Utilitarianism

**Howie** · 04-10-2007 07:23 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("TBM")</div>

simply put. I don't believe in any moral system[/b]

So what you are referring to is the system or a system. Not morals?

Getting caught up in the terminology certainly does make it fuzzy. It is almost like Republicans and Democrats. At first light they are polar opposites. The farther you dig to the core the more they are the same.

IMHO > It all is based around human nature. And with most of my arguments towards morality, it comes down to what I perceive as natural=nature.
What is natural can obviously be always changing. So is everything else. But nature holds in front of us a guide to right and wrong in most cases.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("TBM")</div>

Objectivism is the idea of "The Greater Good".
Utilitarianism encompasses more of an idea of "The better good" or "The least bad".[/b]

This simply can't apply the same to all situations. I also did not mean for it to spill over into leadership roles. Although, parents peers and more, we all play some form of leadership.
Every one of these concepts are derived from an individuals built character and performed by the individuals view of judgment and perception.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("pj")</div>

It all comes down to a simple question; are you free or slave? In other words, who owns you?
If you are free, then you are the ultimate authority and the the one ultimately responsible for your life. Freedom itself is what grants you that authority. The very state of BEING not only makes it achievable but inevitable.[/b]

A form of self liberation? There are always standards of conformity that have to be met.

**Howie** · 04-10-2007 07:33 PM

So given all that we have seen nature play out it's role in survival of the fittest. It still does in us humans in some instances.
The fight for space in our brains through several years has been won over by our frontal lobes that calculate. With that understanding and our level of sentience combined with our social and emotional responses gives US the unique ability to carry out Utilitarianism.

Sounds good on paper.

pj · 04-10-2007 09:56 PM

It may seem harsh, but "survival of the fittest" is one reason humans still exist at all.

I'm fond of pointing out to people that they aren't going to be worth a damn trying to save the world if they aren't strong enough to take care of themselves first. That requires Rational Selfishness.

These are not casual questions we are pondering here. People have dedicated entire lifetimes to exploring and discussing the "science" of human consciousness and interaction. That's what philosophy is.

Utilitarianism seems, to me, to be a dismembered ethic without a philosophy. You can't discuss "good" in terms of ethics without a way to determine "good" epistemologically... which is where we lose the Blue Meanie, as he recognizes no epistemology.

You can't determine any values at all without an understanding of how understanding and knowledge themselves come about. That's where most people never even get on the boat in the first place.

And the saddest irony of all, to me, is that most (if not all) people who engage in "politics" haven't even tried to address ethics - let alone the foundation ethics must stand on in order to make sense. If you ever wonder why politics is such a mess, there's one answer for you.

**The Blue Meanie** · 04-11-2007 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by pj

Then you agree with Objectivist ethics - whether you like the words or not. You concur that you are the final authority regarding your own behavior. You are defining your morals and ethics as you see fit. That doesn't mean you don't have them... in fact, we already know you do just by the way you choose to conduct yourself around here.[/b]

No, not QUITE. I agree with the gist and conclusion, but not neccesarily the "moral content" of objectivism. I don't like the idea that the seeking of one;'s own self-interest is the moral purpose in life. That, for me, still stinks of somewhat of a universal moral principle.

I would agree, however, that the individual creates his or her own "ethical" codes. And I would add that morality is dependent on the society or group of individuals under discussion. I tend to distinguish "Morality" from "Ethics".

**Howie** · 04-13-2007 09:26 PM

I think self interest is being confused with selfishness. In most cases it is.
In this case I find it to be different. In fact it is one of the main objects of this Utilitarianism that first caught my attention.
Albeit, I may misunderstand what "they" mean, But for me it makes sense.

Looking out for number one is completely normal. To fight it, you are fighting the laws of nature.
We have to oppress the feelings and instincts to ride that wave over other people. We have that abilty <Most>
We can (and I argue it is in all of us) think of ourselves as the major player in the game/life. Then prioritizing we take care of family, work, friends what have you.

I remembered something I wanted to ask. So it does not fit real well.

Morality, ethics, conscience. Are they derived from our brains or a transcendant god like being?