The Problem With Utilitarianism

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

And the reason they're wrong is that they haven't worked out, to put it mildly.

Right, but my question stipulates that it does work out and produces the most happiness. By saying that it doesn't produce the most happiness you are simply avoiding the question. I'm asking IF IT DOES produce the most happiness and utilitarianism says it is moral to act on it, will you act on it? Yet, we know it wouldn't be moral and I'm sure you wouldn't act on it, EVEN IF IT DID PRODUCE THE GREATER HAPPINESS FOR THE MOST NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

Do you see the issue now? I'm actually addressing the issue of injustice and you are just trying to sweep it under the rug. You say it doesn't matter since it'll never happen but I'm asking you WHAT IF IT DOES? That's the question you need to be answering

Thomas wrote:

By what reasoning do you arrive at the conclusion that slavery is wrong?

I try to treat people how they want to be treated. When I don't, that's wrong to some degree. If they want to be slaves, I enslave them. If they don't want to be slaves, I don't. Most people don't want to be slaves therefore it's wrong to enslave them.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

Define what you mean by not "working out".

You'll have to up this usage question with Night Ripper---it's his phrase, not mine. I just went along with it as a courtesy.

When I say that freedom is morally superior to antebellum slavery in the South, I mean that the benefit slavery has brought to slave owners is outweighed by the suffering of the slaves. My measure for that is revealed preference: For example, are slavery-era work conditions valuable enough to slaveowners that they choose to pay wages at which slaves choose to accept those conditions? The answer is no---which demonstrates that slavery generated a net loss of utility.

stevecook172001 wrote:

And before you make any attempt to ad hom the above remarks,

You need to look up the definition of ad hominem I am not attacking your person---just your use of language and the logic of your arguments. That's not an ad hominem.

stevecook17001 wrote:

And while we are at it, I am noticing a tendancy in you, Thomas, to only answer those parts of posts you don't percieve to be difficult.

1) Your confidence in your ability to read my mind remains far behind your performance.

2) I am under no obligation to respond to every point you make, or even to any point at all. That said, you're welcome to repeat your questions if they're important to you, and I'll do my best to respond.

stevecook172001 wrote:

I am referring in particular to sections of a couple of my recent posts.

You're welcome to name these particular sections. If and when you do, I'll make an effort to respond. By contrast, you will get nowhere with your generalized whining, your feeble attempts to read my mind, and your inept second-guessing of my character and motivation.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Terrorism is a political resistance of the weak. Whether it is justified or not is not the issue for almost all nations heve at some point done it. Assuming that the terrorists in question are 'evil' then harming their children would be justified for the children benefitted from their fathers' terrorist activities. As bad as it sounds the sins of the fathers are often visited upon the sons or daughters.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Right, but my question stipulates that it does work out and produces the most happiness.

... and my response to your question, for the nth time, is that if you stipulate nonsense in your question, you mustn't be surprised to get a nonsense answer. Garbage in, garbage out.

Night Ripper wrote:

Yet, we know it wouldn't be moral, EVEN IF IT DID PRODUCE THE GREATER HAPPINESS FOR THE MOST NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

No, we don't know that. Indeed, I have specifically pointed you to a variant of slavery I morally approve of---because that particular variant does increase total happiness, as judged by the revealed preference of the agents.

Night Ripper wrote:

I try to treat people how they want to be treated. When I don't then that's wrong to some degree. If they want to be slaves, I enslave them. If they don't want to be slaves, I don't. Most people don't want to be slaves therefore it's wrong to make them be.

Then presumably you, too, approve of the slavery I approve off. You, too, approve of the ship captains who sold 17th-century immigrants into temporary slavery, of the American farmers who bought the slaves, and of the European immigrants for whom three years of slavery was an acceptable price for passage to America. Your condemnation of slavery isn't universal any more than mine is.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
Right, but my question stipulates that it does work out and produces the most happiness.

... and my response to your question, for the nth time, is that if you stipulate nonsense in your question, you mustn't be surprised to get a nonsense answer. Garbage in, garbage out

There's nothing nonsensical about people taking pleasure in the misery of others. You're a libertarian at heart but refuse to admit it. Your avoidance of the question makes it obvious.

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
I try to treat people how they want to be treated. When I don't then that's wrong to some degree. If they want to be slaves, I enslave them. If they don't want to be slaves, I don't. Most people don't want to be slaves therefore it's wrong to make them be.

Then presumably you, too, approve of the slavery I approve off. You, too, approve of the ship captains who sold 17th-century immigrants into temporary slavery, of the American farmers who bought the slaves, and of the European immigrants for whom three years of slavery was an acceptable price for passage to America. Your condemnation of slavery isn't universal any more than mine is.

That's not slavery. Slavery is forced labor. Entering into a voluntary agreement in which you work for X number of years for something of Y value, isn't slavery.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

There's nothing nonsensical about people taking pleasure in the misery of others.

It is nonsensical when you stipulate that MORE people will take pleasure from that misery than will have misery. It assumes much that is not evident in human history and I doubt ever existed.

Your argument assumes that you know all the answers. I don't know of any utilitarian that is that arrogant. You also assume you can quantify with no facts or consideration of consequences. Something that never happens in real life. Thomas is correct when he states your scenarios are garbage. They don't represent anything that a person would ever face in real life. The "ticking time bomb" argument is the perfect example of a silly argument like yours. It assumes so many knowns that one has to wonder why someone so prescient can't just know where the bomb is without torture.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

That's not slavery. Slavery is forced labor. Entering into a voluntary agreement in which you work for X number of years for something of Y value, isn't slavery.

Well... I've tried. Now it's your turn. Please give me a specific scenario that---

is realistic in its factual assumptions
demonstrably maximizes, or at least increases, the balance of happiness over suffering
is demonstrably unjust.

Perhaps, when we have a specific and realistic scenario to talk about, we can make progress.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
There's nothing nonsensical about people taking pleasure in the misery of others.

It is nonsensical when you stipulate that MORE people will take pleasure from that misery than will have misery. It assumes much that is not evident in human history and I doubt ever existed.

Slavery, religious persecution, arranged marriage, forced female circumcision, etc. All these things were once enjoyed by the majority of people but inflicted upon the minority. Even though, according to utilitarians, this was a the moral thing to do, we recognize things like the fact that even though homosexuals are in the minority and many religious people are deeply distressed by their mere existence, it's not alright to murder them, not now, not ever. The fact of the matter is that many people take pleasure in causing others misery, not for the sake of causing misery alone but because they think they are doing something important, enforcing God's will, protecting the purity of the races, or whatever craziness that people believe.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
That's not slavery. Slavery is forced labor. Entering into a voluntary agreement in which you work for X number of years for something of Y value, isn't slavery.

Well... I've tried. Now it's your turn. Please give me a specific scenario that---
is realistic in its factual assumptions
demonstrably maximizes, or at least increases, the balance of happiness over suffering
is demonstrably unjust.
Perhaps, when we have a specific and realistic scenario to talk about, we can make progress.

We can't make progress as long as you avoid the issue. If you can't entertain the possibility of utilitarianism producing such a situation then this conversation is pointless. All I want to know is, if a situation were to occur, what principle would prevent you from acting on it. Why would you oppose slavery, genocide, rape, etc if it would produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number? You keep plugging your ears going, "LA LA LA! IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN!" but that's childish. Answer the question or stop wasting my time.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

We can't make progress as long as you avoid the issue. If you can't entertain the possibility of utilitarianism producing such a situation then this conversation is pointless.

If I couldn't entertain the possibility of apple trees bearing apples, the conversation would not be pointless. Show me a picture of an apple tree with apples on it, and we're back in business. And that's all I'm asking you to do about utilitarianism. Show me a realistic situation that is happiness-maximizing, pain-minimizing, and unjust--- then we can talk. If you cannot show me any such situation, maybe your speculative assumptions are garbage after all.

Night Ripper wrote:

Why would you oppose slavery, genocide, rape, etc if it would produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

I wouldn't. Indeed I already told you, just a few posts ago, that I would approve of the Holocaust if I accepted your silly factual propositions---which I emphatically don't. Perhaps you should have read it.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
We can't make progress as long as you avoid the issue. If you can't entertain the possibility of utilitarianism producing such a situation then this conversation is pointless.

If I couldn't entertain the possibility of apple trees bearing apples, the conversation would not be pointless. Show me a picture of an apple tree with apples on it, and we're back in business. And that's all I'm asking you to do about utilitarianism. Show me a realistic situation that is happiness-maximizing, pain-minimizing, and unjust--- then we can talk. If you cannot show me any such situation, maybe your speculative assumptions are garbage after all.

Night Ripper wrote:
Why would you oppose slavery, genocide, rape, etc if it would produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number?

I wouldn't. Indeed I already told you, just a few posts ago, that I would approve of the Holocaust if I accepted your silly factual propositions---which I emphatically don't. Perhaps you should have read it.

Cobblers.

Your utilitarian world view should hold up under any concievable circumstances, Not just the ones you arbitarily decide are "realistic" according to whether you find them difficult to deal with or not. And, when you do not, referring to such circumstsances as "garbage in-garbage out" as you have done on a number of occassions, is extremely weak obfuscatory rhetoric.

Finally, in this last post of yours, we seem to have finally winkled out of you the admission that your ultilitarian philosophy would indeed have the implication of atrocities under specific circumstances. However, you immediately attmpt to neutrsalise this admission by asserting that such circumstance are "silly". Persumably because you would argue that they would never actually exist in the real world. To which my reply would be, what planet have you been living on?

Also, an iussue that has not even been touched on yet is how we get to decide who exactly is in charge of this utilitarian paradise of yours and how do we get rid of such people if we don't want them. Additionally, I would presume that any unfortunates who happened to be on the wrong end of one of your utilitarian calculations would have no rights whatsoever in terms of refusing the consequences of your decision.

How nice.

Or do you persist in avoiding these implication and continue to engage in obfuscation when pressed to deal with them. In which case one is forced to conclue that eiehter you are well aware of them but are unwilling to publicly admit to it because you know well enough that your view would be found to objectionable or, alternatively, you do not fundamentally adhere to utilitarian principles and are just a bit confused but do not wish to admit it as it would represent a loss of face.

As an advocate for ultilitarianism, you are putting up a pretty poor show Thomas.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I would approve of the Holocaust

Well, that's messed up. I think only a monster would approve of the Holocaust, no matter the circumstances.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Well, that's messed up. I think only a monster would approve of the Holocaust, no matter the circumstances.

Of course it's messed up! It's a messed-up conclusion following from a messed-up assumption. Garbage in, garbage out. That's what I've been trying to tell you all the time.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Of course it's messed up!

Then why espouse it?

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

Slavery, religious persecution, arranged marriage, forced female circumcision, etc. All these things were once enjoyed by the majority of people but inflicted upon the minority.

Really? What utter nonsense to even think such a thing let alone say it. Slavery was enjoyed by the majority? When? Where?

Religious persecution is hardly "enjoyed" by the majority. It may be practiced by some but that doesn't equate to the majority "enjoying" it. It doesn't even equate to the majority benefiting from it. I can make many utilitarian arguments as to why it doesn't benefit the majority.

Arranged marriage is still practiced some places and I don't even know why it is on your list since it isn't a question of morality at all.

Forced female circumcision is enjoyed by the majority? That doesn't even make sense if a society is 50% female.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

Quote:

Your utilitarian world view should hold up under any concievable circumstances, Not just the ones you arbitarily decide are "realistic"

Steve,

It isn't realistic to declare something that obviously doesn't create the most happiness does so. Continuing to argue that failure to accept a fantastical scenario means one isn't realistic shows you don't know what reality even is.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Because you made up an IMPOSSIBLE scenario and demanded it be judged. What part of that don't you get?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Because you made up an IMPOSSIBLE scenario and demanded it be judged. What part of that don't you get?

It's not impossible at all. Why is it impossible? Because you say so?

0 Replies

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

Your utilitarian world view should hold up under any concievable circumstances,

No it need not. The purpose of moral rules is to decide cases as they occur in the real world. Holocausts that cause more happiness than suffering are not part of the real world. It needn't concern me if the Utilitarian calculus draws garbage conclusions from such a garbage assumption.

stevecook172001 wrote:

Also, an iussue that has not even been touched on yet is how we get to decide who exactly is in charge of this utilitarian paradise of yours and how do we get rid of such people if we don't want them.

OK, several points here:

Utopia is not an option. I never said a utility-maximizing world would be a paradise, and never did any philopher in the utilitarian tradition. Once again, you are substituting your own prejudices for facts.
Who gets to decide? In most cases, everyone decides for themselves. Every individual knows best what makes him or her happy, so to the first approximation, the policy would be laissez faire.
The limit of laissez faire is reached when increases in your happiness come at the cost at decreases in the happiness of others. That's when we need rules, and rule-enforcement, to ensure that the benefits to you exceed the costs to those others.
Who gets to make these rules? Whoever is most competent to write rules so they actually optimize aggregate utility, and whoever can enforce them with the least cost in utility.

The current state of the art for this kind of government, as I said before, is a federal, constitutional republic, with a legal system enforcing something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a mixed economy somewhere between Hong Kong's and Swedens. But that's just the current state of the art. If Night Ripper's anarchy works better according to these benchmarks, Utilitarians will become anarchists.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Really? What utter nonsense to even think such a thing let alone say it. Slavery was enjoyed by the majority? When? Where?

The early medieval period was rife with slavery. Are you really going to expect me to believe that even though slavery was widespread that the majority secretly opposed it? Now THAT is utter nonsense.

parados wrote:

Religious persecution is hardly "enjoyed" by the majority. It may be practiced by some but that doesn't equate to the majority "enjoying" it. It doesn't even equate to the majority benefiting from it. I can make many utilitarian arguments as to why it doesn't benefit the majority.

The Inquisition doesn't ring a bell?

parados wrote:

Arranged marriage is still practiced some places and I don't even know why it is on your list since it isn't a question of morality at all.

Forcing someone to marry someone else is what I'm referring to, obviously.

parados wrote:

Forced female circumcision is enjoyed by the majority? That doesn't even make sense if a society is 50% female.

That assumes that all women automatically oppose it. That's no true. Some women feel dishonored for their daughters to still have their clitoris.

Why don't you actually go explore reality before you assume that it will never be the case where the majority wishes to inflict some injustice on the minority? That's utter nonsense as well.

0 Replies

The Problem With Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know