"utilitarianism isn't fair" and other myths

[Formless]

The mass concept of time is "what change happens in". As well, utilitarian ethics predates psychology, so I can speak on it using folk psychology just like Bentham and Mill did.

1) Time is a dimension according to relativity. If you are talking about modern physics that is the definition you use, end of fucking story.

2) Did Bentham or Mill know about dopamine or seratonin? Did they know about adrenalin? Cortisol? Did they know about the endocrine system at all? No? Folk psychology is not real psychology; not science; is not real knowledge. Get fucked, you trolling sack of shit. I have no time for your walls of ignorance. If you will not accept that scientific understanding of human psychology is different from folk psychology, or that these terms have meanings other than what the pathetic masses believe, then you have about as much place talking about them as a creationist talking about cosmology. That is, none whatsoever.

I won't even touch the other evasions you've shat out in that post. Because that's all you are doing: evading the point like a little trolling bitch.

[Aranfan]

The mass concept of time is "what change happens in". As well, utilitarian ethics predates psychology, so I can speak on it using folk psychology just like Bentham and Mill did.

1) Time is a dimension according to relativity. If you are talking about modern physics that is the definition you use, end of fucking story.

2) Did Bentham or Mill know about dopamine or seratonin? Did they know about adrenalin? Cortisol? Did they know about the endocrine system at all? No? Folk psychology is not real psychology; not science; is not real knowledge. Get fucked, you trolling sack of shit. I have no time for your walls of ignorance. If you will not accept that scientific understanding of human psychology is different from folk psychology, or that these terms have meanings other than what the pathetic masses believe, then you have about as much place talking about them as a creationist talking about cosmology. That is, none whatsoever.

I won't even touch the other evasions you've shat out in that post. Because that's all you are doing: evading the point like a little trolling bitch.

Bentham and Mill did not, and neither have I said anything about those things.

What is a dimension? It is a place in which things happen.


Where have I evaded? You are the one who has been a blatant hypocrite. Alyrium at least doesn't make a special exception for Jack Chick in his (or her, I don't remember) utilitarian calculations.

[Formless]

You are doing it right now! You either dismissed, ignored, or conveniently forgot my argument that Jack Chic and his opinions are an outlier whose beliefs are out of touch with reality, you try to claim that you aren't making an appeal to popular belief despite the fact that anyone can read what you wrote, you act like your definition of time means anything thus showing you didn't understand or didn't like my comparison to physics definitions, and to top it off you even misrepresent Alyrium!

We ignore his policy opinions because he is a loony who's opinions if implemented will cause a great deal of suffering. We are still obligated not to torture him.

Jesus Christ. I haven't seen dishonesty this blatant in a long time. I'm not going to have a repeat of the last time we argued. You will either address my arguments, or concede.

[Aranfan]

I have addressed your arguments. At least, I addressed my interpretations of your arguments. I can do nothing more, I cannot read your mind to know how you intended them and how that differed from my interpretation.

[Bakustra]

Differences are more important because I don't care much about the commonalities. I already know, intimately, what it is like to be human, and to say they are human tells me nothing about them as them, instead of them as me. I don't care about the human, or that they are human. I have a mom and a sister, so I don't care if someone is female, I know about "the female", I'm interested in, say, their taste in music. I have met black people, and interacting with other blacks as a black and a white has no more interest to me. The unique combination of qualities which make an individual, individual are interesting. What commonalities we have, I care only in as much as they facilitate communication.

Edit: My philosophy can't be hijacked to justify racism, to me, and I'm fine with that.

I did not rant about how You are a black supremacist, merely clarifying my position with regards to the lumping together of people by commonalities.

You're misunderstanding the entire concept, and frankly I suspect that you're simply trolling or else incredibly thick-skulled. Given that you said that you were sincere earlier, that would make you an utter cad. I'll go with thick-skulled simply for the sake of the conversation.

You appear to have no idea why the concept of commonality is used in moral systems. Without any grasp, you leap to the conclusion that this is because utilitarians/statists/your personal bogeymen cannot communicate without obsessing about commonalities. So let me provide you with an example. What distinguishes you from a rock? There are a number of things you could conclude, but I fear that you will jump on the jackass train and declare there are no differences or something equally silly and conversation-retarding. Of these distinctions, many are shared with other things. That is to say, there are categories. These are nested, so we have "organic", "living", "animal", "chordate", "mammal", and so on down the line to individual distinctions of your form.

Let's go back to the rock. Under most utilitarianisms, the rock cannot feel pain, or feel at all for that matter. It lacks life. Nothing can be done to bring it joy or sorrow. Therefore, not action performed to a rock can be moral or immoral. So commonalities allow us to determine the moral status of an object. This is not unique to secular schools- Jainists are forbidden from harming anything with more than three senses, allowing them to eat plants and kill bacteria without breaking holy vows. The theological argument is that without those senses, the entity cannot really be made to suffer.

These commonalities can be used to expose differences as well. Consider a plant. It feels, but only in a stimulus-response way as far as we can tell, and it lacks an approximation of a nervous system with which to feel pain. So our ability to harm plants is limited. Our ability to harm a sea-sponge is similarly limited, but our ability to hurt a mouse is much greater. Now, the specifics vary. Humanists assign humanity as the apex of this moral system, and everything else as unimportant or far less important. Others (such as myself) would place the more intelligent animals in with us at the apex. Others assign full moral recognition to almost all the animals (few do so to sea-sponges and corals). But this does not matter. The central problem is this. Is there a moral distinction between another human being and a pebble on the roadside, and what makes it so? Commonality (of life, of thinking life, of humans) is one method.

Now we get to your bizarre rant, excuse me, justification. You say that this is a justification of racism, sexism, and all manner of nasty things so that you can attack the vile bogeymen. Well, that assumes that you apply it as a naif of naifs by taking all distinctions as important. The commonality of sapience far outweighs the distinction of eye color in any meaningful sense.

You say that your philosophy is unhijackable to you. Well, so is this philosophy to me, and we enter an impasse. If you don't want criticism of your beliefs, then don't have any, and make double-sure not to present them. Your philosophy focuses on the importance of distinctions, and so it can be hijacked as well as the importance of shared traits.

[Formless]

Lie. You never responded to the post where I explained why he should be considered an outlier. The closest you came was posting a content-less one liner that just repeated my statement sarcastically. Don't think I can't read, troll. However, I will grant that you have been addressing merely your personal interpretations of my arguments, rather than what I actually posted. Thank you for admitting you are a strawmanning sack of shit.

[Aranfan]

I am about to go to sleep, so I'll concentrate on this bit.

You say that your philosophy is unhijackable to you. Well, so is this philosophy to me, and we enter an impasse. If you don't want criticism of your beliefs, then don't have any, and make double-sure not to present them. Your philosophy focuses on the importance of distinctions, and so it can be hijacked as well as the importance of shared traits.

I do want criticism. I would not deny myself other people's insights. If I were to deny other people's insights, I'd probably still be trying to walk to Baltimore (which would be very stupid).

Lie. You never responded to the post where I explained why he should be considered an outlier at all. The closest you came was posting a content-less one liner that just repeated my statement sarcastically. Don't think I can't read, troll. However, I will grant that you have been addressing merely your interpretations of my arguments, rather than what i actually posted. Thank you for admitting you are a strawmanning sack of shit.

Explain to me how I can address anything other than my interpretations of your arguments. I cannot get to your arguments save through the filtrations of my own head.

[Bakustra]

I am about to go to sleep, so I'll concentrate on this bit.

You say that your philosophy is unhijackable to you. Well, so is this philosophy to me, and we enter an impasse. If you don't want criticism of your beliefs, then don't have any, and make double-sure not to present them. Your philosophy focuses on the importance of distinctions, and so it can be hijacked as well as the importance of shared traits.

I do want criticism. I would not deny myself other people's insights. If I were to deny other people's insights, I'd probably still be trying to walk to Baltimore (which would be very stupid).

Well, it's bedtime for me too, but what I will say is that this is why your criticisms are facile thus far. They focus entirely upon equivalencies to various unpleasant ideologies. Well, that can be turned around, and denied, and on and on and on. So these are facile, and indeed potentially hurtful.

[Formless]

Explain to me how I can address anything other than my interpretations of your arguments. I cannot get to your arguments save through the filtrations of my own head.

You could actually read and comprehend what I wrote and address that? So far, you've point blank refused to do so! I write what I mean; the only reason you would need mind-reading powers is if I were somehow incoherent or having trouble articulating my thoughts. Sometimes that happens. Right now is not one of those times.

Still waiting on those counter arguments, by the way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where have I evaded? You are the one who has been a blatant hypocrite. Alyrium at least doesn't make a special exception for Jack Chick in his (or her, I don't remember) utilitarian calculations.

I noticed that you have not addressed my argument one iota, fuckstick.

[Aranfan]

Where have I evaded? You are the one who has been a blatant hypocrite. Alyrium at least doesn't make a special exception for Jack Chick in his (or her, I don't remember) utilitarian calculations.

I noticed that you have not addressed my argument one iota, fuckstick.

Ignoring the personal attack, that was because I was busy with Formless. I entered this thread to debate with Formless, perhaps I shall go back and start debating with you here. Perhaps not.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where have I evaded? You are the one who has been a blatant hypocrite. Alyrium at least doesn't make a special exception for Jack Chick in his (or her, I don't remember) utilitarian calculations.

I noticed that you have not addressed my argument one iota, fuckstick.

Ignoring the personal attack, that was because I was busy with Formless. I entered this thread to debate with Formless, perhaps I shall go back and start debating with you here. Perhaps not.

You should. I am smarter than Formless


formless

[Formless]

Are you? Or are you just more experienced?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are you? Or are you just more experienced?

Either/or

I have a high IQ and formal training in ethics? One course shy of that ethics cert...

[Rye]

Because I've seen certain criticisms of utilitarian morality come up so often I decided to make a rant about it.

Take this gem for example:

It doesn't take account of the 'fairness' of the result

We cannot predict every outcome of an event. Simple forms of consequentialism say that the best action is the one that produces the largest total of happiness.

This ignores the way in which that happiness is shared out and so would seem to approve of acts that make most people happy, and a few people very unhappy, or that make a few people ecstatically happy and leave the majority at best neutral.

I'm not calling out the BBC here: I actually came across a link to this article in a blog post where someone was trying to claim that professional ethics are and should be deontological in nature. By their own say-so, of course. But lets think about this for a second. What does utilitarianism actually say?

Everyone ideally is entitled to "happiness" or "avoidance of suffering". That's to put it in its most general terms (note that the BBC oversimplified it in said article). Notice the word EVERYONE. That is the ideal: we are all human, we are all equal. That's the assumption at work. Why then do "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?

Its because the world isn't ideal. It isn't perfect. It isn't fair. If it were, we wouldn't need ethics or morality in the first place!

To put it another way. You can make all of the people happy some of the time, and some of the people happy all of the time, but you cannot make all of the people happy all of the time. We may try, but no one has yet managed.

And if the majority of people approve of something immoral (anti-homosexuality legislation for instance, or the ill-treatment of sex offenders), we run into the problem of "philosophy fit for swine" territory. How do we factor in the happiness of the majority vs the happiness (or avoidance of suffering) of the minority?

Another one I have come to loath is the idea that somehow "subjectivity" is a problem. The BBC article has a couple of variations on it. Hate to break it to people, but to an alien observer studying humans our similarities outweigh our differences. We may have slightly different cultures and we may govern ourselves differently through time and space, but in the end we all have the same basic needs.

I don't think anyone's disputing the basic needs being comparable, just the fact that to different populations, what promotes the best consequences may be wildly different in conception and execution to those populations. An Irish catholic population might go nuts for a wealthy person choosing to give them all free alcohol on St. Patrick's Day, whereas the world's Alcoholic's Anonymous population would not like it, Muslims would find it an affront, etc.

A subset of the above: that somehow its hard and/or unprofitable to predict the consequences of our actions. Uh, yeah, what happened to the sciences? We make true predictions all the time. We do research that doesn't on first glance look profitable all the time. We don't have to research every little situation that comes our way because we already have experience and research to draw upon in similar situations.

Yawn. Yes, science is great, but come on, it's not like we can really scientifically investigate the utilitarian outcomes of buying a product; we cannot be expected to know the origins of every ingredient in a chocolate mousse, let alone everything we buy. You've vanished up your own bum talking about the lofty applications of Utilitarianism, but you have ignored the day to day morally "effective" decisions people make and the limitations of the average person in ordinary life.

[Samuel]

And if the majority of people approve of something immoral (anti-homosexuality legislation for instance, or the ill-treatment of sex offenders), we run into the problem of "philosophy fit for swine" territory. How do we factor in the happiness of the majority vs the happiness (or avoidance of suffering) of the minority?

We see if the justification they used could be expanded to the entire population. Banning homosexuality doesn't work because its lack of legitimate rationales means the ones given can be expanded to groups that people agree don't deserve to be punished as well.

Yawn. Yes, science is great, but come on, it's not like we can really scientifically investigate the utilitarian outcomes of buying a product; we cannot be expected to know the origins of every ingredient in a chocolate mousse, let alone everything we buy.

I may believe people are idiots, but I don't assume they are total morons. If people are buying a product it is probably because they enjoy it and we can measure how much that costs them. If I buy something worth 10 dollars instead of two things worth 5 I probably like the 10 dollar item twice as much as the 5 dollar ones. While this isn't a perfect model, it is better than giving up and not making any calculations at all.

[Formless]

And if the majority of people approve of something immoral (anti-homosexuality legislation for instance, or the ill-treatment of sex offenders), we run into the problem of "philosophy fit for swine" territory. How do we factor in the happiness of the majority vs the happiness (or avoidance of suffering) of the minority?

You moron, I'm not talking about what they approve of or what they do not approve of. I'm talking about what actions that effect them or experiences that they might have will make them happy or unhappy? Preferences about what we want society to be like do not take precedence over basic human needs, and they do not give one the right to fuck over minorities just because you happen to be a bigot. That strawman has come up before, and yes it is on my list thank you very much. This is about utilitarianism, NOT democracy.

I don't think anyone's disputing the basic needs being comparable, just the fact that to different populations, what promotes the best consequences may be wildly different in conception and execution to those populations. An Irish catholic population might go nuts for a wealthy person choosing to give them all free alcohol on St. Patrick's Day, whereas the world's Alcoholic's Anonymous population would not like it, Muslims would find it an affront, etc.

What I want to know is why I should care. They might be wildly different in preferences with regards to alcohol, but those people don't have to attend now do they? It only matters if it actually harms them which it does not. At least, assuming that no one drives home drunk and hits a pedestrian. That last part is why we can even have arguments about this rather than laying over and playing dead simply because some people's preferences happen to be different.

Yawn. Yes, science is great, but come on, it's not like we can really scientifically investigate the utilitarian outcomes of buying a product; we cannot be expected to know the origins of every ingredient in a chocolate mousse, let alone everything we buy. You've vanished up your own bum talking about the lofty applications of Utilitarianism, but you have ignored the day to day morally "effective" decisions people make and the limitations of the average person in ordinary life.

Apparantly Rye has never heard of consumer advocacy or missed my point about "we don't have to be moral Renaissance Men". The average person has limitations on what he can know, but that doesn't mean he can't listen to his betters.

Talk down to someone else, Rye.

[Thanas]

So all you utilitarianists, let me ask you a question:
Where do you draw the limits of applying utilitarianism and if you draw them, how is utilitarianism any different than the old "reasonable approach without emotional bias" that has been the basis of political philosophy since ancient greece?

[Formless]

So all you utilitarianists, let me ask you a question:
Where do you draw the limits of applying utilitarianism and if you draw them, how is utilitarianism any different than the old "reasonable approach without emotional bias" that has been the basis of political philosophy since ancient greece?

Its not? Consiquentialism isn't new, utilitarianism is simply its most modern form. In fact, the Greeks were doing ethics suspiciously similar in that they emphasized the importance of being happy i.e. eudamonia ("human flourishing"). The only difference is that theirs was a virtue ethics approach, where they focused on the consiquences of your character rather than your actions *. I even think of that as a valid form of utilitarian analysis, hence discussions about sociopaths and the virtues of not being one. Its a different focus, that's all.

Thing is, all ethics are going to have limitations because logic itself has limitations. The world is filled with uncertainty, and the very definitions we use are fuzzy. See all those discussions about what animals should be accepted into the "apex" of moral worth with us. It all hinges on which ones should be considered persons, or whether that term is even meaningful. That argument would not go away if we adopted a different approach-- if anything it might become even more important.

* I personally slot discussions of intent into this category, even though most people consider it a part of deontology.

[Thanas]

So where do you place the limits on applying this philosophy?

[Bakustra]

So all you utilitarianists, let me ask you a question:
Where do you draw the limits of applying utilitarianism and if you draw them, how is utilitarianism any different than the old "reasonable approach without emotional bias" that has been the basis of political philosophy since ancient greece?

What do you mean by limits? I suppose that I am not a pure utilitarian, but I believe in very strict standards for the "good of the many versus good of the few" situation. Further, why does it have to be different/why would it being the same be a criticism?

[Formless]

So where do you place the limits on applying this philosophy?

What I already said: where its not clear what beings should fit into what categories of moral worth. A snail is obviously not equal to a human, but what about a dolphin? What about a cat? what about a human with a learning disability or who is clinically retarded? How do other mental illnesses effect our judgements about people? Animals clearly deserve rights, retarded people clearly deserver rights, but its not easy to figure out quite how they differ from us. If we had an intelligent, sapient AI or ran into extra terrestrial life we might run into similar problems due to the fact that they could well be vastly different from us and have few similarities in their psyche and needs.

[Thanas]

Because I kinda have an aversion to people trying to reinvent the wheel.

By limits I mean to what end do you apply this? For example, if a city is under threat of flooding, would you level the city? How about distribution of resources - should people living on the dole be cut off for the greater benefit of the majority? What about performing medical experiments on people comdenmned to die or prisoners?

[Bakustra]

Because I kinda have an aversion to people trying to reinvent the wheel.

By limits I mean to what end do you apply this? For example, if a city is under threat of flooding, would you level the city? How about distribution of resources - should people living on the dole be cut off for the greater benefit of the majority? What about performing medical experiments on people comdenmned to die or prisoners?

Why would that be the outcome with the least harm? The outcome with the least harm would be to secure the city against flooding and make sure the residents are aware of the dangers, to my mind. No coercion necessary, and it enables people worried about floods to leave the city.

People living on the dole shouldn't be cut off for the greater benefit of the majority, because the harm done to them is greater than the benefit received by the majority. Utilitarians are not universally anarcho-capitalists!

Performing medical experiments on the condemned or prisoners is probably the grayest area. I don't support that, personally, because I believe that the marginal benefit of a trial does not outweigh, or rather justify, additional dehumanization of prisoners, even those sentenced to death. I think the opportunity should be made available, but not forced.

[Formless]

What about performing medical experiments on people comdenmned to die or prisoners?

Oh, that's easy. We keep saying we have an obligation not to torture, and that obligation stems from utilitarian analysis. Medical experimentation generally has the same set of problems. We might, if the situation was dire enough and lacking any other solution, chose to go through with it anyway. Fortunately that kind of situation is rare outside of fiction.

I guess you could say I apply it pretty damn far. In fact, its at the opposite end of the scale where I do not apply it. When it comes down to truly inconsequential decisions like whether or not to buy Pepsi or Coke its not really worth the effort. Though again, there is a lot gray area in between "support the death penalty or no?" and "buy Pepsi or Coke?"