- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,130
- Reaction score
- 58,865
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I never looked very deeply into this philosophy before, but after spending a few days reading, I am finding it pretty much describes my own approach to moral reasoning.
Anyway, from your point of view, is this a valid moral approach and why (not)?
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I typically define my economic arguments using utilitarianism, but I do not step away from my belief principles if the two come into conflict.
It's more of a tool for me, than a philosophy I follow.
Edit: This isn't a criticism of you but it can be immoral for some people depending on belief.
Would you sacrifice 1 to save 1000, some would say that you choosing to sacrifice 1 is immoral and that doing nothing is the better choice.
To clarify, if 1 were to die vs 1000, it would depend on a lot of factors (were those 1000 violent criminals (or something as bad) who would likely have a bad effect on society, were those 1000 going to die from cancer in a month, etc), however, if all things were equal and the situation was of acute danger, than I probably would. The equation would dictate it. Think of the general who has to decide which people are going to die, he is going to try and minimize his losses in balance with the needs of the mission.
I understand, it's really a false dilemma of a question but merely a simple example.
Utilitarianism can be good but then again it can be bad, depending on what sphere you place it in.
Yeah, and unfortunately, its a very complicated question, even if it doesn't seem so on the surface. When dealing with that many factors, there are a lot of individual factors that no person can reasonably weight, so in those situations, assumptions have to come into play. But in the end, I don't think that really takes anything away from the philosophy. At least not more than any other since they all face that same problem, so its a wash.
I never looked very deeply into this philosophy before, but after spending a few days reading, I am finding it pretty much describes my own approach to moral reasoning (even though I attach my own twist to it and my goal isn't primarily hedonistic).
Anyway, from your point of view, is this a valid moral approach and why (not)?
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's really why I use it as a tool, rather than as a philosophy.
It's goods are definitely worth thinking about and using.
Utility is an important aspect of morality, but I think consequential moral philosophies can be misleading. For one thing, the conceptual elaboration they provide isn't necessarily informative. Either they overlook the importance of personal truths or overload themselves with so many qualifications acknowledging personal truth that in the end they come across as evil or non-consequential.
I suspect we do things in opposite order, based on our conversations. You tend to put principals before end goals and motive (per motive, I think you made a comment once that empathy and compassion have a proper (meaning not being primary) place) while I tend to put motive and goals as my primary and derive my principals from that.
This fundamental conflict is probably we can't see eye to eye on a lot of other fundamental questions (like my neutral stance on self interest against your positive stance)
Pretty much, I believe my principles have a "natural" utilitarian effect.
Bear in mind, you can always "qualify" any moral philosophy into logical invincibility, which is basically what happens in Philosophy Departments worldwide. Generally, when you criticize a moral philosophy, you're criticizing something much more primal in human nature than logic. You're criticizing an attitude. A person can always redraw the parameters of their philosophy to include criticism, but it is harder to abandon their emotional convictions.
Whereas I see many principals going ending up producing some rather evil effects when done in aggregate. Individualist philosophies (and to be honest all philosophies, but to a lesser degree (assuming one is taking human nature into account, otherwise all bets are off) tend to have problems with this.
I think the potential evil is more of a good, it serves as an example to society of what not to do.
I think all of humanity's improvements are built on graduated knowledge and that some amount of failure should be present to serve as the learning tool.
Interesting idea. Odd, but interesting. Sorry, but there are any number of ways reasonably intelligent people can derive what is a useful or nonuseful approach, and experience is only one way and perhaps not even the best way, especially as human nature tends to change with culture, so people may react differently to what worked in the past.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't the only way but just 1 thing that should be present, because not all people learn the same way.
Some actively take knowledge spread through education, some through visual observance, etc.
Sorry, but I am not following. If you are meaning my qualifications, I tend to qualify every thought I have since I have yet to find a thought that is universally applicable (even though I may not always post those qualifications, but I tend to be very aware of the scope inherent in any concept)
So, in other words, some should have to suffer, so that others may learn and do better? That could be very utilitarian :mrgreen: In reality though, we have no way of knowing if the suffering of some, due to bad policy, will always translate into better policy in the future, so I am not sure if it would always work.
I was more elaborating on the thought in my first post than speaking to you, specifically.
If you want "generic" objections against utilitarianism, then here's some:
There's the idea that utilitarian solutions do not satisfy the versatility of human psychology. Obama's relationship to the right-wing might provide an example. Since their ideology requires a dramatic contest of good versus evil (with themselves as good and liberalism as evil) there is no action Obama can perform which has positive consequential value for the right-wing. Human beings are also guilty and spiteful. The mere suspicion that someone is sacrificing themselves to make us happy can ruin any contentment we might find in their contribution. That others are making our happiness part of a plan (the cool calculation of which might diminish the aesthetic significance we find in our suffering) produces outrage that kills the success of the plan from the beginning.
If humans are so complex we can find meaning in our suffering or moral depravity and will resist material or psychological improvement (not even out of principle, but out of spite), then utilitarianism is challenged.
There's also the epistemological challenge. Since the cosmos is vast and human understanding is limited, we can never be sure which actions will produce happiness over long periods of time. You might save a woman from being run over by a car when later she will give birth to a tyrant who will sorely oppress his society. This challenge becomes greater when you factor in humanity's psychological versatility. How can you make any plans for the collective happiness when merely being part of the collective happiness will upset people somehow?
With the distinction that no one else is actively causing their suffering.
It won't always work, in all situations but nothing is really universal like that.
I don't think of it as suffering much, at least in the U.S. we have it pretty good, even the least among us.
That word "actively" can be pretty tricky. Often we can cause suffering of another without realizing it, its a big problem that can be hard for people to get their minds around. However, other than that minor point, I agree. Generally with people, we tend to do a logical shorthand and say "well, x action did good in the past, I will do it again" I do it all the time and not always reason something out from scratch (I simply don't have the time or energy!). However, we should be careful and never assume that it will always work or that human nature is fixed (I believe some of human nature is fixed and some is very fluid and can even change daily). What is a good action in one society may be very detrimental in another.
I'm a definite believer in dynamic society, that's why I typically oppose laws that are universal in nature.
Except for murder and theft.
Legislation doesn't flow with society, it typically lags.
But again, actively for me is from the legislation standpoint.
One of the reasons I oppose UHC is that it could hurt many undeserving people that don't need cost effective medical treatments but instead need expensive sometimes exploratory/investigative treatments.
Particularly those with expensive inborn disabilities.
I actually support full UHC for them.
I know and I hope you didn't feel I was characterizing you or making a strawman. I am, in many ways, still trying to figure out your take on politics.
I never looked very deeply into this philosophy before, but after spending a few days reading, I am finding it pretty much describes my own approach to moral reasoning (even though I attach my own twist to it and my goal isn't primarily hedonistic).
Anyway, from your point of view, is this a valid moral approach and why (not)?
Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?