"utilitarianism isn't fair" and other myths

[Aranfan]

When there is something of consequence at stake, you owe it to yourself and/or to others to use rationalism, rather than making it the slave of whatever random and arbitrary preferences might pop into your head. "But I don't want to!" is not a license to throw objectivity to the winds.

The underlined is exactly Kant's position. It is also why we will do nothing but shout past each other. It is premised on the proposition that the not-rational is not an essential part me, that it is only accidentally part of me, which is a position that I reject.

Aranfan, are you under some sort of mystic compulsion to flip coins when making decisions that strongly affect the lives and happiness of other people?

If not, I fail to see how "makes illogical decisions when confronted with high-stakes situations" is an essential part of your nature. Or if it is, how that is different from saying that "idiot" is an essential part of your nature... which is hardly a philosophically defensible position.

One cannot argue "Ah, but I am an idiot, therefore your system does not apply to me because I lack the brains to implement it!"

But then you could argue Health Leger's Joker to be utilitarian, who sees chaos as most conducive to human happiness. I suppose my problem with it is that it is a method of deriving best actions, that can be attached to very nefarious ideologies and goals. But then, that's the way it is with any useful tool.

[Formless]

You know, what I would find a lot more interesting would be looking at everyday or normal situations instead of weird superhypotheticals.

So for example: What role did your moral system play in choosing your profession/university degree? Did you look at various degrees and decide to go for the one that would provide the greatest benefit to mankind?

So my question is: How do you use your moral system in everyday situations? Do you even use it in those situations? Or is it more a matter of trying to change your intuitive non-thinking reactions/actions?

If I could know which degree would most likely benefit mankind the most, yeah I would probably be drawn to it. Of course, then I would have to know whether or not I am likely to be successful at it... well, like Bakustra said there are a lot of unknowns at play in that specific example. And besides, really almost any profession would likely benefit society to some degree or another (barring perhaps business, which I'm not really attracted to anyway) and almost all are necessary for society's continued function and/or improvement. So really the question is null and void if you think about it.

Do political choices count as an everyday situation? I chose to be part of the Green Party explicitly for moral reasons, as even being listed contributes in some small way to the party's visibility. Sure, I'm unlikely to ever see a member of my party win an election but every little bit helps. And I'll be damned if the Republicrats ever see my vote.

To the very last question, yes. I do want to change my gut reactions. At least, to a certain degree. But then, every moral code does that since gut reactions are just as likely to lead to bad actions as good ones: from mere apathy to crimes of passion. The more you apply it the more it becomes second nature, like any skill. Eventually you stop even noticing that you are doing it.

[Simon_Jester]

Aranfan, are you under some sort of mystic compulsion to flip coins when making decisions that strongly affect the lives and happiness of other people?

If not, I fail to see how "makes illogical decisions when confronted with high-stakes situations" is an essential part of your nature. Or if it is, how that is different from saying that "idiot" is an essential part of your nature... which is hardly a philosophically defensible position.

One cannot argue "Ah, but I am an idiot, therefore your system does not apply to me because I lack the brains to implement it!"

But then you could argue Health Leger's Joker to be utilitarian, who sees chaos as most conducive to human happiness. I suppose my problem with it is that it is a method of deriving best actions, that can be attached to very nefarious ideologies and goals. But then, that's the way it is with any useful tool.

No, Aranfan, that's the opposite of what I said.

The Joker is insane. Crazy. Not thinking coherently. His thoughts are irrational, and he lets them guide his actions.

I, on the other hand, say that when your actions involve the well-being of others, you should be rational. Not irrational.

Since you have chosen to use analogies from comic books, I am saying you should be less like the Joker (who is completely insane, and imposes his insanity on others by hurting them when his irrational impulses tell him to), and more like Batman (who is relatively sane, and tries hard to make rational decisions when the well-being of others is at stake).

Again, when it's important, you should be rational. Not irrational. If you suffer from powerful compulsions that make you be irrational whether you want to or not, that's a sign of insanity, not of "I am unique and special because of my irrational impulses." If you are capable of rationality, you should use it when important things on the line.

[Aranfan]

Ultimately, its all just particles hitting each other. Objectively, we are tiny specks on a minuscule ball of dirt twirling pointlessly around a completely average star in just another spiral galaxy. Objectively, it's all just particles/waves and forces interacting without any sort of teleology or point.

So, on what ground do you consider a life to be important? Why is pulling a trigger more important than what breakfast cereal to eat? As Dr. Manhatten in Watchmen said, there isn't much structural difference between a living and a dead body.

[Formless]

So if its "all just particles hitting each other" would you mind if I kicked you in the nuts?

Ah, moral Nihilism. Last resort of the desperate and hypocritical.

[Aranfan]

So if its "all just particles hitting each other" would you mind if I kicked you in the nuts?

Ah, moral Nihilism. Last resort of the desperate and hypocritical.

Hardly. I am not trapped by this at all. This is because, even if the universe doesn't care, I do. Yet this is to say that I place my subjectivity above the objectivity of the universe.

[Formless]

Hardly. I am not trapped by this at all. This is because, even if the universe doesn't care, I do. Yet this is to say that I place my subjectivity above the objectivity of the universe.

And the universe doesn't care, I do. Why do you get to arbitrarily put your personal preferences above my own? What the fuck does "objectivity" even mean in this context?

Jesus, do you ever have a point to make that doesn't boil down to "I do what I feel like" as Bakustra so eloquently put it?

[Simon_Jester]

Ultimately, its all just particles hitting each other. Objectively, we are tiny specks on a minuscule ball of dirt twirling pointlessly around a completely average star in just another spiral galaxy. Objectively, it's all just particles/waves and forces interacting without any sort of teleology or point.

So, on what ground do you consider a life to be important? Why is pulling a trigger more important than what breakfast cereal to eat? As Dr. Manhatten in Watchmen said, there isn't much structural difference between a living and a dead body.

What makes you think suffering isn't an objective reality?

I don't think you know what objectivity is; you just pretend you do so you can dismiss it and avoid needing to think about the words that come out of your mouth.

[Aranfan]

Show me where suffering is in QM or GR.

Something that is objectively true is true even without my interpreting it as true. That which is objective is independent of my mind and my interpretation. But I'm not independent of my mind and my interpretation.

[Wyrm]

Show me where suffering is in QM or GR.

Wrong field altogether. Suffering is a neurophysical phenomenon, not part of QM or GR.

Something that is objectively true is true even without my interpreting it as true. That which is objective is independent of my mind and my interpretation. But I'm not independent of my mind and my interpretation.

The effects of stress hormones, like cortisol, have been known for quite some time. Mental stress, otherwise known as suffering, has been known to cause the release of stress hormones for quite some time, too. We can even modulate it, somewhat.

Pain is caused by painful stimuli, which have known origins in pain-sensitive nerves, and is mediated by the neurotransmitter Substance-P. It is known to cause both physical and mental stress. And obviously we can modulate it: there is an entire class of drugs that modulate it, called analgesics.

And both are connected through the very physical brain.

So, yes, your suffering is an objective phenomenon.

[Formless]

Even if we didn't know how it works, suffering would still be an emprically real phenominon. I touch something with my hand, its real. If that thing happens to be a red hot iron poker, it burns. The pain is real. Stress is perhaps a little more difficult to verify in that sense since different people cope with it in different ways, but I think most people would agree even then that it exists barring scientific understanding of the mechanism. Ditto for happiness and pleasure-- which by the way we know is related to the chemically very real neurotransmitters dopamine and seratonin. Though its arguably a more complex subject than pain and stress.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Should I repost the arguments I have made? I have been waiting for some time for them to be addressed.

[Simon_Jester]

No point. Aranfan is a very low grade of sophist; he will ignore you because he can't come up with a counter.

Show me where suffering is in QM or GR.

Does the phrase "emergent properties" mean nothing to you?

Well, OK, maybe it does. Maybe you think elephants aren't real because there is no particle in the Standard Model known as the "elephanton." That just goes to show you know too little about both elephants and the Standard Model.

Aranfan, almost all your arguments seem to boil down to "I am too ignorant to consider the possibility that my whims should not govern reality/my actions/whatever." Then you make up whatever funny hats to put on them you can think of, trying to substitute rhetorical devices for a grasp of the realities.

That doesn't work. You can't say "I am too irrational to be rational," because the very fact that you can tell what a rational act would be means you have the capability; you're just rejecting it. You can say "I ought to be rational, but fail."

But you can't absolve yourself of the duty to use your brain by denying that you have one.

[Rye]

This also raises another problem with Utilitarianism, one more fundamental; justice is always subservient to a sufficiently prized outcome. So is everything, ultimately. Under utilitarianism you would massacre your 4 member family to save a family of 10 across the world. Of course, people don't act like that so in practise, while we may hold it up high as a moral theory (and in principle, rightly so), moral aesthetics borne from human nature will overrule it.

Which is precisely the problem with this kind of argument — it is contrived. If you were seriously forced into this situation, where the reality really is that massacring 4 people is the only way save a family of 10 across the world, I fail to see how one would cope with this situation any other way. Deciding not to massacre 4 people to save them is to condemn 10 people to death, which on an individual basis are likely equally horrific, lacking any additional knowledge of the situation.

This does not say that massacring 4 people is not horrific in and of itself. It's simply the lesser of two evils. If we are serious about valuing life, then we'd better be prepared to man up and uphold that principle.

That is not the point of the thought experiment - the point is that we do not value people equally and thus our behaviour will not be Utilitarian in action, meaning that you will always get actions that benefit the individual and those he values above and beyond others. This is a biological limitation in mankind, the "monkeysphere" on cracked.com and the Selfish Gene in Dawkins' work of the same name. It is unreasonable to expect people to be Utilitarian all or even most of the time.

Why do our preferences for how society ought to be not take precedence over basic human needs?

Why do you pretend that our societal preferences are not ultimately formed to address those needs?

They do, that's why they take preference; it makes sense to create a system that most efficiently and morally addresses basic and complex human needs, and to strive for the best way of doing so, even if it means resources being spent on something other than immediate basic needs.

Because world hunger is not a problem that will be solved by slaughering your pets, or even helped to any significant degree. There are much better options availible. Again, contrived examples.

To serve the point that we do not value each other equally, and we probably never could. Even in Utilitarianism, the man who saves the most lives is more valuable than Joe Average, so it should come as no surprise that people will value what they have more of an emotional attachment to, the real reasons they live their lives.

It underlines exactly what's wrong with your argument: again, contrieved examples. You pretend that the only choices availible is for everyone to attend, or for the party to be disbanded. In fact there are 2N choices for N people. Surely somewhere in that space you can find a solution that has a higher maximum than either extreme.

The example is there to make you realise relative value, not to be a plausible situation. Harping on about that is just pedantry.

[Bakustra]

That's not really a effective criticism of utilitarianism, since you could do the same for any moral system other than one which defines one's actions as moral. After all, people refuse to abide by deontological rules, they act out of less than virtuous intentions, and yes, they often assign value irrationally. That means that any problem with utilitarianism is generally shared across moral systems, and is more of a problem with morality itself, if problem it be.

[Rye]

That's not really a effective criticism of utilitarianism, since you could do the same for any moral system other than one which defines one's actions as moral. After all, people refuse to abide by deontological rules, they act out of less than virtuous intentions, and yes, they often assign value irrationally. That means that any problem with utilitarianism is generally shared across moral systems, and is more of a problem with morality itself, if problem it be.

If an ethical system doesn't work out in real life then that seems to be a pretty good criticism of it. I would still hope that governments and people in general try to abide by it, but in the end, people will look after themselves and their allies first and foremost and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

[Bakustra]

That's not really a effective criticism of utilitarianism, since you could do the same for any moral system other than one which defines one's actions as moral. After all, people refuse to abide by deontological rules, they act out of less than virtuous intentions, and yes, they often assign value irrationally. That means that any problem with utilitarianism is generally shared across moral systems, and is more of a problem with morality itself, if problem it be.

If an ethical system doesn't work out in real life then that seems to be a pretty good criticism of it. I would still hope that governments and people in general try to abide by it, but in the end, people will look after themselves and their allies first and foremost and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

That applies to every moral system, though, so singling out utilitarianism and implying that this is something special about it isn't really that defensible. The question shouldn't be whether an ethical system is absolutely perfect, but rather how well people are able to abide by it. But that's not really a competition between the major classifications of ethical systems anyways.

[Wyrm]

That is not the point of the thought experiment - the point is that we do not value people equally and thus our behaviour will not be Utilitarian in action, meaning that you will always get actions that benefit the individual and those he values above and beyond others. This is a biological limitation in mankind, the "monkeysphere" on cracked.com and the Selfish Gene in Dawkins' work of the same name. It is unreasonable to expect people to be Utilitarian all or even most of the time.

This is a failure due to the fact that we are the product of a different calculus that a utilitarian ethics would teach. Also, the example is contrieved — you are restricting us to two choices when the action space is in fact very large.

Because world hunger is not a problem that will be solved by slaughering your pets, or even helped to any significant degree. There are much better options availible. Again, contrived examples.

To serve the point that we do not value each other equally, and we probably never could.

It serves no such point. I rejected your proposed action to slaughter all of our pets to feed the hungry because it's fucking impractical — that means it isn't a solution no matter what you pretend. An action that does not actually solve the issue is rejected out of hand, as any good decision analysis should.

Even in Utilitarianism, the man who saves the most lives is more valuable than Joe Average, so it should come as no surprise that people will value what they have more of an emotional attachment to, the real reasons they live their lives.

I don't see why this is a problem — good behavior should be encouraged. Re-read my first post in this very thread: the way you treat others is quite dependent on what you know about them.

It underlines exactly what's wrong with your argument: again, contrieved examples. You pretend that the only choices availible is for everyone to attend, or for the party to be disbanded. In fact there are 2N choices for N people. Surely somewhere in that space you can find a solution that has a higher maximum than either extreme.

The example is there to make you realise relative value, not to be a plausible situation. Harping on about that is just pedantry.

The hurt isn't equal in this particular case. The only reason the Muslims are 'hurt' is because they've decided that they are going to let the behavior of other people bother them. The AAers are the only ones with any significant point.