Welfarist approaches to ethics

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Is welfare commesurable with a Utilitarian ethic? The idea is to do the greatest good, but good is determined by happiness. It seems to me that many people are greedy, and it makes them "unhappy" to pay into welfare. If that is the case and the quantity if people who are unhappy is higher than those who are happy by paying into it/being helped by it, would it then be immoral to have welfare?

As I think more about Utility, it doesn't always seem to make sense. Some conclusions seem to be absurd, while the general principle seems good and useful. Lot's of Utilitarians I have read about seem to have the welfarist principle, but how do you compare the happiness/unhappiness when dealing in political policy? Don't people have different ideas of what's "happiness inducing," and how do you know what will make people happy.

The same could work for organized religions. If happiness is the criterion, and huge numbers of people think religions give them happiness, but they don't care about the detriments, what is the right decision regarding religion? If you debunked them, and it caused mass unhappiness, would that be wrong?

It seems like it if you go by happiness, but it seems absurd if you go by practicality. You can't keep ideas around if they are not factual...

This leads me to a question:

Can ethics always be applied to reality, or is it just that wishy-washy?

[wolveraptor]

Ethics are useless if they can't be applied to reality. Furthermore, I defy you to show me why happpiness=good must be a factor in Utilitarianism. If that were so, it might be better for us to remain as hunter-gatherers, and live in a sort of ignorance-is-bliss happiness. Stupidity-induced-happiness is the kind that most major religions promote, and they only function under the impossible standard that all flow of information must be controlled. This would make the minority whose freedom-of-speech is limited unhappy, and would set the stage for a revolt as people find out that information has been hidden from them.

[Darth Wong]

Is welfare commesurable with a Utilitarian ethic? The idea is to do the greatest good, but good is determined by happiness. It seems to me that many people are greedy, and it makes them "unhappy" to pay into welfare.

The level of petulant "unhappiness" caused by comfortable people paying into welfare is not comparable to the level of misery caused by people being unable to provide food for their children. Don't be stupid.

As I think more about Utility, it doesn't always seem to make sense. Some conclusions seem to be absurd, while the general principle seems good and useful. Lot's of Utilitarians I have read about seem to have the welfarist principle, but how do you compare the happiness/unhappiness when dealing in political policy? Don't people have different ideas of what's "happiness inducing," and how do you know what will make people happy.

Utilitarianism is easier to deal with when you realize that its definition of happiness is more about preventing suffering than about ensuring some kind of state of joy and contentment. When you view it as minimizing outright suffering, it's easier to come up with objective definitions and terms.

The same could work for organized religions. If happiness is the criterion, and huge numbers of people think religions give them happiness, but they don't care about the detriments, what is the right decision regarding religion? If you debunked them, and it caused mass unhappiness, would that be wrong?

See above.

It seems like it if you go by happiness, but it seems absurd if you go by practicality. You can't keep ideas around if they are not factual...

This leads me to a question:

Can ethics always be applied to reality, or is it just that wishy-washy?

Of course ethics can always be applied to reality. That's one of the hallmarks of a well-designed ethical system: that it works in reality rather than expecting reality to change itself in order to conform to its predictions.

[Jew]

As I think more about Utility, it doesn't always seem to make sense. Some conclusions seem to be absurd, while the general principle seems good and useful.

I believe the absurdity stems from its abrogation of individual human rights. Utilitarianism is about achieving the rights of the group. But does a group have rights? Does a group really exist?

No, it does not. A group is an intellectual shorthand used to refer to a mass of people. Each person is an individual with individual rights. The group's rights are merely the sum of the rights of the individuals.

Utilitarian ethics claims that the rights of the group can be separate from the rights of the individual. Basically, it says that it is permissible to violate the rights of one individual for the good of the group. But this doesn't make sense. The group is made up of individuals, and the group only has rights because the individuals have rights. If you claim it is sometimes ethically good to violate the rights of one individual, then you have destroyed the source of the rights of the group. Because the group's rights cannot exist unless the individuals' right also exist. You cannot claim to respect group rights while violating individual rights. Utilitarianism ultimately fails in the face of absolute individual human rights.

[Darth Wong]

As I think more about Utility, it doesn't always seem to make sense. Some conclusions seem to be absurd, while the general principle seems good and useful.

I believe the absurdity stems from its abrogation of individual human rights. Utilitarianism is about achieving the rights of the group. But does a group have rights? Does a group really exist?

No, it does not. A group is an intellectual shorthand used to refer to a mass of people. Each person is an individual with individual rights. The group's rights are merely the sum of the rights of the individuals.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. How does this disprove the notion that something which benefits many at the expense of the few is better than something which benefits the few at the expense of the many?

Utilitarian ethics claims that the rights of the group can be separate from the rights of the individual.

Wrong. Utilitarianism is not about rights at all, moron. It is about minimizing suffering.

Basically, it says that it is permissible to violate the rights of one individual for the good of the group. But this doesn't make sense. The group is made up of individuals, and the group only has rights because the individuals have rights. If you claim it is sometimes ethically good to violate the rights of one individual, then you have destroyed the source of the rights of the group. Because the group's rights cannot exist unless the individuals' right also exist. You cannot claim to respect group rights while violating individual rights. Utilitarianism ultimately fails in the face of absolute individual human rights.

Individual human rights are not absolute. And they don't "exist" any more than groups do; in fact, they have considerably less tangibility than groups do. They are mere constructs, designed to serve a purpose of ensuring a more just society. If they are incorrectly designed or societal conditions change so that they actually harm society, they can and should be revised or limited.

[Jew]

Individual human rights are not absolute. And they don't "exist" any more than groups do; in fact, they have considerably less tangibility than groups do. They are mere constructs, designed to serve a purpose of ensuring a more just society.

Well that's the difference between individualism and altruism. One philosophy of ethics is built upon the idea of individual rights, the other is built on the idea of collective rights. Pick the one that is most self-consistent.

[Darth Wong]

Individual human rights are not absolute. And they don't "exist" any more than groups do; in fact, they have considerably less tangibility than groups do. They are mere constructs, designed to serve a purpose of ensuring a more just society.

Well that's the difference between individualism and altruism. One philosophy of ethics is built upon the idea of individual rights, the other is built on the idea of collective rights. Pick the one that is most self-consistent.

Do you have a fucking reading comprehension problem? I see the point sailed far over your head. Go back and read my post and try to correctly determine what I was saying, instead of forcing everything into the forms and terminologies of your dogma.

[Jew]

All right then. If individual rights are not absolute, where does our ethical standard of right and wrong come from? There must be some standard we use to determine what constitutes a "just society." What is that standard?

[Kuroneko]

The level of petulant "unhappiness" caused by comfortable people paying into welfare is not comparable to the level of misery caused by people being unable to provide food for their children. Don't be stupid.

Hit the nail on the head there.

Utilitarianism is easier to deal with when you realize that its definition of happiness is more about preventing suffering than about ensuring some kind of state of joy and contentment. When you view it as minimizing outright suffering, it's easier to come up with objective definitions and terms.

Yes, but given the above, one could simply emphasize the 'net' in the 'net happiness' clause (i.e., total happiness minus total misery).

Furthermore, I defy you to show me why happpiness=good must be a factor in Utilitarianism. If that were so, it might be better for us to remain as hunter-gatherers, and live in a sort of ignorance-is-bliss happiness.

Don't be silly; even the hedonists do not have such a narrow view of what is good for people. Some people prefer to actually achieve something substantial, and gain a sense of satisfaction from it; such 'preference-hedonists' would support them fully. But it is also important to note that the hedonistic point of view is not the only mainstream iteration of utility--the two main alternatives are the so-called 'desire-fulfillment' and 'objective-list' theories. The former differens from hedonism in that it refers to what is actually the case rather than what is perceived by the individual, and the latter turns hedonism upside down by saying that yes, it really is better to be a miserable Socrates than a happy pig.

I believe the absurdity stems from its abrogation of individual human rights. Utilitarianism is about achieving the rights of the group. But does a group have rights? Does a group really exist? No, it does not. A group is an intellectual shorthand used to refer to a mass of people. Each person is an individual with individual rights. The group's rights are merely the sum of the rights of the individuals. ... You cannot claim to respect group rights while violating individual rights. Utilitarianism ultimately fails in the face of absolute individual human rights.

This account merely begs the question. An account of group rights as an aggregate of individual rights is functionally equivalent to an account of individual rights as an aggregate of group obligations, since any given right, e.g., right to free speech, is logically equivalent to a group obligation, e.g., not to abridge speech. If the above was correct, one would be justified in claiming that there are no individuals, only groups--since the inference is exactly analogous. After all, the individual's rights are merely the sum of the obligations of the group. But that step is neither necessary nor valid; in any case, a utilitarianist would be perfectly justified in treating rights as something that arises from group obligations rather than some kind of ethical atom.

[Darth Wong]

All right then. If individual rights are not absolute, where does our ethical standard of right and wrong come from? There must be some standard we use to determine what constitutes a "just society." What is that standard?

If you know nothing at all about utilitarianism (and it's becoming quite obvious that you don't), then why the fuck are you participating in a thread about it?

[Jew]

All right then. If individual rights are not absolute, where does our ethical standard of right and wrong come from? There must be some standard we use to determine what constitutes a "just society." What is that standard?

If you know nothing at all about utilitarianism (and it's becoming quite obvious that you don't), then why the fuck are you participating in a thread about it?

It's not my specialty, but I have studied utilitarianism. I just wanted to hear what you had to say on the question of the source of value standards. I'm not going to learn anything if we just trade rants.

[AdmiralKanos]

All right then. If individual rights are not absolute, where does our ethical standard of right and wrong come from? There must be some standard we use to determine what constitutes a "just society." What is that standard?

If you know nothing at all about utilitarianism (and it's becoming quite obvious that you don't), then why the fuck are you participating in a thread about it?

It's not my specialty, but I have studied utilitarianism. I just wanted to hear what you had to say on the question of the source of value standards. I'm not going to learn anything if we just trade rants.

I made my case earlier. You have made no attempt whatsoever to address it. Instead, you merely spout dogma about "absolute" rights. In short, your lone criticism against utilitarianism so far is that it is worse than your preferred system because it differs from your preferred system. This merely begs the question, as Kuroneko pointed out.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Don't be silly; The former differens from hedonism in that it refers to what is actually the case rather than what is perceived by the individual, and the latter turns hedonism upside down by saying that yes, it really is better to be a miserable Socrates than a happy pig.

Ahhh thanks. Could you PM me a link or some information about the Objective-list varients? I am not familiar with that. I have studied a lot about utility, but all I seem to find are preference Utilitarianism, and the traditional hedonistic one. They both seem somewhat subjective in conent.

Darth Wong wrote:
Utilitarianism is easier to deal with when you realize that its definition of happiness is more about preventing suffering than about ensuring some kind of state of joy and contentment. When you view it as minimizing outright suffering, it's easier to come up with objective definitions and terms.

So, is this more of a Negative Utilitarian construct?

I defy you to show me why happpiness=good must be a factor in Utilitarianism.

I know there are other types of Utility, but in many of them, the calculus still uses some type of Happiness, but they define happiness differently. I simply don't know why many Ethics classes (even mutliple classes) always seem to harp on Hedonism, act, and rule, instead of delving more into preference or something.

They never seem to answer the important questions students have about the ethical systems. Preference gets a bit confusing, and I could never figure out how preference coincides with certain things we do in society, since what's ethical would be the maximizaton of personal preferences. What if people, net, just don't feel like doing something?

I would really appreciate any insight into P.Utility, if you have it, Kuroneko

[Darth Wong]

So, is this more of a Negative Utilitarian construct?

This is like asking whether the statement "heat is the absence of cold" is any more negative than "cold is the absence of heat".

[Jew]

So, is this more of a Negative Utilitarian construct?

I believe that's the accepted term for it, yes. But as Wong says, there's nothing intrisically negative about it. It's the same thing described in different words.

I made my case earlier. You have made no attempt whatsoever to address it.

I don't believe you've posted in this thread, unless you posted under a different screen name. Can you point me to the thread you're referring to?

[Big Phil]

I don't believe you've posted in this thread, unless you posted under a different screen name. Can you point me to the thread you're referring to?

Darth Wong and Admiral Kanos are the same. Kanos is what he uses when he's doing a formal smackdown, banning, titling, or some other Admin function, while Darth Wong is his everyday account.

[Edi]

I made my case earlier. You have made no attempt whatsoever to address it.

I don't believe you've posted in this thread, unless you posted under a different screen name. Can you point me to the thread you're referring to?

Newsflash for the clueless: Admiral KAnos is the administrative account Mike uses to take care of user bannings and other such tasks that require powers not available to common mods. He has two different accounts for board security reasons. You should really know something this basic about how the forum operates, especially since the distinction is made in the staff listing thread in the announcements forum. Which you shoulad have read.

Edi

[Jew]

Thanks. It's been quite a while since I've read the stickies in the Announcements forum. I certainly understand the need for separate accounts, it just never occured to me that someone would swap accounts in the middle of a thread. Right then, chalk this one up to my ignorance.

[Kuroneko]

Ahhh thanks. Could you PM me a link or some information about the Objective-list varients? I am not familiar with that. I have studied a lot about utility, but all I seem to find are preference Utilitarianism, and the traditional hedonistic one. They both seem somewhat subjective in conent.

Well, I can at least give you some references, which google will likely able to sort out. This picture of utility is natural outcome of certain theories of well-being that go back all the way to Plato and Aristotle, since the most relevant difference with desire-fulfillment theories is that objective-list ones posit (parallels with Platonic arete (cf. Republic II.582, etc.) that some desires are irrational or in some other way suboptimal. Among the more modern and famous accounts, see, for example, John Dewey's ethics, which shares many characteristics with utilitarianism. An explicitly utilitarian use of this notion has been done by Henry Sidgwick, although it should be noted that the objective-list reading of his work is only one interpretation among many, it is also the most coherent one, as although he starts out with a fairly standard desire-fulfillment exposition, he then admits irrationality of some desires. Among the contemporary philosophers, Derek Parfit is a good example.

I know there are other types of Utility, but in many of them, the calculus still uses some type of Happiness, but they define happiness differently. I simply don't know why many Ethics classes (even mutliple classes) always seem to harp on Hedonism, act, and rule, instead of delving more into preference or something.

It may be because the hedonistic calculus and its identification with utility was made by Jeremy Bentham, which is where utilitarianism has its beginning. But don't let yourself be constrained by particular accounts; utilitarianism is a very basic schema that can work with virtually anything. For example, if one defines 'utility' as the 'rationality and scientific investigation', utilitarianism suddenly becomes almost perfectly compatible with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Have some fun with different definitions, and try to see what their pros and cons are. The purpose of philosophy classes (or, at least, good philosophy classes) is neither to learn historical positions in philosophy nor to indoctrinate in any particular one; it is simply to learn how to think philosophically.

Preference gets a bit confusing, and I could never figure out how preference coincides with certain things we do in society, since what's ethical would be the maximizaton of personal preferences. What if people, net, just don't feel like doing something? I would really appreciate any insight into P.Utility, if you have it, Kuroneko

I really can't do much other than say that I think that preference hedonism is completely off-kilter, since it allows for substitution of reality with mere appearances. It is irrelevant whether the preference is actually met or only appears to be met to the individual; hedonism can't draw the distinction, since the subjective sensation is what it finds most valuable. Desire-fulfillment theories, such as 'success theory', work with actualities rather than appearances. In this, they are better than preference-hedonism, but they have their problems as well, one of which you point out above. That's really where objective-list theories come in, which can judge such cases to be irrational.

[Patrick Degan]

If individual rights are not absolute, where does our ethical standard of right and wrong come from? There must be some standard we use to determine what constitutes a "just society." What is that standard?

Usually, it starts with what is generally referred to as "the Golden Rule" and proceeds to what constitutes the least measure of injustice to the balance of society.

As illustration, imagine a lifeboat designed for 40 persons having only eight on board among a group of people in the water following the sinking of a ship. Ethically, the responsibility of the people in the boat is to take as many of those persons aboard before they either freeze to death or are eaten by sharks. It would be morally reprehensible to refuse aid on the basis of an abstraction.

That may be an extreme example, but it limns the point down to basics. And as an aside, the notion that there is no such thing as a group (or as Margaret Thatcher once famously said "There is no such thing as society") is ludicrous on its face. You can prate about individialism all you like, but in the end you have to live with other people whether you like it or not and when you violate the norms of the group, it is the group that judges you. The group is very real as any anthropologist or politician or Army platoon-seargent or convict in the state penitentiary can tell you. To deny its existence flies in the face of everything observed about both politics and mamalian behaviour.

[Jew]

The group is very real as any anthropologist or politician or Army platoon-seargent or convict in the state penitentiary can tell you.

Sure. Power wielded by the group is very real. That doesn't necessarily make it right, nor does it follow that the group therefore has rights that are separate from the rights of the individuals in that group. Groups exist, and they wield power, but the root question is where rights come from.

I like your Golden Rule analogy, but I don't believe it gets to the root of the source of values. Should our standard of values be based on "what we would want people to do for us?" That boils down to consensus: we should poll the people and figure out what the public wants, and that's what is defined as morally right?

The Golden Rule as a source of values is a subjective rule. It changes with the whims of the public. An ethical standard of right and wrong should apply across all times and cultures. Once you have that ethical standard in place, the Golden Rule is a good pragmatic way to apply those ethics to real life. I.e., if "kindness" is a universal ethical principle, then use the Golden Rule to figure out the best way to display kindness. But the Golden Rule itself isn't the source of the ethical principle of kindness.

Of course you're free to disagree with me; philosophers and ethicists have been debating these topics for hundreds of years.

Personally, I think the Golden Rule is a great way to live life. I try to treat others well, in the way I hope to be treated in return. It's a nice voluntary rule of thumb that helps me get along with other people, but it isn't the source of my value system. I respect the rights of individuals because individuals have inherent rights as human beings, not merely because I want to be afforded those rights in return. I am ethically obligated to respect the rights of others regardless of the Golden Rule.

[Patrick Degan]

The group is very real as any anthropologist or politician or Army platoon-seargent or convict in the state penitentiary can tell you.

Sure. Power wielded by the group is very real. That doesn't necessarily make it right, nor does it follow that the group therefore has rights that are separate from the rights of the individuals in that group. Groups exist, and they wield power, but the root question is where rights come from.

Rights do not exist ex-nihilo. It would be impossible to define individual liberties absent the context of society and vice-versa.

[Jew]

Rights do not exist ex-nihilo. It would be impossible to define individual liberties absent the context of society and vice-versa.

Well sure. No society can be described without the context of individual liberties, and individual liberties only make sense in the context of society that must respect those rights. Without a society a man is alone in nature, and nature--not being a conscious living organism--has no obligation to respect a man's "rights." We have no disagreement.

[SirNitram]

The group is very real as any anthropologist or politician or Army platoon-seargent or convict in the state penitentiary can tell you.

Sure. Power wielded by the group is very real. That doesn't necessarily make it right, nor does it follow that the group therefore has rights that are separate from the rights of the individuals in that group. Groups exist, and they wield power, but the root question is where rights come from.

They are, point blank, conceptual concepts spawned from a sufficiently enlightened society. You know, a group.

You'll object to this, but it's the cold, hard, nasty truth. Rights aren't inherent. The universe does not think you're allowed to live. Rights come from people sitting down and thinking about what is morally right to benefit the many the best.

I like your Golden Rule analogy, but I don't believe it gets to the root of the source of values. Should our standard of values be based on "what we would want people to do for us?" That boils down to consensus: we should poll the people and figure out what the public wants, and that's what is defined as morally right?

That's a fairly ridiculous strawman of the Golden Rule. It simply asks that we do not harm other folks(We wouldn't want to be harmed), and help them when we can.

The Golden Rule as a source of values is a subjective rule. It changes with the whims of the public. An ethical standard of right and wrong should apply across all times and cultures. Once you have that ethical standard in place, the Golden Rule is a good pragmatic way to apply those ethics to real life. I.e., if "kindness" is a universal ethical principle, then use the Golden Rule to figure out the best way to display kindness. But the Golden Rule itself isn't the source of the ethical principle of kindness.

All sources of morality are going to be subjective, because they all have their own premises which are logically impossible to prove. Yes, even 'Do no harm' is not logically, objectively 'right'. It's part of the nature of logic. Once you have your premise, you can expand from there to what Rights people should have, and you can ennumerate them legally and conceptually.

Of course you're free to disagree with me; philosophers and ethicists have been debating these topics for hundreds of years.

And with the exception of one lying bitch named Rand, they've never declared to have an objective system of ethics.

Personally, I think the Golden Rule is a great way to live life. I try to treat others well, in the way I hope to be treated in return. It's a nice voluntary rule of thumb that helps me get along with other people, but it isn't the source of my value system. I respect the rights of individuals because individuals have inherent rights as human beings, not merely because I want to be afforded those rights in return. I am ethically obligated to respect the rights of others regardless of the Golden Rule.

'Inherent' rights? How? Go on, try and prove they're inherent.

[Darth Wong]

Rights do not exist ex-nihilo. It would be impossible to define individual liberties absent the context of society and vice-versa.

Well sure. No society can be described without the context of individual liberties,

Utter nonsense. Individual "rights" did not exist as a legal concept in most ancient societies, and are actually a fairly recent philosophical development, historically speaking. You can most certainly have a society without legally prescribed individual rights.

Individual rights are a means to an end; they do not overshadow that end, and they should not be made into an end unto themselves. We define them because society values them; if society does not value them or if society finds that they cause more trouble than they're worth for some reason, then they can be revised, limited, or even outright deleted. The idea that all other ethical systems and principles should be made subordinate to absolute rights is idiotic.