Utilitarianism

[stfoskey15]

But who decides what counts as a positive feeling? I wouldn't define food, water, shelter or clothing as things that make me happy. Some people might derive happiness from the type of food/shelter/clothing, but that's something different. A lot of my family doesn't make me happy. Quite the opposite. I agree that it's important to give people the freedom to make themselves happy, but that's not something utilitarianism necessarily stipulates.

Popular vote as majority rule does not guarantee fairness for anyone. It guarantees fairness for the majority as the majority defines fairness. Meanwhile, all the people who get outvoted will be complaining that the government is stealing from them to spend money on things they don't like. The thing is, utilitarianism doesn't care if some people are unhappy. That's expected. It cares that more people are happy than unhappy. It doesn't include any method for determining who the 'more' should be, and it doesn't have any inherent ability to balance short-term happiness vs long-term happiness.

Exactly. Yet, within utilitarianism, each stage of killing people off is perfectly justified. Stage one is 30% dead with 70% better off. Go with the 70%. Stage two is 32% dead with 68% better off. Go with the 68%.

The problem with utilitarianism isn't the methodology. It's that the goals are undefined. Maximizing happiness or well-being sounds like a nice idea. Actually doing it is something else altogether. More importantly, utilitarianism doesn't have any limits on where to draw the line. Neither of us would really advocate killing other people. We don't advocate stealing or slavery or any number of things, but utilitarianism has no moral considerations beyond 'maximum possible good'. It's nice in principle, but it doesn't match how people actually think we should behave.

I think most people are born with a certain amount of empathy. Thus killing/enslaving/raping/stealing/etc. is instinctively viewed as bad by most of society and would not make a society happier. There is the danger of dehumanizing certain groups of people such that the majority are happier, but the dehumanized people would be made much less happy than the dehumanizers would be made happy, so net happiness would come as a loss overall.

Maybe there's a realistic situation where utilitarianism breaks down, but I haven't been convinced by one yet.

By the way, do you have a system you think is better?

[siam]

Utilitarianism seems to be a bottoms--up (as opposed to top-down) approach to morality...that is,---it seems to be context/situation oriented. This makes it unbalanced...leading to moral confusion which can end up in moral bankruptcy.....On the other hand... a completely top-down approach---as in absolute, universal principles based on a binary conception of ethics/morality is also equally unbalanced and can lead to injustice...which also leads to moral bankruptcy.

To have a wholistic approach to ethics/morality---one needs both top-down and bottoms-up approaches that are consistent and systematic. In order to do so, we need to work with some assumptions of human nature. We are motivated by 2 basic types of desires---self-interest and altruism...the satisfaction of either or both creates "happiness"(hedonic, eudaimonic). (One might even point out---that both are necessary survival mechanisms). However, excess in either self-interest or altruism will create harm (either to self or others)---therefore we need to restrain excess and balance these two desires so that they work for benefit rather than harm. Yet, this misses an important "first principle"---without which any discourse on ethics/morality cannot achieve consistency. The principle of the inherent equality of all humanity (equivalent human value of all humanity).

A top-down principle that is universally approved is that one should not kill/murder (right to life). If we assume that all humanity is of equivalent value ---then particular actions should not effect the human value of a person---in other words---negative actions does not diminish human value....to do so would break the principle that all humanity is equal by making those who do negative actions unequal/of less value. (Likewise, status or privilege should not make someone/group, of more value/superior to another---as that too would break the principle of inherent equality.) Therefore, in order to be consistent the right to life is a value to be extended even to an "enemy". A binary system of ethics/morality would leave this as an either/or right/wrong option without other considerations....leaving it open to injustice.
This is why it needs to be balanced by a bottoms-up approach that can contextualize so as to provide very particular exceptions...thus, while keeping in mind the right to life of an "enemy"---to not protect oneself would infringe on the right to life of "self"---therefore, in such a situation, the right to life of "self"---would weigh more/take precedence--if this is at all possible without infringing on the right of the other/enemy to life as well. If not, then the right to self-defense in case of attack weighs more in context thereby becoming a particular exception to the principle of not to kill/murder.

so,...if a knife-wielding thief attacked you, the best ethical/moral action would be to throw him the wallet and run away--thus preserving your life and his....but if the thief were to persist in attacking you anyway, and no other recourse were available but to fatally harm him in order to preserve one's own life...then this exception would be permissible...(provided there were no other options available)

By providing very specific and contextualized exceptions to general principles one retains the consistency of the general principle and yet upholds justice.....

[siam]

an interesting case:---

[seer]

an interesting case:---

I tend to agree with Singer in this video, and I'm not sure where inherent equality or inherent human dignity are grounded. Are these just arbitrary ideals we make up? What is their basis?

[Carrikature]

I think most people are born with a certain amount of empathy. Thus killing/enslaving/raping/stealing/etc. is instinctively viewed as bad by most of society and would not make a society happier. There is the danger of dehumanizing certain groups of people such that the majority are happier, but the dehumanized people would be made much less happy than the dehumanizers would be made happy, so net happiness would come as a loss overall.

None of this is necessarily encompassed by utilitarianism, though. Utilitarianism's success or failure rests completely on its goal definition (or lack thereof). 'Instinctively viewed as bad' doesn't counter 'viewed as a net positive'. The two aren't mutually exclusive. There's no such thing as a happiness unit by which we can measure overall outcome. All anyone has in argument for or against a particular course of action is assertion, and that's not a stable system for moral decision making. In the video siam linked, the question is proposed and quite cleanly answered that torture of an innocent is ok when balanced by saving enough other innocents. You couldn't get a clearer proof that 'instinctively viewed as bad' is downright irrelevant. He doesn't even like the answer, but he knows it's the correct one under utilitarianism.

Maybe there's a realistic situation where utilitarianism breaks down, but I haven't been convinced by one yet.

It doesn't necessarily break down as long as proponents are willing to accept the conclusions despite how repugnant they may be. My example of killing billions of people is absurd, but it's unassailable within utilitarianism. You have to bring in other principles to counter it. That's perfectly fine, but it's no longer strict utilitarianism.

By the way, do you have a system you think is better?

I think siam's post #32 pretty much covers it. A combination of deontological ethics with consequentialism is effective. You can't simply ignore the potential outcomes of your actions, but neither can you ignore certain basic principles.

[Carrikature]

utilitarianism seems to be a bottoms--up (as opposed to top-down) approach to morality...that is,---it seems to be context/situation oriented. This makes it unbalanced...leading to moral confusion which can end up in moral bankruptcy.....on the other hand... A completely top-down approach---as in absolute, universal principles based on a binary conception of ethics/morality is also equally unbalanced and can lead to injustice...which also leads to moral bankruptcy.

To have a wholistic approach to ethics/morality---one needs both top-down and bottoms-up approaches that are consistent and systematic. In order to do so, we need to work with some assumptions of human nature. We are motivated by 2 basic types of desires---self-interest and altruism...the satisfaction of either or both creates "happiness"(hedonic, eudaimonic). (one might even point out---that both are necessary survival mechanisms). However, excess in either self-interest or altruism will create harm (either to self or others)---therefore we need to restrain excess and balance these two desires so that they work for benefit rather than harm. Yet, this misses an important "first principle"---without which any discourse on ethics/morality cannot achieve consistency. The principle of the inherent equality of all humanity (equivalent human value of all humanity).

A top-down principle that is universally approved is that one should not kill/murder (right to life). If we assume that all humanity is of equivalent value ---then particular actions should not effect the human value of a person---in other words---negative actions does not diminish human value....to do so would break the principle that all humanity is equal by making those who do negative actions unequal/of less value. (likewise, status or privilege should not make someone/group, of more value/superior to another---as that too would break the principle of inherent equality.) therefore, in order to be consistent the right to life is a value to be extended even to an "enemy". A binary system of ethics/morality would leave this as an either/or right/wrong option without other considerations....leaving it open to injustice.
This is why it needs to be balanced by a bottoms-up approach that can contextualize so as to provide very particular exceptions...thus, while keeping in mind the right to life of an "enemy"---to not protect oneself would infringe on the right to life of "self"---therefore, in such a situation, the right to life of "self"---would weigh more/take precedence--if this is at all possible without infringing on the right of the other/enemy to life as well. If not, then the right to self-defense in case of attack weighs more in context thereby becoming a particular exception to the principle of not to kill/murder.

So,...if a knife-wielding thief attacked you, the best ethical/moral action would be to throw him the wallet and run away--thus preserving your life and his....but if the thief were to persist in attacking you anyway, and no other recourse were available but to fatally harm him in order to preserve one's own life...then this exception would be permissible...(provided there were no other options available)

by providing very specific and contextualized exceptions to general principles one retains the consistency of the general principle and yet upholds justice.....

1000% yes!

[Carrikature]

I tend to agree with Singer in this video, and I'm not sure where inherent equality or inherent human dignity are grounded. Are these just arbitrary ideals we make up? What is their basis?

Inherent equality can be easily grounded in biology these days. People have claimed for millennia that certain groups of human weren't really human, but that's been defeated time and again. Our biology is too similar to support claims of others as subhuman.

Dignity is a lot harder, and I don't think it's something that can even be defined. I think we can get there pretty quickly as a universal set of "don't do this to me" claims, but I won't pretend it's clean or easy. In my opinion, violations of human dignity are effectively violations of that list of basic needs/desires I presented in a previous post.

[seer]

Inherent equality can be easily grounded in biology these days. People have claimed for millennia that certain groups of human weren't really human, but that's been defeated time and again. Our biology is too similar to support claims of others as subhuman.

How is a person with Downs equal to a Steve Jobs?

[JonathanL]

How is a person with Downs equal to a Steve Jobs?

The person with Downs is better, since he doesn't steal other people's ideas and take credit for them.

[seer]

The person with Downs is better, since he doesn't steal other people's ideas and take credit for them.

You know I worked with adults with Downs for ten years, and after I wrote that I thought, no they are superior to Jobs, kinder, more giving and gracious... my bad...

[Carrikature]

How is a person with Downs equal to a Steve Jobs?

Because they're both humans. As soon as you start prioritizing specific traits (intelligence, musical ability, whatever), you've shifted into relative value judgments that aren't grounded in anything except personal attitudes or current environments.

[siam]

I tend to agree with Singer in this video, and I'm not sure where inherent equality or inherent human dignity are grounded. Are these just arbitrary ideals we make up? What is their basis?

I disagree with Singer/Utilitarianism as the primary mode/approach to ethics. In such an approach, human dignity/inherent equality are flexible---one can have it if convenient and disregard it if inconvenient.
This makes for moral confusion---which can lead to moral bankruptcy.

Human dignity---as I understand it, is to have 'inalienable" rights because we are human. Inherent Equality---is an uncompromised value of human. Inherent equality(value) is not the same as unequal circumstances---one is an abstract designation, the other is a reality. Ethics/morality or law that is not based on a robust understanding of inherent equality will be unbalanced and therefore unjust. Such a system will be hierarchical---in such a system where human beings have unequal value---some will be denied human dignity/rights on the assumption that they are not deserving....(our history gives examples---the native peoples, women, certain minority groups----etc)

This is not an arbitrary ideal---rather a necessary "first principle" if we are to have a balanced and consistent understanding of Ethics/Morality, Justice. How would this principle work in a reality of unequal circumstances? Some unpreventable circumstances can create an unequal reality--for example, a person born with a handicap---does not have circumstances equal to one without a handicap, a person born to a poor family will not have equal circumstances to one born in a rich family....etc, There are also other circumstances such as unequal potential---where one person will have more capacity for the acquisition of knowledge, or wealth, or other, and with effort will be able to fulfill such potential....whereas another may not have the capacity, the opportunity, or be in a position to expend the effort....

Under the principle of inherent equality and human dignity---those in unequal circumstances have the same rights as those born in privileged circumstances because they are of equivalent value. Thus, those who have privileged circumstance have more responsibility to share those privileges and those who are less privileged are deserving/have a right to those privileges. The first to share/deserve these rights are family, then relatives, then neighbors, then community, then nation, and then our brothers and sisters in humanity. In this way, the various degrees of self-interest and altruism are satisfied leading to personal and human (humanity) happiness. In order to prevent oppression---the cultivation of (the ethics of) responsibility should be voluntary as much as is possible.

The reality of unequal circumstances makes it necessary that our understanding of "rights" are balanced with that of "responsibility/obligation" in order that we create just communities for all.

[seer]

I disagree with Singer/Utilitarianism as the primary mode/approach to ethics. In such an approach, human dignity/inherent equality are flexible---one can have it if convenient and disregard it if inconvenient.
This makes for moral confusion---which can lead to moral bankruptcy.

Human dignity---as I understand it, is to have 'inalienable" rights because we are human. Inherent Equality---is an uncompromised value of human. Inherent equality(value) is not the same as unequal circumstances---one is an abstract designation, the other is a reality. Ethics/morality or law that is not based on a robust understanding of inherent equality will be unbalanced and therefore unjust. Such a system will be hierarchical---in such a system where human beings have unequal value---some will be denied human dignity/rights on the assumption that they are not deserving....(our history gives examples---the native peoples, women, certain minority groups----etc)

This is not an arbitrary ideal---rather a necessary "first principle" if we are to have a balanced and consistent understanding of Ethics/Morality, Justice. How would this principle work in a reality of unequal circumstances? Some unpreventable circumstances can create an unequal reality--for example, a person born with a handicap---does not have circumstances equal to one without a handicap, a person born to a poor family will not have equal circumstances to one born in a rich family....etc, There are also other circumstances such as unequal potential---where one person will have more capacity for the acquisition of knowledge, or wealth, or other, and with effort will be able to fulfill such potential....whereas another may not have the capacity, the opportunity, or be in a position to expend the effort....

Under the principle of inherent equality and human dignity---those in unequal circumstances have the same rights as those born in privileged circumstances because they are of equivalent value. Thus, those who have privileged circumstance have more responsibility to share those privileges and those who are less privileged are deserving/have a right to those privileges. The first to share/deserve these rights are family, then relatives, then neighbors, then community, then nation, and then our brothers and sisters in humanity. In this way, the various degrees of self-interest and altruism are satisfied leading to personal and human (humanity) happiness. In order to prevent oppression---the cultivation of (the ethics of) responsibility should be voluntary as much as is possible.

The reality of unequal circumstances makes it necessary that our understanding of "rights" are balanced with that of "responsibility/obligation" in order that we create just communities for all.

Of course it is arbitrary, how do humans have 'inalienable" rights or inherent dignity? Grounded in what? And what we assign value to or how is subjective, ISIS for instance does not value all human life, so why are they wrong and us right? And right there is the problem, again, we humans have no problem inventing decent moral systems, the problem is and will be getting men to follow them.

[Carrikature]

Of course it is arbitrary, how do humans have 'inalienable" rights or inherent dignity? Grounded in what? And what we assign value to or how is subjective, ISIS for instance does not value all human life, so why are they wrong and us right?

I think I've mostly answered this in Post #13.

And right there is the problem, again, we humans have no problem inventing decent moral systems, the problem is and will be getting men to follow them.

This isn't an argument against a moral system, though. Even morality based on God suffers this issue. You can't prove something wrong just by saying people don't listen to it.

[seer]

I think I've mostly answered this in Post #13.

Well no, your post may suggest why we do what we do, but that has nothing to do with inalienable rights or inherent dignity.

This isn't an argument against a moral system, though. Even morality based on God suffers this issue. You can't prove something wrong just by saying people don't listen to it.

But I'm not saying any system is right or wrong, just that the problem has always been getting men to follow them.