The Problem With Utilitarianism

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

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 less relevant than the accuracy if it's contents. Do you dispute the accuracy of 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

@stevecook172001,

Hi Steve.

If you are going to cut and paste, please credit your sources.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

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

Evidently we disagree on what the point of your last post was. To put it bluntly: I am not interested in discussing with incompetents. To me, the main point about your last post is that it proved your incompetence about utilitarianism. And it didn't just prove you're incompetent, it also proved you're a dishonest incompetent---an incompetent who attempts to fake competence by coping&pasting from Googled websites, and then tries to cover his tracks by not crediting his sources. And for what? It took me five minutes to catch you red-handed. You're so incompetent you even miss the mark for being a competent fake.

What could possibly motivate me to continue talking with you? I participate in this community for fun, and dealing with dishonest incompetents isn't fun for me. It's a waste of my time. I'm done discussing with you. Bye.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Hi Steve.

If you are going to cut and paste, please credit your sources.

Ordinarily I certainly do ebeth. This was just one of those occassions where I neglected to do it so as sometimes happens when one is rushing. I would have thought the fairly formal nature of the prose of the section I have posted would be pretty indiocative that I was making little attempt to pass it off as my own and, in any event, the points stand on their own merit in terms of their accuracy or otherwise. I note that Thomas has not rejected the descripton of Bentham and hios views that I have provided.

I additionally note that Thomas has, thoughout this thread, used a number of what I consider to be intellectually obfuscatory tactics in order to avoid answering awkward critisisms of the philosophy he is exposing. As such Iwill be little surprised if this continues under the cover of a faux-problem with lack of citation.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:
You have neatly though completely transparently attempted to avoided answering the points raised in my immediately previous post.

Evidently we disagree on what the point of your last post was. To put it bluntly: I am not interested in discussing with incompetents. To me, the main point about your last post is that it proved your incompetence about utilitarianism. And it didn't just prove you're incompetent, it also proved you're a dishonest incompetent---an incompetent who attempts to fake competence by coping&pasting from Googled websites, and then tries to cover his tracks by not crediting his sources. And for what? It took me five minutes to catch you red-handed. You're so incompetent you even miss the mark for being a competent fake.

What could possibly motivate me to continue talking with you? I participate in this community for fun, and dealing with dishonest incompetents isn't fun for me. It's a waste of my time. I'm done discussing with you. Bye.

As I was saying ebeth.......

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:
You have neatly though completely transparently attempted to avoided answering the points raised in my immediately previous post.

Evidently we disagree on what the point of your last post was. To put it bluntly: I am not interested in discussing with incompetents. To me, the main point about your last post is that it proved your incompetence about utilitarianism. And it didn't just prove you're incompetent, it also proved you're a dishonest incompetent---an incompetent who attempts to fake competence by coping&pasting from Googled websites, and then tries to cover his tracks by not crediting his sources. And for what? It took me five minutes to catch you red-handed. You're so incompetent you even miss the mark for being a competent fake.

What could possibly motivate me to continue talking with you? I participate in this community for fun, and dealing with dishonest incompetents isn't fun for me. It's a waste of my time. I'm done discussing with you. Bye.

So, I take it from the content of your reply, that you do not dispute the description of Bentham and his views

In which case, the only questions remaining to be answered are do you agree with them or not and, if not, why not?

Judging by your manner of debate to this point, I won't hold my breath wating for such answers.

0 Replies

@stevecook172001,

Except there are some problems with your plagiarizing steve.

Do you think this is a quote from Bentham?

Quote:

a precept addressed to the legislators, to those responsible for the management of society

I'll give you a hint. It's not.

Of course if we go to the source of that quote, we find that your view of utilitarianism is quote different from that espoused by Bentham in that you keep restricting the use to small groups.

Dinwiddy writes in the same paragraph the quote above is from

Quote:

If, for example, one adopted the standpoint of 'citizen of the world' as Bentham did in his writing on international law, the principle of utility could be extended to embrace the welfare of the human race as a whole.

I find it interesting that not only did you steal the words of someone else instead of talking about what Bentham himself wrote. You stole the words of someone that used the work of another person in talking about Bentham.

1 Reply

@parados,

Oh, you're saying it wasn't even an authentic plagiat, but a plagiarized plagiat? This is getting better and better!

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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.

Am I to interpret this as meaning that you do not support the forced detention of mentally ill people, who feel persecuted by that detention, on the grounds that they present a danger to themselves? If so, have you withdrawn your claim that I would be wrong to feel persecuted if I were locked up on this excuse? That would put us back to the situation of there, as yet, being no non-utilitarian explanation for the pretty much universal history of societies, with the resources, incarcerating mentally ill people against their will.

Thomas wrote:

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."

Either this is a practice of utilitarian principles or it isn't, if it is, then there is an example of a practice of utilitarian principles with which you do not agree. If it is not, then I await an argument to that effect.
In any case, about the example of the person who neither speaks nor wears clothes:
1) you're on record as not approving of the detention
2) the explanation of the detention as an example of the implementation of utilitarian principles has not been challenged
3) the above entail that you do not approve of at least one manifestation of utilitarianism.
Are you attempting to defend the stance that utilitarianism doesn't result in a minority of people suffering? It seems obvious to me that people will suffer, regardless of the proportion of people attempting to live by utilitarian principles.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Am I to interpret this as meaning that you do not support the forced detention of mentally ill people, who feel persecuted by that detention, on the grounds that they present a danger to themselves?

I suggest that you sharpen your reading comprehension.

1) I do not support the detention of competent grown-ups who want to cut, kill, or other otherwise harm themselves. It's their choice to make, and they're competent to make it.

2) I do support the detention of incompetent people who would otherwise harm themselves---no matter if the reason for the incompetence is drunkenness, dementia, or a mental disease. The difference between scenarios #1 and #2 is that in scenario #2, it is much more likely that they will, in retrospect, regret their choice---if they live to regret it.

ughaibu wrote:

2) the explanation of the detention as an example of the implementation of utilitarian principles has not been challenged

If I remember correctly, you haven't explained it as an implementation of Utilitarian principles. You merely have stated your inability to explain it as an example of anything else---but that's not an explanation; it's just laziness.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The quotes in the piece weren't from Bentham. In the original piece it is footnoted to show they came from Dinwiddy but as copied the footnotes were not there. My impression was the quotes were Bentham. Then when I couldn't find them in his work, I thought I should google the rest of the piece and found it wasn't original.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I suggest that you sharpen your reading comprehension.

Either you approve or you do not approve of the forced detention of mentally ill people, who know what they're doing, on the grounds that they present a danger to themselves. Which is it?

Thomas wrote:

If I remember correctly, you haven't explained it as an implementation of Utilitarian principles.

There exists one person, naked and non-communicative, who defecates publicly. This person is not a danger to themselves or to others but this person is detained indefinitely against their will.
1) by observation of that fact that dogs are not detained for this behaviour, we can rule out any necessity of detention
2) detention is for the convenience of those whose susceptibilities are offended, not of the detainee
3) this is a case of suffering being imposed on an individual to please a larger group, thus it is an example of utilitarian principles in action.
Are you intending to waste my time with these attempted evasions indefinitely? If so, please state that fact, and I will leave you to your illusions.

1 Reply

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

I additionally note that Thomas has, thoughout this thread, used a number of what I consider to be intellectually obfuscatory tactics in order to avoid answering awkward critisisms of the philosophy he is exposing. As such Iwill be little surprised if this continues under the cover of a faux-problem with lack of citation.

On the contrary, I'd say Thomas has been remarkably patient in dealing with your strawman arguments. He may not have given you the answers that you wanted, but he gave you the answers that your questions deserved.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Either you approve or you do not approve

See, it's not that simple for me, because I'm thoughtful.

ughaibu wrote:

of the forced detention of mentally ill people, who know what they're doing, on the grounds that they present a danger to themselves. Which is it?

I disagree with the premise of your question---if they're mentally ill, we can't assume that they know what they're doing. And because I disagree with the premise, I cannot respond "yes" or "no".

ughaibu wrote:

There exists one person, naked and non-communicative, who defecates publicly. This person is not a danger to themselves or to others but this person is detained indefinitely against their will.

A life sentence for public defecation? Assuming that this extreme scenario is actually happening, I expect that practically all Utilitarians would disapprove of it. The suffering to the defecator from life imprisonment far outweighs the benefit to the public from reduced public nuisance.

ughaibu wrote:

Are you intending to waste my time with these attempted evasions indefinitely?

It isn't in my power to waste your time. I can only submit posts to this thread; the choice to read them is yours alone. If you find that the read wastes your time, that's your problem. You're free to quit anytime.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

if they're mentally ill, we can't assume that they know what they're doing.

Sure we can, if there is any mentally ill person who knows what they're doing. As this seems to be the case, unless you have an argument, or redefinition, to the effect that no mentally ill person knows what they're doing, you appear to be evading the issue.

Thomas wrote:

Assuming that this extreme scenario is actually happening, I expect that practically all Utilitarians would disapprove of it.

In that case, as this is an exemplification of utilitarianism, I take it that "practically all utilitarians" are inconsistent.

Thomas wrote:

The suffering to the defecator from life imprisonment far outweighs the benefit to the public from reduced public nuisance.

I see no reason to accept this and you haven't offered any method of quantifying relative suffering. Assume that during the time that the defecator is awake and active, on average twenty people are disturbed in various ways and to various degrees, how do you decide that committal to a mental hospital, for an indefinite period, (notice that this does not imply a life sentence) is the course of action providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people?
I repeat my earlier question; are you attempting to defend the stance that utilitarianism doesn't result in a minority of people suffering?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

I repeat my earlier question; are you attempting to defend the stance that utilitarianism doesn't result in a minority of people suffering?

No---because a world in which nobody is suffering isn't an option. Every system of ethics, if applied, will produce a world where at (at least) a minority of people suffers. That includes Utilitarianism.

As to the rest of the post, most of it deals in strawmen, which (as I already said) I'm not interested in discussing. The first part invents a strawman-world in which mentally ill people can be assumed to know what they're doing. The second part invents a world in which what Utilitarianism means what you say it means, not what Utilitarians say it means. I lack the patience for that.

The only other point that has meat is the following charge:

ughaibu wrote:

I see no reason to accept this and you haven't offered any method of quantifying relative suffering. Assume that during the time that the defecator is awake and active, on average twenty people are disturbed in various ways and to various degrees, how do you decide that committal to a mental hospital, for an indefinite period, (notice that this does not imply a life sentence) is the course of action providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

In principle, you could ask pedestrians in the park how much they'd be willing to pay in order to not be disturbed by public defecation in the park. You could also ask defecators how much money they'd be willing to pay---in dollars and in abstinence from public defecation---for every day not spent in a mental hospital. Then you calculate the sentence or fine that minimize the total cost for everyone. It's not a perfect process, but it's a reasonably workable one.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
are you attempting to defend the stance that utilitarianism doesn't result in a minority of people suffering?
No---because a world in which nobody is suffering isn't an option. Every system of ethics, if applied, will produce a world where at (at least) a minority of people suffers. That includes Utilitarianism.

Of course, so utilitarianism reduces to a statement about numbers.

Thomas wrote:

The first part invents a strawman-world in which mentally ill people can be assumed to know what they're doing.

Nonsense, I suggest you look up the fallacy of attacking a straw man. If it is the case that there is at least one person who meets the following conditions:
1) diagnosed as mentally ill
2) considered to be a danger to themself
3) aware of what they are doing (in whatever the relevant sense is)
and if it is the case that such a person is committed to a mental institution, then there is an actual case to deal with. But in any case, philosophy is primarily discussed by way of hypotheticals, so unless you can show that the above four conditions can not apply, then you have a question to answer.

Thomas wrote:

The second part invents a world in which what Utilitarianism means what you say it means, not what Utilitarians say it means.

This too is nonsense. Are you claiming that by "utilitarianism" you mean something other than the belief that the most morally worthy action is the action which results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

Thomas wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
I see no reason to accept this and you haven't offered any method of quantifying relative suffering. Assume that during the time that the defecator is awake and active, on average twenty people are disturbed in various ways and to various degrees, how do you decide that committal to a mental hospital, for an indefinite period, (notice that this does not imply a life sentence) is the course of action providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people?
In principle, you could ask pedestrians in the park how much they'd be willing to pay in order to not be disturbed by public defecation in the park. You could also ask defecators how much money they'd be willing to pay---in dollars and in abstinence from public defecation---for every day not spent in a mental hospital. Then you calculate the sentence or fine that minimize the total cost for everyone. It's not a perfect process, but it's a reasonably workable one.

In short, you are not in a position to state that the suffering of the detainee is a lesser good than the suffering of the public, and you espouse a course of action that might result in detention.
I dont understand what you're arguing for, you admit that there will be suffering under utilitarianism and haven't shown utilitarianism to be a thesis concerning other than numbers. As far as I can see, this means that you have not met Night Ripper's point.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

See, it's not that simple for me, because I'm thoughtful.

David Letterman (interviewing Bill O'Reilly) right?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Yet another problem with utilitarianism is that it's a form of consequentialism and therefore suffers from the same flaw that all forms of consequentialism do, namely that it's "not the thought that counts". This is clearly false because intentions matter more than consequences. If you think only consequences matter then you think it's moral to aim at a person's head and shoot at it in the event that the shot misses and hits the hungry mountain lion that was about to pounce on him or her thereby accidentally saving their life.

I think we all know that even though the outcome was good, the utility was high, etc, it was still an immoral act to intend to shoot a person in the head and act on it, even though your attempt at murder failed.

I think virtue ethics is much more sensible. It allows for good outcomes to come from bad intentions and vice versa and it still reflects our moral intuitions. Instead of consequences of an action being the moral deciding point, virtue ethics looks at the character of the person doing the action. Consequences matter but only the expected consequences, not what actually happens. If I give you a free meal out of the goodness of my heart and that free meal gives you food poisoning and kills you, that wasn't an immoral act solely because of INTENTION which reflects the CHARACTER of the person. It would have been immoral if I had INTENDED to give my guest food poisoning but I didn't. That's what matters.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Correct. Good catch, Robert!
(I wasn't sure if it was Letterman, Bill Maher, or John Steward. So if you say it's Letterman, that's probably who it was.)

1 Reply

The Problem With Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know