Normative Ethics Showdown

[Aix]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

 

This argument is getting silly, just read the above thing.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

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

Variables cloud / Devil is in the details / More is not better

When you add enough variables to anything it can sway the apparent answer to whatever you want, really.

[vla1ne]

there is not always a clear solution, there are variables to situations that can change at the drop of a hat, there are human emotions and all the rest to factor in. my scenarios are indeed too simple, there are hundreds of ways i can change the question, hundreds of caveats and conditions that could be created to shift it ever so slightly, net gain can be modified with numbers, people can be modified with drugs, and all manner of other things. i will grant that utilitarian ethics is useful, i would never argue that it isn't, but it's not perfect, by any means. it is efficient, but if there is a base number, then those below that number can be trampled, in favor of the numbers above it. that is how utilitarianism works, it might try to minimize unhappiness, but if that comes at the price of making everybody unhappy, then it can be either argued for, or against, as the population shifts. 

 

acts can be right or wrong for reasons other than the amount of good or evil they present, or the amount of people they hurt or don't hurt. utilitarianism only takes the numbers into account, not the people. it quantifies it as how many more benefit than are helped. it's a fine starter, but it is not an absolute morality. utility only seeks to maximize, remove the branches, as stated earler, so the rest of the tree can grow. if it harms the many, then it can be removed under moral principles, no matter what it is.

[~~~~]

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,

I get the feeling that you purposefully format your arguments badly to make them artificially harder to argue against.

 

Simply put:

• There are other forms of 'stress relief', such as playing computer games. Killing someone is hardly going to relieve stress though - I imagine it is an extremely stressful thing to do. 
• Utilitarianism demands that we maximise utility - not just be 'above zero'. It is also worth noting that the 'zero line' is entirely imaginary and arbitrarily placed. Thus your argument of 'at least it's above zero' loses even more traction.
• Your comments about homeless people being 'undesirables' are extremely un-utilitarian, as utilitarianism also demands that we take all sentient beings into account. They also perpetuate real-life stigma towards homeless people and homelessness that only works to further their suffering.
• How can I condemn them? For needlessly going -10 utility!

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/

 

This argument is getting silly, just read the above thing.

I am an act utilitarian, because of parsimony.

[vla1ne]

I get the feeling that you purposefully format your arguments badly to make them artificially harder to argue against.

 

Simply put:

• There are other forms of 'stress relief', such as playing computer games. Killing someone is hardly going to relieve stress though - I imagine it is an extremely stressful thing to do. 
• Utilitarianism demands that we maximise utility - not just be 'above zero'. It is also worth noting that the 'zero line' is entirely imaginary and arbitrarily placed. Thus your argument of 'at least it's above zero' loses even more traction.
• Your comments about homeless people being 'undesirables' are extremely un-utilitarian, as utilitarianism also demands that we take all sentient beings into account. They also perpetuate real-life stigma towards homeless people and homelessness that only works to further their suffering.
• How can I condemn them? For needlessly going -10 utility!

 

I am an act utilitarian, because of parsimony.

alright, i was playing around a little too much on that one, but i do have to say, killing isn't always stressful, it depends upon what culture you're raised in, and in many cultures, killing is an everyday thing. indeed serial killers have described a euphoric feeling as they killed their victims, it's stress, but it's considered a good kind of stress for some, and a negative kind for others. 

 

my statement also loses no traction under it' current context, because utility itself is an abstract until you can factor in all other variables. it holds the same ground because all terms i used held a proper definition within that context. you cannot measure without a baseline, that baseline being zero in the above scenario, now, you can argue where would zero be, but that would be like arguing where would the fourth side of a triangle be? the comment had all needed information, so zero would have been defined as no actions taken by anybody, be it to help or harm. the proper way to denounce it would be to argue as you do in the next point, when you point out, in a somewhat sideways manner, that utilitarianism makes all lives equal, no matter the status or relation. i actually forgot to add that factor in, but even under that context, i could simply say the doctors use the organs of the homeless lives to save 10 more people respectively, it's still maximizing utility, sacrifice few to save the many. that -10 act just turned into a +30 that would have been impossible without the single sacrifice, but i'm going to leave this alone for both our sakes, because there really is no end to how far either of us can take it.

 

 

 

as i previously stated, maximizing utility, be it act or otherwise, can come at the cost of trampling others, for whatever reason, if every act is made to maximize utility, then you have to either overlook the few at times, in favor of the overall benefit, or forsake utility in favor of outside empathy. in addition, what holds more importance in utilitarian ethics? friends or anything else? the correct answer being neither, since they're all equal, a pure act utilitarian has no real friends, since in order to have friends you need to hold them at a higher level of esteem than others. and act utilitarianism does not allow for favoritism, it measures all actions equally, and takes action based upon not importance, but by maximized utility. meaning no favors would be done for your friends if you wouldn't do it for a complete stranger as well, and nothing you give your friends wouldn't be given to a complete stranger as well (except maybe secrets, but really) in addition, under purely act utilitarianism, you would not amass your own resources, and you could never do so as long as there was a greater good. it takes greed to amass a fortune, and greed has no real place in utilitarianism, nor does personal entertainment really, if every act was to maximize overall utility, then there would likely be no computer, because that came from an ambition outside of utilitarianism. sure, everybody would be nicer, but would you have as much innovation within a utilitarian world? i doubt it, much of the innovation and invention today comes from the people who exist outside the box, they are not working towards the greater good, they are working towards their own interests, and that is how much of the innovation today, for better or worse has come about, not by utilitarian inspiration, but by self ambitious determination., ye

 

 

 

but again, i'm not condemning utilitarianism, be it act or rule, i use it as well in my day to day. I'm simply pointing out that it comes with it's share of flaws. every form of ethics does really, i'm merely responding based upon the assumption that it's either a perfect moral system, or that it's the best moral system to implement. my stance is that you need to blend multiple forms of ethics, and learn to wield them as you see fit, not just find one and use it exclusively. act utilitarianism is indeed a good base, but you can't use solely that, and if that is not your argument, then we have nothing to discuss.

[~~~~]

Ah innovation doesn't come with utilitarian interests in hand? Well no, not always, but sometimes. Take the development of vaccines or antibiotics. Just pointing that one out.

 

Yeah, the thing about act utilitarianism is that it's really impractical. These impracticalities lead the act utilitarian to take shortcuts that resemble rule utilitarianism, as wasting time thinking through every single consequence would be extremely unethical. However, I think the distinction is very important as act utilitarianism more easily allows us to change those rules to fit with specific situations.

[vla1ne]

 

true, medical advancements would actually be right in line with utilitarian studies since it's an issue that actually effects people, it's only things like cameras, space travel/implementation, and entertainment that would really be less advanced.

 

i agree there, act utilitarianism is a better system than rule so far as overall logic and effectiveness goes. rule has some nicer aspects to it, but it doesn't strike me as an actual ethics system the way that act utilitarianism does. there's too much left vague in it.

[~~~~]

true, medical advancements would actually be right in line with utilitarian studies since it's an issue that actually effects people, it's only things like cameras, space travel/implementation, and entertainment that would really be less advanced.

 

i agree there, act utilitarianism is a better system than rule so far as overall logic and effectiveness goes. rule has some nicer aspects to it, but it doesn't strike me as an actual ethics system the way that act utilitarianism does. there's too much left vague in it.

Entertainment would be less advanced? Really? Really? Something that directly brings people joy wouldn't be advanced under a utilitarian system. Ok.

[vla1ne]

Entertainment would be less advanced? Really? Really? Something that directly brings people joy wouldn't be advanced under a utilitarian system. Ok.

much of entertainment requires a tap of greed or competition to innovate and advance. human nature requires at least a little bit of conflict for things like game consoles and yugioh cards to not just come into existence, but to be advanced to the extent they exist today. i think i stated it in another thread, but things like war and conflict jolt innovation and advancement more than peace and prosperity, something similar can be said for entertainment. in a purely utilitarian system, while entertainment would definitely be developed, it wouldn't be able to come as far as it has under purely utilitarian values, because the concept of competition (which is a driving force for many of the innovations in the entertainment industry, be it books, movies, games, music, ect) is somewhat against basic utilitarian ideals. many of the advancements in entertainment come about by greed, competition, or personal curiosity.