Normative Ethics Showdown

[~~~~]

Let's say you have an ethical quandary. How can you tell what is right and what is wrong? Many people have a vague sense of morality. However, 'vague senses' very easily fall victim to human biases, so how do we accurately distinguish right from wrong?

 

Enter normative ethics - actually thinking about ethics rather than just using your intuition. There are many different ethical systems, but which is the best?

 

I am personally struggling between prioritarianism and utilitarianism. Is equality an intrinsically moral thing, or is it just the case that diminishing marginal utility applies to utility?

 

Anyway, discuss!

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Possibly ironically I think that ethical systems are unethical. Cause in my mind ethics should vary depending on situation and trying to follow a specific path turns you away from the actual ethical implications.

 

I wrote this. And I'm still not entirely sure what I'm saying. But it feels like what I think so there you go.

[~~~~]

Possibly ironically I think that ethical systems are unethical. Cause in my mind ethics should vary depending on situation and trying to follow a specific path turns you away from the actual ethical implications.

 

I wrote this. And I'm still not entirely sure what I'm saying. But it feels like what I think so there you go.

I think you underestimate the ability of relatively simple rules to navigate complex situations. You also fall very far into the trap hole of using your intuition. Intuition is extremely flawed, and a lot of evil things have happened because people thought that they were doing the right thing without actually thinking it through.

[vla1ne]

none of them should be used exclusively. they are all decent systems, but no absolute moral system is proper, because none of them factor in every possible outcome. you're supposed to combine them, and in some cases forsake them, so that you can build your own code of morals,

 

there is no really perfect answer, and because of that, there will continue to be people who's values are so different on some subjects that it can lead to conflict. for exacmple, while it is a movie, the captain america, civil war movie is a demonstration of what i mean so far as ideals, even when two people have the best interests of everybody at heart, they can come to two completely different conclusions from each other. that's the reason we have democrats and republicans, libertarians and conservatives, vegans and vegetarians, ect, morality changes overtime, for better or worse, morality will change as time passes, so far, it's been getting better, so i assume we'll make it to a good balance some day, but until then... this is what we have.

[Goose]

The vale of ignorance is super convincing imo

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

none of them should be used exclusively. they are all decent systems, but no absolute moral system is proper, because none of them factor in every possible outcome. you're supposed to combine them, and in some cases forsake them, so that you can build your own code of morals,

 

there is no really perfect answer, and because of that, there will continue to be people who's values are so different on some subjects that it can lead to conflict. for exacmple, while it is a movie, the captain america, civil war movie is a demonstration of what i mean so far as ideals, even when two people have the best interests of everybody at heart, they can come to two completely different conclusions from each other. that's the reason we have democrats and republicans, libertarians and conservatives, vegans and vegetarians, ect, morality changes overtime, for better or worse, morality will change as time passes, so far, it's been getting better, so i assume we'll make it to a good balance some day, but until then... this is what we have.

Tell me a case where Utilitarianism is wrong

[Goose]

Tell me a case where Utilitarianism is wrong

 

Utilitarian ethics require interpersonal comparisons that are not possible in reality.  How do you really compare my desire for an ice cream cone to Donald Trumps?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Utilitarian ethics require interpersonal comparisons that are not possible in reality.  How do you really compare my desire for an ice cream cone to Donald Trumps?

Eating Donald Trump would be an act of murder and cannibalism, both with can get you incarcerated

 

Making an Ice Cream Cone president would be a pretty terrible idea

 

The choices seem clear to me depending on your the manner of your desire

[vla1ne]

Tell me a case where Utilitarianism is wrong

you... fine, i'll bite.

 

utilitarianism only takes population into context. via utilitarianism, you can shut down an orphanage in favor of a giant mall if the mall will benefit thousands more people. mob rule would be justified so long as the majority remained in a joyous frenzy, there would be no reason not to enslave, or kill off the minority, so long as the majority could make mass profit from it, and all manner of other things that other systems of ethics would prevent.

[VCR_CAT]

you... fine, i'll bite.

 

utilitarianism only takes population into context. via utilitarianism, you can shut down an orphanage in favor of a giant mall if the mall will benefit thousands more people. mob rule would be justified so long as the majority remained in a joyous frenzy, there would be no reason not to enslave, or kill off the minority, so long as the majority could make mass profit from it, and all manner of other things that other systems of ethics would prevent.

 

Simply put: Utilitarianism too often "justifies" heinous acts in the name of "the greater good" when, in reality, no human is really fit to make a proper judgment call on what will truly benefit the larger amount of people the most.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

you... fine, i'll bite.

 

utilitarianism only takes population into context. via utilitarianism, you can shut down an orphanage in favor of a giant mall if the mall will benefit thousands more people. mob rule would be justified so long as the majority remained in a joyous frenzy, there would be no reason not to enslave, or kill off the minority, so long as the majority could make mass profit from it, and all manner of other things that other systems of ethics would prevent.

And other systems would keep a system from reaching it's maximum potential to placate those minorities. If a branch is deceased and killing a tree as a whole, the smart choice would be to eliminate the cancerous growth for the greater good.

 

It would be majority rule, time and energy consuming tangents would be eliminated in favor of efficiency. The "mob" as you put it would evolve and in time prune itself again and again in a movement towards the ultimate correct endgame

 

Utilitarianism is the only form of ethics that is entirely objective. 

 

For an example, if arming everyone with guns lead to a situation where all the low intelligence people were killed off, but a few high intelligence people also perished, with an end result of the population being better off in some measure than before. It would be the logical choice to go for it. 

 

Now your morals may value humans enough for such an idea to be revolting, but it IS the best option for humanity as a whole

 

Utilitarianism is perfect, but a hard path for imperfect beings like us to follow

Simply put: Utilitarianism too often justifies heinous acts in the name of "the greater good" when, in reality, no human is really fit to make a proper judgment call on what will truly benefit the larger amount of people the most.

shouldn't heinous also be in quotations, because that's the subjective part?

 

That gets to the underlying problem, we as humans are bias. And we cannot get rid of that bias. Take for example slavery. Owners thought that was for the greater good. But they were biasly looking at themselves. In reality there were far more people hurt by the arrangement than not. No Human is fit to make a proper judgment call. But humans are capable of creating systems purely based on objectivity that CAN make approximations to the proper judgment call with ever increasing convergence on the correct aggregate call

[Aix]

Normative ethics boils down the weighing of values and taking the course that best protects those values. There is no perfect system because different values exist.

 

In utilitarianism, the sole value is the "greater good" or the well-being of humans, but for most people, there are other important values. Notably, human rights, decency, etc.

[vla1ne]

And other systems would keep a system from reaching it's maximum potential to placate those minorities. If a branch is deceased and killing a tree as a whole, the smart choice would be to eliminate the cancerous growth for the greater good.

 

It would be majority rule, time and energy consuming tangents would be eliminated in favor of efficiency. The "mob" as you put it would evolve and in time prune itself again and again in a movement towards the ultimate correct endgame

 

Utilitarianism is the only form of ethics that is entirely objective. 

 

For an example, if arming everyone with guns lead to a situation where all the low intelligence people were killed off, but a few high intelligence people also perished, with an end result of the population being better off in some measure than before. It would be the logical choice to go for it. 

 

Now your morals may value humans enough for such an idea to be revolting, but it IS the best option for humanity as a whole

 

Utilitarianism is perfect, but a hard path for imperfect beings like us to follow

shouldn't heinous also be in quotations, because that's the subjective part?

 

That gets to the underlying problem, we as humans are bias. And we cannot get rid of that bias. Take for example slavery. Owners thought that was for the greater good. But they were biasly looking at themselves. In reality there were far more people hurt by the arrangement than not. No Human is fit to make a proper judgment call. But humans are capable of creating systems purely based on objectivity that CAN make approximations to the proper judgment call with ever increasing convergence on the correct aggregate call

under that argument, you will eventually have killed more people than you keep. mob rule narrws down as the unwanted is excluded, a town of 100 will narrow down to 75, and those 75 will narrow down to 50, and those 50 will narrow down to 30, ect. utilitarianism is objective, but that does not make it the best system, nor does it equate to maximum potential, unlike a tree's branches, dissent within a group of multiple egos is unending until there is only one left, if there is only mob rule, 1-1 disputes will be unending, anything 50/50 can never be decided, and so on. 

 

if the idiots with guns have better aim and bigger numbers, then guess what, they are the utilitarian winners by default, and the smart people become slaves to the idiots, and under utilitarianism, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as the stupid outnumber the smart, or the strong outnumber the weak.

 

it is not, because shits in populations will immediately, and occasionally violently, cause uprootings, and so long as the ursurpers are the majority, nevermind their ideals, they will be the ones in the right. only majority rule means that you have to force others to suffer greatly. it is not perfect, it causes mass amounts of suffering,

 

there is nothing in utilitarianism except the minority, the minority of anything can then be trampled upon, be it religion, ideals, race, gender, politics, or anything else, there would be nothing wrong with tortutring th minority, raping the minority, killing the minority, stealing from the minority, anything, so long as it was to the lower population. humanity cannot progress under such rules, the minority cannot survive under such rules, because there would be no law except do as you will, and have enough people behind you to either be the majority, or kill enough people to become the majority. if a group of 20 people killed 20 people in a 30 person group over a dispute, they would then be the majority, could you call them wrong for their actions when they are then the majority? and would everything they do be justified upon becoming the larger number?

[Aix]

vla1ne I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

I think:

You are trying to appeal to Winter's other values and emotions, which is pointless because he rejects them.

You are pointing out the short-sightedness of utilitarianism. In which case, in the end, using other systems would be utilitarian, wouldn't it? Although, the future is grey area.

[vla1ne]

vla1ne I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

I think:

You are trying to appeal to Winter's other values and emotions, which is pointless because he rejects them.

You are pointing out the short-sightedness of utilitarianism. In which case, in the end, using other systems would be utilitarian, wouldn't it? Although, the future is grey area.

to an extent, yes, but it's to demonstrate the utilitarian ethics in a vacuum is the only way to consider it perfect. it justifies actions so long as they bring more pleasure than pain to the majority, but it cannot condemn actions that fall within those parameters, and there are quite a few actions that fall within those parameters that would be absolutely abhorrent by alternate standards.

 

utilitarianism using other systems is no longer pure utilitarianism, its' other systems as well, which mitigates the potential damage done by utilitarianism, if you use the way you've worded it, then yes, that would be the ideal method, but then it is no longer be "utilitarianism" under it's current definition it would be an melting pot of multiple measures of morality made to not only cater to majority, but to not trample the minority. what difference is slavery to rape under the definition currently held by winter? his definition as first given (from other thread) was:

 

Yeah the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. There is no sacrifice too great for the greater good

Utilitarianism is the only objective form of ethics

therefore my scenarios are valid under that particular light. assuming the greater good is the good that benefits the most people, then what are 40 people killing themselves if 10 people convert to the other side leading to 60 people benefiting? 

[~~~~]

Is utilitarianism solely about the amount of people benefited? No, it's about the total amount of benefit. You can justify helping a minority group at the expense of a larger group, iff the minority group's total benefit is more than the loss the the larger group.

[vla1ne]

Is utilitarianism solely about the amount of people benefited? No, it's about the total amount of benefit. You can justify helping a minority group at the expense of a larger group, iff the minority group's total benefit is more than the loss the the larger group.

under those same standards, the total amount of benefit still counts under majority rule. that is why utilitarianism kills the one (or even the few) for the sake of the many, the more people who benefit, in any way, the more just the action. in order to condemn it, you need some other form of morality.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

under those same standards, the total amount of benefit still counts under majority rule. that is why utilitarianism kills the one (or even the few) for the sake of the many, the more people who benefit, in any way, the more just the action. in order to condemn it, you need some other form of morality.

under those same standards, the total amount of benefit still counts under majority rule. that is why utilitarianism kills the one (or even the few) for the sake of the many, the more people who benefit, in any way, the more just the action. in order to condemn it, you need some other form of morality.

Wait how, if 51 people benefit by 1 utility unit. But the other 49 benefit by 3 utility by no action.

 

You go for what the 49% want. Humans as individuals are too macroscopic of organisms to be th basic measure of utility

 

Speed and Aix pretty much spelled it out

[vla1ne]

Wait how, if 51 people benefit by 1 utility unit. But the other 49 benefit by 3 utility by no action.

 

You go for what the 49% want. Humans as individuals are too macroscopic of organisms to be th basic measure of utility

 

Speed and Aix pretty much spelled it out

and you are defining your utility units? results vs consequences? what falls to the side? how many results vs consequence? what if the 51 gain 2 and the 49 only lose 1 utility? in fact, what is your justification for condemning actions when the ends justify the means? genocide is perfectly fine so long as the majority gain more from it than there are people dying. slavery, so long as it's the vast minority, is acceptable under your view, the more people involved on one side, the less your utility factors in. you want to give the victims 3 utility? then 148 people will immediately make your utility example moot so long as every one of the 148 gain at least 1 utility from the action.

 

utility is all numbers, and judgement based upon numbers (even if you scale pleasure) is easy to break so long as the numbers are high enough.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

under those same standards, the total amount of benefit still counts under majority rule. that is why utilitarianism kills the one (or even the few) for the sake of the many, the more people who benefit, in any way, the more just the action. in order to condemn it, you need some other form of morality.

Untrue because it takes into account "in the long run" as well. What's better for the most people in the most ways.

 

I still think ethical theory is unethical overall, by the way. Though maybe my idea of ethics is just too different than most.

[vla1ne]

Untrue because it takes into account "in the long run" as well. What's better for the most people in the most ways.

 

I still think ethical theory is unethical overall, by the way. Though maybe my idea of ethics is just too different than most.

then lets factor in the utility, let's say that there's a doctor, who saves 10-15 people a week, productive, working important people. that's what? +3 utility right? so let's say he then goes out, once a week, him and his doctor friends, all of whom save 10-15 working lives a week, decide that once a week, they'll go out and kil 1 homeless person, as recreation. just one, unproductive homeless person a week, however they please. now, even if that's -10 utility, the amount of people they help per week, is a +30 at minimum, leading to at least +20 a week, and the people they help, are productive, while those they kill, drain the resources over the long run. let's say those homeless were all people who had no future, and cared not for working towards one. under utilitarian ethics, the long term is still a benefit, because those doctors save more than they kill, and those they kill are considered useless anyways. so how would utilitarian ethics condemn such an action? you can kill somebody and sell their organs on the black marked, and so long as those body parts provide utility to multiple people over time than they would to that one person. that is your long run, ends justify the means. more people are helped in the end, so how is it not justified? using only utilitarianism.

 

 

just to be clear though, i'm not saying never be utilitarian, just that it's not as flawless as it would appear at first glance, you can justify some sick things with it so long as the ends at the very least even out the losses.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mean I'm not utilitarian and think it's a bad system myself but, given what little I know, I suppose the answer for that would be...Killing them isn't ethical because it doesn't contribute to the positive things. Now if he had to kill that homeless person to continue to do his work, possibly.

[~~~~]

then lets factor in the utility, let's say that there's a doctor, who saves 10-15 people a week, productive, working important people. that's what? +3 utility right? so let's say he then goes out, once a week, him and his doctor friends, all of whom save 10-15 working lives a week, decide that once a week, they'll go out and kil 1 homeless person, as recreation. just one, unproductive homeless person a week, however they please. now, even if that's -10 utility, the amount of people they help per week, is a +30 at minimum, leading to at least +20 a week, and the people they help, are productive, while those they kill, drain the resources over the long run. let's say those homeless were all people who had no future, and cared not for working towards one. under utilitarian ethics, the long term is still a benefit, because those doctors save more than they kill, and those they kill are considered useless anyways. so how would utilitarian ethics condemn such an action? you can kill somebody and sell their organs on the black marked, and so long as those body parts provide utility to multiple people over time than they would to that one person. that is your long run, ends justify the means. more people are helped in the end, so how is it not justified? using only utilitarianism.

 

 

just to be clear though, i'm not saying never be utilitarian, just that it's not as flawless as it would appear at first glance, you can justify some sick things with it so long as the ends at the very least even out the losses.

In this ridiculous situation, the doctors can simply not kil people for funsies. This would sit them at a tasty +30 utility rather than +20.

[vla1ne]

I mean I'm not utilitarian and think it's a bad system myself but, given what little I know, I suppose the answer for that would be...Killing them isn't ethical because it doesn't contribute to the positive things. Now if he had to kill that homeless person to continue to do his work, possibly.

consider it stress relief. not to mention it removes the negatives from the view of society, remove the few to make the many look better.

hell, you can even make it less bloody and it'd still be the same question, if a city decided that a few people had to remain homeless, and provided for those many while giving the few nothing, all just to make the many feel better and work harder, then would it be moral using utilitarianism? 

 

or even another one, if a school/ class took the failures aside , and allowed everybody else to do as they pleased to said failures, as motivation to keep overall grades high, would that be immoral in a utilitarian system? or if the few bad apples were killed of immediately, for the sake of the many living in peace, would that be wrong in a utilitarian system?

 

not trying to point it directly at you, just saying again, you can justify a lot when you are willing to sacrifice the few for the many., 

 

 

 

In this ridiculous situation, the doctors can simply not kil people for funsies. This would sit them at a tasty +30 utility rather than +20.

but funsies is great stress relief, allowing them to also increase their own utility by a decent amount when they murder the homeless man. how can you say they're wrong if their stress relief still has them 20 above zero? not to mention their own happiness jumps by killing the homeless man. consider them as serial killers who need to catch a body to remain functional members of society. they're still contributing more to the greater good, and in fact are removing undesirables from the street, which is a plus to the entire city's appearance as well. but besides all that, this is not a scenario to claim whether or not it can happen, this is a scenario to ask, how can you condemn them for a crime under these conditions, using only utilitarian reasoning, they are the many, they provide a vastly greater service than the people they're killing, the people they are killing provide nothing to society, and in fact drain the resources from other areas of society, it's perfectly valid within the reasoning of utilitarianism to say that not only are they doing no wrong, but even that they are providing a service to the majority,

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Killing people might not be easy. Depending on what gets you off the ATP usage might not balance out the pleasure you derive. 

 

I really think that when you account for more and more variables it'd show that we're pretty much on the right track as is