The Problem With Utilitarianism

@stevecook172001,

No, Steve Cook, "wise old Utilitarians" don't get to choose what's good for the rest of us. That wasn't even the issue I responded to in the post you're attacking. The issue was that Night Ripper accused Utilitarianism of being complacent with the oppression of homosexuals. I responded by pointing out that the first Utilitarian philosopher was also the first to advocate that gay sex be legalized. Moreover, if you read Bentham's text, you will find that his reasoning is explicitly Utilitarian: Gay sex, far from harming its participants, brings them pleasure. There is no offsetting harm to anybody else. Therefore, gay sex ought to be legalized. That's a Utilitarian defense of homosexuals, presented long before anybody else defended them. This destroys Night Ripper's claim that Utilitarians approve of oppressing homosexuals.

As to the rest of your post, I'm going to ignore it. You continue to argue against strawmen. I'm not interested in defending your strawmen. I have nothing to say to you about them.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Oh I see, only the "nice" one's (as defined by who?) are allowed to be called utilitarian.

Of the 3 examples you just provided.. who promoted them while claiming to be utilitarian? You are declaring all decision making to be utilitarian which clearly it is not.

Let me ask you steve, does your decision to be an idiot make more people happy? Why do you continue to make that decision? Are you a utilitarian?

I'm claiming that utilitariansim cannot exist. There is absolutely no evidence that it "works" betten than any other form social organisation or that it has any better capacity to predict what is going to be for the greater good over time. This is putting to one side what the hell is meant by "greater good" anyway.

However, what there is voluminous and overwhelming evidence for is a an endless parade of arseh*le's throughout history who have suppressed the liberty of the majority in the name of a "greater good".

This rhetoric of rule has taken many forms over the millenia and has gone by many names. The word of god, the divinity of kings, communiusm, capitalism, socialism utilitariansim etc etc etc. On and on.

Utilitariansim is just one more addition to this host of bullsh*t, after-the-fact-narratives used by the few to justify their rule over the many. I agree with little of what Marx wrote. But he was right about the above.

Also, as we know, ad-hominem is the last resort of a failed argument. So I guess I should thank you for that.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Forget about homosexuals, how about persecution of the mentally ill?

How about it? No Utilitarian has ever defended it. Is there anything more specific that you want to know?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
how about persecution of the mentally ill?
No Utilitarian has ever defended it.

Why not?

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

I'm claiming that utilitariansim cannot exist.

Under your usage of the word "utilitarianism", that may well be true. But the rest of the world has no obligation to submit to your usage of words, and indeed it doesn't. To the rest of the world, Utilitarianism is "a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number". (Source: Mirriam-Webster) To everybody in the world except you, then, Utilitarianism is a doctrine. We can disagree on whether it's a valid or fallacious doctrine, but it certainly does exist.

stevecook172001 wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence that it "works" betten than any other form social organisation

Utilitarianism is a doctrine about ethics, not a form of social organization.

stevecook172001 wrote:

or that it has any better capacity to predict what is going to be for the greater good over time.

It doesn't claim to be. Remember, the doctrine is about ethics, not epistemology.

Steve Cook, you may have valuable knowledge in other fields. But when it comes to Utilitarianism, you don't know what you're talking about. What's more, you show no interest in learning.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
how about persecution of the mentally ill?
No Utilitarian has ever defended it.
Why not?

Why?

I can try to explain events, but it's beyond my power to explain non-events. So I have to turn the question around: Why would you expect Utilitarians to defend the persecution of the mentally ill?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

It is true that it is a form of persecution of the minority by the majority but democracy is ruled by majorities so there is no escape unless the minority form their own nation.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
Thomas wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
how about persecution of the mentally ill?
No Utilitarian has ever defended it.
Why not?

Why?

As far as I can see, the pretty much universal history of incarceration, by societies with the resources, of the mentally ill, can only be explained as an implementation of utilitarianism. So it seems odd to me that the number of utilitarians to have defended this practice is zero.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

As far as I can see, the pretty much universal history of incarceration, by societies with the resources, of the mentally ill, can only be explained as an implementation of utilitarianism.

First of all, I have to disagree with your logic. As a doctrine, Utilitarianism isn't about rubber-stamping whatever societies did throughout history. And just because you cannot think of a way to explain a phenomenon other than as an implementation of Utilitarianism, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's a fallacy to argue from lack of imagination like that; I can't give you the Latin name for the fallacy, but maybe joefromchicago can.

Second, I notice that you seem to be moving the goal posts. Now you're talking about incarceration, not persecution (which is a loaded term anyway). Some mentally ill people are a danger to the public and to themselves: they rape, murder, run around naked on interstate highways, and whatnot. For these particular mentally ill people, incarceration can be justified on Utilitarian grounds if it keeps them from harming themselves or other people, and if there are no less intrusive ways to achieve this protection---medication, for example. I wouldn't call that persecution though, and I doubt that doing so would be standard English usage.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

just because you cannot think of a way to explain a phenomenon other than as an implementation of utilitarianism, that doesn't mean there it's impossible.

Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation.

Thomas wrote:

Now you're talking about incarceration, not persecution (which is a loaded term). Some mentally ill people are a danger to the public and to themselves

I would certainly feel persecuted if I were indefinitely detained against my will, wouldn't you? Particularly if I were subjected to this treatment on the excuse that I'm a danger to myself.

Thomas wrote:

For these particular mentally ill people, incarceration can be justified on Utilitarian grounds

If you're a utilitarian, I take this to indicate that at least one utilitarian does defend this practice.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Thomas wrote:
just because you cannot think of a way to explain a phenomenon other than as an implementation of utilitarianism, that doesn't mean there it's impossible.
Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative explanation.

Not really. First of all, mentally ill persons haven't been prosecuted universally. In some cultures, the kinds of people we categorize as mentally ill are considered saints, and their speech we categorize as deluded drivel is revered as "speaking in tongues" there. There is no phenomenon for me to explain. Second of all, meanness and ignorance are perfectly obvious explanations on why "average" people harrass the weak and the different. Just because a lot of them do it doesn't mean it's right. Utilitarianism is concerned with what's right, not with what's common.

ughaibu wrote:

I would certainly feel persecuted if I were indefinitely detained against my will, wouldn't you? Particularly if I were subjected to this treatment on the excuse that I'm a danger to myself.

According to Merriam-Webster, to prosecute is "to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief" If people locked you up against your will to protect yourself and others from serious bodily harm, you might feel prosecuted---but you'd be wrong to feel this way.

ughaibu wrote:

If you're a utilitarian, I take this to indicate that at least one utilitarian does defend this practice.

I defend the practice of incarcerating dangerous mentally ill people, yes. I don't defend their persecution. And your moving the goalposts does not make the two the same.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If people locked you up against your will to protect yourself [. . . . ] from serious bodily harm, you might feel prosecuted---but you'd be wrong to feel this way.

I see no reason to accept this. In first world urban societies there are people whose behaviour results in them being locked up, for example those who don't speak or wear clothes and **** in the street, etc, yet those people present no danger to others or themselves, and as dogs, for similar behaviour, are not locked up, I reject your contention that such people are mistaken if they feel persecuted. After all, if there is no victim, that is a person who feels persecuted, then there is no persecution. And such people are locked up to protect the decorous sensibilities of the majority, it's an exact illustration of persecution of the individual under utilitarian principles.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

Let's start with the basics here Steve that you seem to be missing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a code of ethics. It isn't a form of government or economics.

Quote:

Also, as we know, ad-hominem is the last resort of a failed argument. So I guess I should thank you for that.

I see.. so if I use an example about YOU it becomes silly and an ad hominem? Why is your example relevant but mine isn't? You made a decision to act in a certain way. That action makes you look like a idiot. From a utilitarian viewpoint why do you act that way? Are you saying your decisions can't be judged using utilitarianism? If not, then why not?

Now would you care to answer my question about your 3 examples? I can't argue the issue if you won't discuss it.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

I see no reason to accept this.

Fine, then don't. I can only present my view of things. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

ughaibu wrote:

In first world urban societies there are people whose behaviour results in them being locked up, for example those who don't speak or wear clothes and **** in the street, etc, yet those people present no danger to others or themselves, and as dogs, for similar behaviour, are not locked up

If they're not a danger to others or themselves, I don't approve of locking them up. They are not the people I was talking about. Once again, you are moving goalposts.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If they're not a danger to others or themselves, I don't approve of locking them up.

What's the excuse for locking up people who're a danger to themselves? You have the right to hurt or kill yourself, dont you?
In any case, your approval is irrelevant to the example, persecution occurs under utilitarianism.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

What's the excuse for locking up people who're a danger to themselves? You have the right to hurt or kill yourself, dont you?

If they know what they're doing, yes. Since we're talking about mentally ill people who're a danger to themselves, my assumption is that they don't know what they're doing.

ughaibu wrote:

In any case, your approval is irrelevant to the example

It's relevant to rebutting your earlier allegation that "if you're a utilitarian, I take this to indicate that at least one utilitarian does defend this practice."

ughaibu wrote:

persecution occurs under utilitarianism.

Like Steve, you appear to mistake utilitarianism for a system of government. I suggest you go and read up on the topic you're so confidently dispensing opinions about.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:
I'm claiming that utilitariansim cannot exist.

Under your usage of the word "utilitarianism", that may well be true. But the rest of the world has no obligation to submit to your usage of words, and indeed it doesn't. To the rest of the world, Utilitarianism is "a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number". (Source: Mirriam-Webster) To everybody in the world except you, then, Utilitarianism is a doctrine. We can disagree on whether it's a valid or fallacious doctrine, but it certainly does exist.

stevecook172001 wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that it "works" betten than any other form social organisation

Utilitarianism is a doctrine about ethics, not a form of social organization.

stevecook172001 wrote:
or that it has any better capacity to predict what is going to be for the greater good over time.

It doesn't claim to be. Remember, the doctrine is about ethics, not epistemology.

Steve Cook, you may have valuable knowledge in other fields. But when it comes to Utilitarianism, you don't know what you're talking about. What's more, you show no interest in learning.

I am aware enough of the essential principles of utilitarianism and am also well aware that its founding father saw it precisely as a guiding principle of government

Along with his idea of pleasure and pain as sovereign masters Bentham introduced what he called the principle of utility which may be summarized as the principle that "every action should be judged right or wrong according to how far it tends to promote or damage the happiness of the community".

Bentham believed that human behavior was motivated by the desire to obtain pleasure and to avoid pain. In Introduction to the Principles he states that it is " the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". These principles were intended by Bentham to be " a precept addressed to the legislators, to those responsible for the management of society"

Bentham specifically hoped to affect some social change rather than to merely influence intellectual beliefs. He even went so far as to suggest that legislators should regulate the ways in which individuals sought their own happiness. The idea of punishment and reward were to be the means by which the legislator could control the people's pursuit of happiness. Rewards were regarded as a less important method than punishments. Utilitarianism taught that through the infliction and threat of pain people would be provided with motives for abstaining from socially harmful behavior.

Bentham sought to create what he termed a "Pannomion" or a codification of the entire body of English laws as they were known at that time. He believed that the one constant in all these laws should be that they were derived from the will of the legislator. These laws were to be made up of a command or prohibition supported by the threat of punishment.

Bentham's emphasis on law and punishment reflected the fears he had towards the natural rights ideology that had resulted in the French Revolution. The "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" found in the French Constitution of 1791 proclaimed that all men had unlimited rights to "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression".

Bentham felt that such unlimited rights were incompatible with any type of law or government.

Do you reject any/all of the views of the founding father of this philosophy you espouse. If so which parts do you reject and why?

2 Replies

@stevecook172001,

Steve Cook:

I appreciate your commitment to learn more. But if you want to have a conversation about Bentham, you'll need to read the real Bentham, not some website you found through an emergency Google run. And when you come back, it would be nice if you came with your own thoughts, not with a copy and paste from that website that you're not even giving the site credit for. That's cheating.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Steve Cook:

I appreciate your commitment to learn more. But if you want to have a conversation about Bentham, you'll need to read Bentham, not some website you found through an emergency Google run. And when you come back, it would be nice if you came with your own thoughts, not with a copy and paste from that website.

You have neatly though completely transparently attempted to avoided answering the points raised in my immediately previous post.

The source of the post is irrelevant if it's contnets are accurate. Do you dispute the description I have posted of Bentham's views ore not? It you do not, do you agree with them or not? If not, why not?

4 Replies

@stevecook172001,

Thomas wrote:

I appreciate your commitment to learn more. But if you want to have a conversation about Bentham, you'll need to read Bentham, not some website you found through an emergency Google run. And when you come back, it would be nice if you came with your own thoughts, not with a copy and paste from that website.

You have neatly though completely transparently attempted to avoid answering the points raised in my immediately previous post.

The source of the post is irrelevant if it's contents are accurate. Do you dispute the description I have posted of Bentham's views ore not? It you do not, do you agree with them or not? If not, why not?

0 Replies

The Problem With Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know