Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Steve H on October 01, 2018, 06:34:27 AM
-
This thread is an off-shoot from 'Searching for God'.
I probably don't have to tell anyone here, but I will anyway, that utilitarianism is the ethical system that judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by whether they tend to increase happiness or reduce unhappiness (right), or the opposite (wrong). There are other sytems, such as deontology, which says that morality should be based on a set of fixed rules such as the ten commandments, rather than on the consequences of actions, as in utilitarianism. It seems to me that all other ethical systems, under investigation, collapse into utilitarianism. If you believe that morality is based on the 10 commandments, it is reasonable to ask why anyone should obey them, and the usual answer will boil down to "because it leads to greater happiness", so deontologists turn out to be utilitarians after all. Utilitarianism does not need to be questioned in that way: "Why should we seek to maximise happiness?" is a foolish question, the only sensible answer to which is "because it's happiness!". We all do try to maximise happiness for ourselves anyway, and it only takes a modicum of imagination to realise that, since everyone is doing it for themselves, a maximally happy society will be one in which everyone acts in such a way as to maximise general happiness.
There are two major types of utilitarianism: act and rule. Act utilitarianism applies the principle of maximising happiness and minimising misery to individual acts, which I think is impractical, whereas rule utilitarianism derives general rules from the principle, and judges acts according to the rules, though in exceptional circumstances it might be right to break a rule. Thus murder is normally wrong, but may in exceptional circumstances be justified, such as killing Hitler in 1938. I am a rule-utilitarian.
-
What's happiness?
-
FFS. ::)
-
Any sensible comments?
-
I mean it. What is happiness? If you can't answer that then your argument is pointless.
In dismissing it you just look evasive.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
That which humans desire for its own sake. Wealth, friendship, etc. are desired not for their own sake, but because they produce (or at least it is hoped that they produce) happiness.
-
Any sensible comments?
Rhiannon's question was a perfectly sensible question. The human species has not evolved to be happy, it has, like all other species, evolved to survive. Its behaviours, on a very wide range from what we label the very worst to the very best, have been affected by random mutations and naturally selected for. The fact that there are still so many people who behave in ways we might consider the worst has probably added to our chances of survival, because the rest of us have had to find ways to deal with them and have thus become stronger overall.
By knowing how it feels to be content and to enjoy the pleasurable things in life, and knowing how we feel when people behave in aggressive, angry ways, we are more likely to find ways for the more pleasant feelings to be more prevalent.
Bringing in the biblical ten commandments sounds to me like a bit of a red herring.
-
I was hoping for a sensible debate about utilitarianism versus other ethical systems, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to get one.
-
I was hoping for a sensible debate about utilitarianism versus other ethical systems, but it doesn't look as though I'm going to get one.
You can't simply say 'this isn't sensible' when your initial argument is based on such a fuzzy concept (see wiki article) as 'happiness'. You can't really pin down what happiness means - it varies from individual to individual, religion to religion, culture to culture.
If you want to discuss utilitarianism go back and find something a bit more concrete in its purpose the than creating 'happiness', which sounds like something that Oprah would be endorsing on her show. Although I'm not sure what measurement or aim there is that you can come up with that won't be subjective.
-
I gave a perfectly reasonable, succinct definition above - "that which people desire for its own sake". How about adopting that as a working definition? ( ::) )
-
Plenty of people desire things for their own sake because they find happiness in hurting other people. If that is your definition then you really need to work harder.
The link that you provided explains how difficult it is to pin down 'happiness', that it is a fuzzy concept. Did you even read it?
-
I'm abandoning the thread until or unless someone has something sensible to say. Carry on, chaps.
-
I’m happy to debate this with you but give me something solid to work with, not this fluffy bunny happiness cobblers.
-
I’m happy to debate this with you but give me something solid to work with, not this fluffy bunny happiness cobblers.
My take on what Bentham meant by happiness and/or pleasure which he equates with it, is that it's is happiness about something rather than some consistent idea across humanity so that the individual's perception of what is good is what's important rather than an abstract.
-
My take on what Bentham meant by happiness and/or pleasure which he equates with it, is that it's is happiness about something rather than some consistent idea across humanity so that the individual's perception of what is good is what's important rather than an abstract.
Each person defines their own happiness - fair enough. Of course, the psychopathic may derive happiness from making others miserable, and the selfish don't care about the happiness or misery of others, but that doesn't invalidate utilitarianism: a psychopath's happiness in making others suffer cannot be allowed, because it reduces overall happiness.
-
Each person defines their own happiness - fair enough. Of course, the psychopathic may derive happiness from making others miserable, and the selfish don't care about the happiness or misery of others, but that doesn't invalidate utilitarianism: a psychopath's happiness in making others suffer cannot be allowed, because it reduces overall happiness.
Though it does make rule utilitarianism a harder sell since the happiness then becomes the sum of individuals rather than marked against some abstract standard. To be honest I think as with most 'isms' it's not what we actually believe it's more a post hoc rationalisation. It works in the abstract rather than the specific so I'm always going to want what I want but in order to have a functioning society, I'll be willing to give up some of those times since I don't rule the world. If you add in Rawls' veil of ignorance idea - that we don't know how much power we might have, then how would organise decision making then you end up with something like utilitarianism as an abstract method. It's not what drives the indivduals feelings though.
-
What's happiness?
I'll have a go a answering it from, let's say, the mystic's standpoint and use 3 words to represent aspects of it.
The first is 'pleasure' which I'll use to represent what we get from appropriate stimuli, whether physical, emotional or intellectual. What turns you on stimulates you in a heightened and acceptable way, if it exceeds certain personal boundaries it is called pain, if it is non-existent it is called deadness which can depress all future stimuli. Desire and its satisfaction is what drives economies and causes business to search for the cause and market it. Some see it as physiological and related to brain chemicals which fuels the narcotics trade. Some see it as sensory which fuels the sensational world of touch, sound, taste, smell, vision and gravity. Some see it as emotional which fuels the imaginative entertainment world of art, drama, music, literature. Some see it as intellectual and bore you to death with it. ;)
The second is 'happiness', taken from the name of the great Goddess 'Hap', the goddess of chance. If she smiles upon you and you win the lottery it opens up the imagination to all kinds of satisfactory pleasures. If she turns her back on you, you suffer mis-hap.
The third is 'joy' , sometimes called bliss, ecstasy, rapture, heaven. Whereas, perhaps, utilitarians see the source of pleasure and happiness as arising from the external world and attempt to internalise them, the 'mystic' sees the source of joy as arising from within and attempts are made to externalise it or promote it externally by providing methods so that others can similarly look within for their own source.
Unfortunately, from the satisfaction of desire, there is the opportunity of the less scrupulous to exercise power over each source which can be seen in commerce, politics and organised religion. The word 'wealth' used to mean 'well being' until the poor realised that only the rich seemed to have well being and were wealthy.
-
What's happiness?
Watching the presenters on the BBC doing their reportage on Brexit night, the looks on their faces etc, I'd love to see a re-run of the whole event, it was happiness for me.
Regards ippy
-
Pleasure and its satisfaction is what drives economies and causes business to search for the cause and market it. Some see it as physiological and related to brain chemicals which fuels the narcotics trade. Some see it as sensory which fuels the sensational world of touch, sound, taste, smell, vision and gravity. Some see it as emotional which fuels the imaginative entertainment world of art, drama, music, literature. Some see it as intellectual and bore you to death with it. ;)
I would consider simply "interest" as more fundamental - and this may in turn generate the other phenomena which you mention.
-
I would consider simply "interest" as more fundamental - and this may in turn generate the other phenomena which you mention.
I should have checked what I posted. I meant 'desire' and not 'pleasure' as the driving force and have altered the posting. I not sure what you mean by 'interest' but doesn't interest imply a desire for more stimulus from what attracts interest? The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone."
-
Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?
-
Steve H,
This thread is an off-shoot from 'Searching for God'.
I probably don't have to tell anyone here, but I will anyway, that utilitarianism is the ethical system that judges the rightness or wrongness of acts by whether they tend to increase happiness or reduce unhappiness (right), or the opposite (wrong). There are other sytems, such as deontology, which says that morality should be based on a set of fixed rules such as the ten commandments, rather than on the consequences of actions, as in utilitarianism. It seems to me that all other ethical systems, under investigation, collapse into utilitarianism. If you believe that morality is based on the 10 commandments, it is reasonable to ask why anyone should obey them, and the usual answer will boil down to "because it leads to greater happiness", so deontologists turn out to be utilitarians after all. Utilitarianism does not need to be questioned in that way: "Why should we seek to maximise happiness?" is a foolish question, the only sensible answer to which is "because it's happiness!".
It’s not a foolish question at all if you want to argue for objective morality. Why would you think that the axiom on which this approach rests (that maximal happiness equals maximal good) necessarily identifies an objective moral truth? If you don’t want to overreach into claims of objectivity though, then you may as well accept this axiom as any other.
We all do try to maximise happiness for ourselves anyway,…
Do we? What about selflessness, altruism etc? Or are you hinting here that the dopamine kick that rewards us when we do a “good” deed itself thereby maximises our happiness?
…and it only takes a modicum of imagination to realise that, since everyone is doing it for themselves, a maximally happy society will be one in which everyone acts in such a way as to maximise general happiness.
What would that look like even if it wasn’t so nebulous? How for example would you weigh the denial of happiness the smoking ban caused to smokers against the happiness for others derived from non-smoking restaurants and the like?
There are two major types of utilitarianism: act and rule. Act utilitarianism applies the principle of maximising happiness and minimising misery to individual acts, which I think is impractical, whereas rule utilitarianism derives general rules from the principle, and judges acts according to the rules, though in exceptional circumstances it might be right to break a rule. Thus murder is normally wrong, but may in exceptional circumstances be justified, such as killing Hitler in 1938. I am a rule-utilitarian.
So how would you propose to decide upon which rules should apply? Should for example my rule that I like eating steak so killing certain animals is fine carry more or less weight than someone else’s rule that meat is murder?
Don’t get me wrong here by the way. I subscribe to the broad thesis that more happiness is better than less happiness (I consider myself a eudaimonist), but I hesitate to derive from that anything but localised and subjective truths, and as a practical means of acting in the world it seems to me to be beset with problems almost the moment you try to apply it.
-
Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?
If you had said 'personal good', or 'the greater good', then the discussion around meaning wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry, but 'happiness' is so individual and subjective as to be meaningless. Choose something less fuzzy and fluffy in future. That's just sensible, right?
-
Can we pleae move beyond trying to define happiness, when all sensible people know perfectly well what it is, and discuss utilitarianism versus other ethical systems such as deontology? Can we have criticisms of utilitarianism in practise, including hypothetical cases which seem to argue against it?
Ok, so moving beyond the vague choice of words... how does deontology promote wellbeing, or personal good? Take your example of the Ten Commandments; I didn't get much good, pleasure, happiness or bliss from only worshipping one god. And adultery...how do you define that? Cheating on a partner? a spouse? Or sex between people who are unmarried?
-
I don't think that everyone tries to maximize happiness. I've met a lot of people in therapy who preferred misery, for all kinds of reasons. Freud wrote an interesting article called "Those Wrecked by Success", in which he describes a need to fail. Of course, you could argue that failure made such people happy, but not really. In fact, this is a massive topic in therapy, as so many people demonstrate it, and the reasons are complex, for example, self-sabotage, avoiding envy, shame, etc..
-
Steve H,
It’s not a foolish question at all if you want to argue for objective morality. Why would you think that the axiom on which this approach rests (that maximal happiness equals maximal good) necessarily identifies an objective moral truth? If you don’t want to overreach into claims of objectivity though, then you may as well accept this axiom as any other.
Do we? What about selflessness, altruism etc? Or are you hinting here that the dopamine kick that rewards us when we do a “good” deed itself thereby maximises our happiness?
What would that look like even if it wasn’t so nebulous? How for example would you weigh the denial of happiness the smoking ban caused to smokers against the happiness for others derived from non-smoking restaurants and the like?
So how would you propose to decide upon which rules should apply? Should for example my rule that I like eating steak so killing certain animals is fine carry more or less weight than someone else’s rule that meat is murder?
Don’t get me wrong here by the way. I subscribe to the broad thesis that more happiness is better than less happiness (I consider myself a eudaimonist), but I hesitate to derive from that anything but localised and subjective truths, and as a practical means of acting in the world it seems to me to be beset with problems almost the moment you try to apply it.
Yes, I agree with this. A lot of people get pleasure from flying, but a lot of people are badly impacted by climate change. But the greater good may be the employment opportunities afforded by flying. But then communities are displaced and the environment destroyed to make way for tourism. But the tax take is higher. But local identity is eroded...
How can this be decided objectively?
And the fact is that life isn't always about happiness. Many of us have to make choices that compromise our personal happiness in order to help someone else. Some of us even choose suffering in order to try to make things different. Sometimes the difficult path has to be taken.
You'd think that SteveH would have picked this up when he read the Gospels.
-
I don't think that everyone tries to maximize happiness. I've met a lot of people in therapy who preferred misery.
If they prefer misery, then, paradoxically, misery - or what everyone else would regard as misery - makes them happy.
-
If they prefer misery, then, paradoxically, misery - or what everyone else would regard as misery - makes them happy.
Then your understanding of happiness seems very elastic! I suppose then if someone is so miserable that they commit suicide, according to you this is extreme happiness.
-
Wiggs,
Then your understanding of happiness seems very elastic! I suppose then if someone is so miserable that they commit suicide, according to you this is extreme happiness.
It also seems to step behind the happiness label into a precursor definition of "moral good equates to the greatest number of people acting as they prefer". It's still beset with the same problems though - what if I prefer to eat a steak and someone else prefers that I don't? Whose preference would prevail, and what (and whose) rule could be adduced to determine that?
-
I don't think that everyone tries to maximize happiness. I've met a lot of people in therapy who preferred misery, for all kinds of reasons. Freud wrote an interesting article called "Those Wrecked by Success", in which he describes a need to fail. Of course, you could argue that failure made such people happy, but not really. In fact, this is a massive topic in therapy, as so many people demonstrate it, and the reasons are complex, for example, self-sabotage, avoiding envy, shame, etc..
Yes, people sometimes want to avoid happiness, joy, call it what you will, because they know that it won't last and therefore don't want to feel the kinds of things that will make the bad times feel worse. Better to feel nothing - avoidant personality.
And actually the pursuit of happiness is a concern when you acknowledge the impermanence of it. How far do you have to go in order to regain it? Aiming for the common good I can understand, as does trying to cause least harm, and getting out of peoples' personal lives if what they do doesn't hurt others.
-
Yes, people sometimes want to avoid happiness, joy, call it what you will, because they know that it won't last and therefore don't want to feel the kinds of things that will make the bad times feel worse. Better to feel nothing - avoidant personality.
And actually the pursuit of happiness is a concern when you acknowledge the impermanence of it. How far do you have to go in order to regain it? Aiming for the common good I can understand, as does trying to cause least harm, and getting out of peoples' personal lives if what they do doesn't hurt others.
It's interesting historically, because when Freud first wrote "Wrecked by Success", it seemed to be a minor footnote, but post-war, it mushroomed as a topic, as so many people arrived in therapy/counselling, determined not to be happy, and sabotaging themselves in various ways. I suppose you could argue that they ought to want to be happy, probably a disastrous approach, which could well make things worse.
-
I think the idea of we all know what 'happiness' is is fatuous. As covered earlier my take is that what Bentham meant is what an outcome that is what the individual wants. Now it appeared as if Steve accepted that and I followed up on that but he appears to have ignored that.
Again as raised earlier, I am unconvinced that utilitarianism is much of a morality, rather than a post hoc rationalusation. It's a description of the antitheist and then circularly using it to justify itself. Note I think that is a challenge more to what we generally see as what people say Bentham meant rather than his actual position.
-
I found this:
To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people attending like chocolate while others like vanilla. As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole. If seven like chocolate and three like vanilla and if all of them get the same amount of pleasure from the flavor they like, then you should choose chocolate. This will yield what Bentham, in a famous phrase, called “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
From here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Well, what this seems to suggest is a method by which most people get what they want. But that isn't guaranteed to increase 'happiness' (whatever the fuck that is). Most people getting what they want can be a very bad thing indeed.
-
I found this:
To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people attending like chocolate while others like vanilla. As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole. If seven like chocolate and three like vanilla and if all of them get the same amount of pleasure from the flavor they like, then you should choose chocolate. This will yield what Bentham, in a famous phrase, called “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
From here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Well, what this seems to suggest is a method by which most people get what they want. But that isn't guaranteed to increase 'happiness' (whatever the fuck that is). Most people getting what they want can be a very bad thing indeed.
Why is it bad?
-
Why is it bad?
Because 'most people' getting what they want can result in privatisation, the X Factor, Tory governments, climate change. genocide.
-
Because 'most people' getting what they want can result in privatisation, the X Factor, Tory governments, climate change. genocide.
Which would be bad because...?
-
Which would be bad because...?
Because what makes most people happy now may have consequences that bring suffering in the future.
-
Because 'most people' getting what they want can result in privatisation, the X Factor, Tory governments, climate change. genocide.
The point there though would be that in the felicific calculus, there would be a greater amount of 'unhappiness' for those who suffer under any such decision than from those who benefit. And even in the ice cream example, the chocolate option only holds if there is only the chance of 1 flavour. The actual solution would be for each person to get the flavour they like, If however 2 of the vanillas hated the chocolate and 1 vanilla was allergic to chocalate, their dislike might outweigh the desire of the other 7.
-
This is a pretty reasonable summary of Bentham
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/
-
Because what makes most people happy now may have consequences that bring suffering in the future.
Which condemns it on utilitarian grounds!
-
Which condemns it on utilitarian grounds!
Though this illustrates the problems with the idea of the calculus. It's assuming that all outcomes are known, and the effects on the everyone's 'happiness'. It tries to give a scientific rigour to something not really amenable to that. In addition if you overlay that with rule utilitarianism, it makes application to specific decisions removed from the decision itself.
-
You can be sceptical about the calculus, whilestill accepting that some acts usually lead to a reduction in happiness, and therefore should be forbidden, while other lead to an increase in it, and should be encouraged. The point is that the maximisation of happiness is the goal, not something else such as obeying the supposed commands of God, even if some of them lead to misery (such as making homosexual acts illegal), or maximising some other supposed good, rather than happiness.
-
Steve H,
You can be sceptical about the calculus, whilestill accepting that some acts usually lead to a reduction in happiness, and therefore should be forbidden, while other lead to an increase in it, and should be encouraged. The point is that the maximisation of happiness is the goal, not something else such as obeying the supposed commands of God, even if some of them lead to misery (such as making homosexual acts illegal), or maximising some other supposed good, rather than happiness.
I set out some of the problems with this in Reply 21, which you ignored. It’s not about scepticism at the calculus, it’s that it’s functionally impossible to apply. How for example would you decide whether the smoking ban had increased or decreased net happiness? What metrics would you apply, and how would you compare, say, the total pissedoffness of a smoker who could no longer smoke in his favourite pub against the moderately increased happiness of his three pals who feel slightly better about the ban (but really didn’t care that much anyway) but unhappy that their pal is no longer there? And even if you could do that, how then would you calculate the unhappiness of a smoker who’d later contract lung cancer if there was no ban against his feelings if the ban meant he never got it? And so it goes – endless permutations, no metrics, and no means of establishing these “rules” of yours with any objectivity at all…
…which by the way I seem to recall was your claim over on the other thread re how we could condemn the nazis if there was no objective morality.
So yes, I’m all for more happiness about the place – who wouldn’t be? – but beyond that generalised wish for how I’d like things to be I see no practical means of implementing utilitarianism as the paradigmatic system of ethics, let alone of adducing objective rules to underpin it.
-
Which condemns it on utilitarian grounds!
No, it doesn't. Utilitarianism is about making decisions for the highest good now, right? In the moment what made people happy was getting shares in the gas and electric companies, voting Tory, flying on foreign holidays and fridges. That with hindsight we can see the they were shit decisions just means that doing things to make people 'happy' according to utilitarian principles can in fact lead to a load of misery down the line. You can't say that something doesn't count because the outcome disproves the principle of 'doing things to make people 'happy' leads to good.'
-
The point there though would be that in the felicific calculus, there would be a greater amount of 'unhappiness' for those who suffer under any such decision than from those who benefit. And even in the ice cream example, the chocolate option only holds if there is only the chance of 1 flavour. The actual solution would be for each person to get the flavour they like, If however 2 of the vanillas hated the chocolate and 1 vanilla was allergic to chocalate, their dislike might outweigh the desire of the other 7.
But at the time decisions are made, people do generally do ok. Take climate change. The roots of that lie in labour saving devices, improvement in standard to living, and transportation that definitely made most people 'happy'. There was no reason o ban washing machines or holidays in Torremolinos...and in fact we still aren't banning them even though we know that they are now causing more suffering then they prevent, or are likely to. We can't simply ask 'is this likely to cause 'happiness' to the majority now because an apparently good decision now can have disastrous consequences in the future. Doing what the majority 'wants' doesn't seem to be a good basis for doing anything.
-
But at the time decisions are made, people do generally do ok. Take climate change. The roots of that lie in labour saving devices, improvement in standard to living, and transportation that definitely made most people 'happy'. There was no reason o ban washing machines or holidays in Torremolinos...and in fact we still aren't banning them even though we know that they are now causing more suffering then they prevent, or are likely to. We can't simply ask 'is this likely to cause 'happiness' to the majority now because an apparently good decision now can have disastrous consequences in the future. Doing what the majority 'wants' doesn't seem to be a good basis for doing anything.
That's again not really what the felicific calculus is about. It's not about democracy. It's not about the majority. It's not about now. It's about 'happiness' as a measure with all consequences and effects understood. It's not even about what people think makes them happy, it's about someone evaluating what the effects will be and saying that is somehow the best outcome.
Note, I'm not arguing for it, I've pointed out to Steve that it doesn't seem useful to me but any argument against it needs to progress on the basis of what it is about, and simple majority at the time isn't it.
-
You can be sceptical about the calculus, whilestill accepting that some acts usually lead to a reduction in happiness, and therefore should be forbidden, while other lead to an increase in it, and should be encouraged. The point is that the maximisation of happiness is the goal, not something else such as obeying the supposed commands of God, even if some of them lead to misery (such as making homosexual acts illegal), or maximising some other supposed good, rather than happiness.
But if it is non calculable then it's useless, and trying to get a rule from it is 'nonsense on stilts'.
-
That's again not really what the felicific calculus is about. It's not about democracy. It's not about the majority. It's not about now. It's about 'happiness' as a measure with all consequences and effects understood. It's not even about what people think makes them happy, it's about someone evaluating what the effects will be and saying that is somehow the best outcome.
Note, I'm not arguing for it, I've pointed out to Steve that it doesn't seem useful to me but any argument against it needs to progress on the basis of what it is about, and simple majority at the time isn't it.
Yes, I do know that. Bentham seemed to think utilitarianism applied to the greater good of the many. It isn't anything to do with democracy; the many may decide that they want fridges and shiny cars to keep them happy and over the years it seems to have been generally agreed that consumerism is 'progress' and for the greater good. The outcome - climate change, environmental destruction - wasn't known or was discounted.
-
NS,
That's again not really what the felicific calculus is about. It's not about democracy. It's not about the majority. It's not about now. It's about 'happiness' as a measure with all consequences and effects understood. It's not even about what people think makes them happy, it's about someone evaluating what the effects will be and saying that is somehow the best outcome.
Note, I'm not arguing for it, I've pointed out to Steve that it doesn't seem useful to me but any argument against it needs to progress on the basis of what it is about, and simple majority at the time isn't it.
Yes, and the “all consequences and effects understood” is the killer however superficially attractive the idea might seem.
But if it is non calculable then it's useless, and trying to get a rule from it is 'nonsense on stilts'.
Quite.
-
NS,
Yes, and the “all consequences and effects understood” is the killer however superficially attractive the idea might seem.
Quite.
Yes, this is pretty much what I was trying to say. Badly.
-
No, it doesn't. Utilitarianism is about making decisions for the highest good now, right?
No - you are allowed - indeed, have a duty - to weigh up probable future effects.
-
Steve H,
No - you are allowed - indeed, have a duty - to weigh up probable future effects.
How?
-
Steve H,
I set out some of the problems with this in Reply 21, which you ignored. It’s not about scepticism at the calculus, it’s that it’s functionally impossible to apply. How for example would you decide whether the smoking ban had increased or decreased net happiness? What metrics would you apply, and how would you compare, say, the total pissedoffness of a smoker who could no longer smoke in his favourite pub against the moderately increased happiness of his three pals who feel slightly better about the ban (but really didn’t care that much anyway) but unhappy that their pal is no longer there? And even if you could do that, how then would you calculate the unhappiness of a smoker who’d later contract lung cancer if there was no ban against his feelings if the ban meant he never got it? And so it goes – endless permutations, no metrics, and no means of establishing these “rules” of yours with any objectivity at all…
…which by the way I seem to recall was your claim over on the other thread re how we could condemn the nazis if there was no objective morality.
So yes, I’m all for more happiness about the place – who wouldn’t be? – but beyond that generalised wish for how I’d like things to be I see no practical means of implementing utilitarianism as the paradigmatic system of ethics, let alone of adducing objective rules to underpin it.
The smoking ban (which I think went too far) was designed to maximise the health of everybody, thus improving present and future happiness, and also make life more comfortable for the people who claim to dislike or be affected by smoky atmospheres. The calculation was that the inconveniencing, and thus decreased happiness, of smokers would be outweighed by the increased happiness of the miserable sods who want everything their way (sorry, a bit of bias creeping in there - I'm a pipe-smoker) and the increased health of the general population. The aim was an increase in happiness, not anything else - better general health is desirable not for its own sake, but because it leads to greater happiness. Yes, it's very hard to calculate, but the point is that happiness, not anything else, was the aim.
-
Steve H,
How?
Difficult, but not impossible. Removing all restrictions on smoking, to continue with that example, including getting rid of health warnings and allowing advertising, would lead to a great increase in lung cancer and other preventable diseases, and a much greater early death rate, and thus a reduction in happiness. It's not as impossible as you make out.
-
No - you are allowed - indeed, have a duty - to weigh up probable future effects.
So it’s about fortune telling then?
-
Difficult, but not impossible. Removing all restrictions on smoking, to continue with that example, including getting rid of health warnings and allowing advertising, would lead to a great increase in lung cancer and other preventable diseases, and a much greater early death rate, and thus a reduction in happiness. It's not as impossible as you make out.
What's the weight of 1 death?
-
So it’s about fortune telling then?
No, it's about weighing up probable future events. If, for example, we removed all speed limits, even in towns, and removed the legal requirement to wear seat-belts and the ban on drink-driving, it doesn't take a fortune-teller to predict that the death toll on the roads would rise dramatically.
-
How about the idea of a society where the ruling 70% decide to keep the other 30% in benign slavery, because it gives them increased happiness, whereas the 30% are certainly not as happy? Is this an acceptable use of utilitarianism? Who gets to decide whether the happiness of the 70% trumps the misery of the 30% in slavery?
-
I give up. ::) ::) ::)
-
I give up. ::) ::) ::)
Now I'm happy!
;)
-
How about the idea of a society where the ruling 70% decide to keep the other 30% in benign slavery, because it gives them increased happiness, whereas the 30% are certainly not as happy? Is this an acceptable use of utilitarianism? Who gets to decide whether the happiness of the 70% trumps the misery of the 30% in slavery?
It may help instead of using the term happiness, we use a more common term in consequential moral systems, that of well being. In this case the well being of the 30% could be seen as overwhelming the 70%. Further I would suggest that if we remove the ism and see it as a tool rather than a theory of ethics, then most of us something approaching the greatest well being for the greatest number as a rule of thumb as part of how we evaluate ethical choices.
-
Yes, people sometimes want to avoid happiness, joy, call it what you will, because they know that it won't last and therefore don't want to feel the kinds of things that will make the bad times feel worse. Better to feel nothing - avoidant personality.
That reminds me of a time long ago when radiotherapy treatment was quite primitive compared with now. It knocked out all my senses of taste except bitter and I found myself seeking out bitter food because it was better to taste something rather than nothing. Perhaps for some people it is better to experience or dwell upon emotional bitterness rather than deadness or nothing at all. When you look at how weighted the news is in favour of presenting tragedy and misery, there is plenty of scope for feeding this emotion.
-
It may help instead of using the term happiness, we use a more common term in consequential moral systems, that of well being. In this case the well being of the 30% could be seen as overwhelming the 70%. Further I would suggest that if we remove the ism and see it as a tool rather than a theory of ethics, then most of us something approaching the greatest well being for the greatest number as a rule of thumb as part of how we evaluate ethical choices.
Cue the welfare state?
-
Cue the welfare state?
Or possibly not. Perfectly reasonable to argue that the welfare state maintains people in a miserable state rather than giving them freedom. Which is one of the reasons I think declaring you are a utilitarian is not that meaningful. Even allowing for imperfect knowledge, the calculus part is just about your own determination of the what things are worth.
-
It may help instead of using the term happiness, we use a more common term in consequential moral systems, that of well being. In this case the well being of the 30% could be seen as overwhelming the 70%. Further I would suggest that if we remove the ism and see it as a tool rather than a theory of ethics, then most of us something approaching the greatest well being for the greatest number as a rule of thumb as part of how we evaluate ethical choices.
I would agree. My term would be human flourishing. I was of course referring to ancient Greek society. It is interesting though that they did have very different moral precepts to ours.
-
I would agree. My term would be human flourishing. I was of course referring to ancient Greek society. It is interesting though that they did have very different moral precepts to ours.
This triggers the question of who is in the 'number'. The ancient Greek democracies worked on limited male suffrage - No women voting. Bentham was for his time quite enlightened as regards women, though there are some comments which would not be seen as acceptable now, and as regards non human animals
-
Steve H,
The smoking ban (which I think went too far) was designed to maximise the health of everybody, thus improving present and future happiness, and also make life more comfortable for the people who claim to dislike or be affected by smoky atmospheres. The calculation was that the inconveniencing, and thus decreased happiness, of smokers would be outweighed by the increased happiness of the miserable sods who want everything their way (sorry, a bit of bias creeping in there - I'm a pipe-smoker) and the increased health of the general population. The aim was an increase in happiness, not anything else - better general health is desirable not for its own sake, but because it leads to greater happiness. Yes, it's very hard to calculate, but the point is that happiness, not anything else, was the aim.
Yes, I know what the aim was as and I’m happy to agree with it. What though if the aim and the effect are different – if the road to hell is in fact paved with good intentions? Take the smoking ban still – let’s say that because of it a number of people will not now die of lung cancer and will instead live to ripe old ages, More happiness right? But let’s say too that in old age they’ll require a substantially increased amount of state geriatric support that requires funding to be withdrawn from, say, children’s services thereby increasing the unhappiness of a different number of people. How would you propose even to identify the untended consequences of the ban, let alone to weigh their net effects against an overall happiness scale?
Again, to be clear I’m all for the smoking ban and for that matter for other measures that to the best of our ability to compute these things increase the net amount of happiness there is. It’s still the case though that as a practical tool for ethical behaviour to call it problematic would be an understatement. At heart ethics is subjective, messy, changeable and not objective and fixed by inviolable rules at all.
Difficult, but not impossible. Removing all restrictions on smoking, to continue with that example, including getting rid of health warnings and allowing advertising, would lead to a great increase in lung cancer and other preventable diseases, and a much greater early death rate, and thus a reduction in happiness. It's not as impossible as you make out.
Yet it is – see above. Your problem here is the interconnectedness of events – we might be able to foresee, say, ten consequences from an action or maybe more. What we can’t do though is to foresee all of them because life is far too complex for that. Try reading about the unintended effect of banning agent orange for example, itself an act whose aim was entirely benign but that arguably actually cost countless lives.
-
This triggers the question of who is in the 'number'. The ancient Greek democracies worked on limited male suffrage - No women voting. Bentham was for his time quite enlightened as regards women, though there are some comments which would not be seen as acceptable now, and as regards non human animals
Dunno what you mean by those last words: Bentham was one of the first to realise that animals might have feelings to be taken into consideration, and to propose that they should be treated kindly. From 'An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation', by J.B., chapter XIX, section i:The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withdrawn from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognised, that the number of the legs, the viliosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the inseparable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal than any infant of a day, a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
-
I had hoped that the commas would make clear that as regards non human animals, he was quite enlightened for the time
-
Ah - yes. See what you mean, As you were.
-
Steve H,
...
... Try reading about the unintended effect of banning agent orange for example, itself an act whose aim was entirely benign but that arguably actually cost countless lives.
Sorry Blue, probably off-topic, but didn't get this - do you have a link or ref?
-
Udayana,
Sorry Blue, probably off-topic, but didn't get this - do you have a link or ref?
Oops, my bad (as da yoof apparently say). I was having a senior moment there as I meant to say DDT rather than agent orange. The argument is that countless people who died from malaria would otherwise have survived but for the ban on the (comparatively harmless) pesticide DDT. Since then the tide has been turned back somewhat at least by people who argue that DDT is still used as a pesticide in some countries. The point though remains that unintended consequences can be a killer. Sorry for the confusion
-
I believe that there is anexception to the ban for malaria-control purposes.
-
Udayana,
Oops, my bad (as da yoof apparently say). I was having a senior moment there as I meant to say DDT rather than agent orange. The argument is that countless people who died from malaria would otherwise have survived but for the ban on the (comparatively harmless) pesticide DDT. Since then the tide has been turned back somewhat at least by people who argue that DDT is still used as a pesticide in some countries. The point though remains that unintended consequences can be a killer. Sorry for the confusion
Ah, Ok.
Certainly we never really know the ultimate consequences of our actions, and with the understanding that our desires and decisions are determined (no free will) one begins to feel that life is a show, put on to grab and fling our emotions back and forth.
Surprised that no-one has brought up the trolley experiment. Utilitarians can calculate that flinging one person under the trolley to prevent the deaths of five is better, more moral, but what action do you take in the situation itself? Push the innocent bystander or let physics take it's course? Maybe sacrifice yourself (not usually possible)?
-
Ah, Ok.
Certainly we never really know the ultimate consequences of our actions, and with the understanding that our desires and decisions are determined (no free will) one begins to feel that life is a show, put on to grab and fling our emotions back and forth.
Surprised that no-one has brought up the trolley experiment. Utilitarians can calculate that flinging one person under the trolley to prevent the deaths of five is better, more moral, but what action do you take in the situation itself? Push the innocent bystander or let physics take it's course? Maybe sacrifice yourself (not usually possible)?
Nice little piece by Oliver Burkemann on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/22/hypothetical-thinking-pale-imitation-real-life
-
Yes, that resonates with me. I do sometimes stand around calculating possible consequences, but I also tend to rely on feelings and hunches. And quite often I have no idea where I'm going, but I've got used to that.
-
Oh I have no clue at all where I am going. I was dating a bloke who used to talk in management-speak when he ran out of things to say. One favourite of his was 'where do you see yourself in five years' time?' Christ, I can't imagine five weeks' time. You just keep going, one foot in front of the other, seeing what comes up.
-
Dharma: The path taken - your actions and duties as you are pre-determined and obliged to choose them
Karma: The results of those actions as they reverberate through time and define dharma.
As I perceive them, anyway.
-
If I think something is wrong, my first reaction is one of actually feeling that something is wrong. Whatever it is offends my nature. It might be something where I simply feel disapproval, but, depending on what that'something' is, I might feel disgust, revulsion, sometimes even tainted with fear. I then try to consider the situation and assess it according to my values in as rational way as possible. This may well mean that I have to consider other people's points of view. The end result is something which I would call my moral opinion, however imperfect it might be.
-
Dharma: The path taken - your actions and duties as you are pre-determined and obliged to choose them
Karma: The results of those actions as they reverberate through time and define dharma.
As I perceive them, anyway.
I'm glad to know that I was right - karma is more subtle than bad things happening to bad people, which is how many idiots on the book of faces use it.