human psyche; The One Ring is simply a golden, ring-shaped simile.

As for the Burning House example... are you referring to the idea that Utilitarianism does not take into account human emotions?  Well, since when has the right thing to do been a happy occurrence?  If you save the Scientist, the world will definitely benefit greatly.  It could be seen as a great sacrifice, and the Father seen as a hero, then Man praised and glorified.  He would get over it.

If you ALSO mean that the person wouldn't do it, I must inform you now that I don't believe in Rule Utilitarianism (where the set of rules must be obeyed at all times).  I only support Act Utilitariansim (where the circumstances allow certain deviations from the rules).  In this instance, the Man would have a choice.  No-one would blame him for saving his Father, and the very idea of the Scientist not sharing his theories with SOMEONE at least is preposterous, and is not a true-to-life example.

So there. :P

[Dante]

Nonetheless, don't intentions count for anything?

And let's say that the scientist is mad. He's so paranoid that someone will steal his ideas that he's told nobody and keeps all his notes on his person at all times. Besides which how many people are going to care about the greater good?

And should they?

And besides which, utilitarianism is too inflexible. Not to mention dogmatic. It decides on a course of action and declares it 'right.' By what logic? To what end? Why? All objective theories suffer from this...

[Dragoon Knight]

The chances of a scientist who has found the cure for cancer being paranoid and not sharing notes is so remote it isn't even worth fathoming.  He would be working with loads of other scientists for a huge research corporation, which means that there is basically no chance of him being reclusive.  Besides... I told you that the Man had a choice, did I not?  ACT Utilitarianism...

And as for your Objectivist argument...

"By what logic?" - The Greatest Happiness For The Greatest Number.

"To what end?" - Happiness for the most possible people.

"Why?" - We all desire happiness in one way or another.

Anything else?