Thread: Utilitarianism

utilitarianism.

In many cases I find myself in the minority or even more often somewhere in between.
Many subjective and objective topics and discussions turn to the principle belief system behind the entire concept. Atheism, totalitarianism, Christianity socialist and more. (*although I still claim no label) - I feel it is dangerous.

This perplexed me. After doing a little research to better define what my stance is on so many of these topics one almost has to define or classify yourself as "something." People will not accept your arguments. Or even worse, they just categorize you as they see put. To try and prevent that from happening I was on a mission to best suite my morality, for lack of a more descriptive term.
This lands me to utilitarianism.

Is any one familiar with this?

utilitarianism, in ethics, the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing about the most happiness of all those affected by it. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which advocates that those actions are right which bring about the most good overall.


The ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.

► advantage, advantageousness, advisability, appositeness, aptness, benefit, convenience, desirability, effectiveness, efficiency, expedience, fitness, helpfulness, judiciousness, meetness, opportunism, opportunity, order, policy, practicality, pragmatism, profitability, profitableness, properness, propitiousness, propriety, prudence, rightness, suitability, usefulness, utilitarianism, utility, worth
Much like philanthropy to me.

Making the most people happy isn't necessarily always the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Artelis

Making the most people happy isn't necessarily always the right thing to do.[/b]

No it isn't. There are many variables to any given circumstance.

Originally Posted by Howietzer

No it isn't. There are many variables to any given circumstance.
[/b]

so utilitariansim sucks, then?

Originally Posted by Artelis

so utilitariansim sucks, then?[/b]

You are a very insightful and intelligent lad eeey?

Interesting... utilitarianism - and interesting that you don't capitalize it.

Are you at all familiar with Objectivism? It would seem to be the polar opposite of utilitarianism. It is also the philosophy I most closely espouse - though true Objectivists classify me as a "mystic" because of my Christianity. So among Objectivists, I'm a heretic of sorts.

As I've gone through life, the truth of Objectivism has been demonstrated to me time and again. In trying to keep others happy, all sorts of evils have been perpetrated on mankind, because mankind has a natural tendency toward misery and self-destruction. To take that to the extreme, then, the only hope to keep the most people happy possible is in taking over their lives for them - totalitarianism. That's what it leads to. The belief in doing whatever it takes to achieve a goal, even one so noble as the greatest happiness for the most people, is pragmatism - the end justifies the means.

So the polar opposite makes sense to me - the doctrine of Rational Selfishness. In doing the best I can for myself while respecting other's freedom to be miserable or whatever else they want, I end up in the best possible position to serve those around me... provided I make a choice to serve them.

It is ironic... in the name of protecting me and keeping me happy, legions lay claim to my liberty. In liberty and rational selfishness, I can serve God as I understand Him and to the greatest good - by MY definition of good.

I'll finish this with a quote from C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Originally Posted by Howietzer

In many cases I find myself in the minority or even more often somewhere in between.
Many subjective and objective topics and discussions turn to the principle belief system behind the entire concept.[/b]

Are you speaking of moral Objectivism as opposed to subjectivism ?
Because that is just it. How I find myself in the middle.
It is easy to assume that utilitarianism requires something of yourself to achieve. As I see it, it is based on logical reasoning. With logical reasoning you, yourself are number one, if you choose.

I often think objective reasoning cannot have an accurate outcome with concern to judgment or morality.
It has to have some subjective view, as we as humans are inclined to judge character. On the other hand, an objective view is needed for proper judgment to oppose the ideology that us humans have.
Emotion tells us one thing and reason tells us another.

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

I&#39;ll finish this with a quote from C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron&#39;s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.[/b]

Hmmm. That certainly holds a lot of weight behind that doesn&#39;t it.
My mind is thinking in blocks. I have been up for a long time because of the damn lake effect snow.
I would like to continue when my thought processing unit works at it&#39;s optimal 45%. Then maybe we can dabble deeper into this as well as make sense of what I have already said.
For now much needed---

Originally Posted by Howietzer

For now much needed--- [/b]

Well, for goodness&#39; sake, get to sleep... and dream LUCID.

I shall do the same. Let&#39;s continue this after Easter.

Grace and peace to you, friend.

Good night.

I personally think Utilitarianism is a load of shit. If I could chose between making one friend happy, or 1 million unknown people, I would pick my friend any day.

Goodie&#33; I was hoping someone would mention Objectivism&#33; While objectivism is the opposite of utilitaria(gah, hate spelling these), it probably represents more people better.

I wish there was a test one could take that would put you on a multiaxis diagram, although I find I shift bewteen lables daily. Does this make me a situational utilitariast or a situational objectivist?

My head hurts

I&#39;m certainly not a moral objectivist. (It is moral objectivism we are talking about here, no?) But, I wouldn;t classify myself as a utilitarian either. I would tend to be a political utlitarian and pragmatist, but when it comes to morality, I&#39;m pretty much a complete subjectivist - simply put. I don&#39;t believe in any moral system, whether utlitarian or objective, and I think that such systems are inherantly dangerous.

Originally Posted by The

I&#39;m certainly not a moral objectivist. (It is moral objectivism we are talking about here, no?)[/b]

Not necessarily, though that could be part of it. Objectivism (cap O) is a western philosophy that recognizes reality for what it is - A is A and never B, that reason is man&#39;s only way to perceive and interpret reality, that ethics and morals are defined by self-interest, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the only truly moral and ethical economic system. It is as far as you can get from pragmatism.

I see the lack of objective morals and ethics being incredibly dangerous, as supported by a review of the most horrific acts throughout history. "The End Justifies The Means" has been the reasoning behind the deaths of hundreds of millions throughout history, by people and governments who were certain they were making a necessary (and thus pragmatic) sacrifice in bettering the world.

Without objective morals and ethics, there is nothing stopping you reasoning your way to justifying harm to me and then carrying out that harm with a completely clear conscious and possibly without social or legal detriment.

Objectivism places morals and ethics on the solid foundation of rational selfishness.

Originally Posted by pj

I see the lack of objective morals and ethics being incredibly dangerous, as supported by a review of the most horrific acts throughout history. "The End Justifies The Means" has been the reasoning behind the deaths of hundreds of millions throughout history, by people and governments who were certain they were making a necessary (and thus pragmatic) sacrifice in bettering the world.

Without objective morals and ethics, there is nothing stopping you reasoning your way to justifying harm to me and then carrying out that harm with a completely clear conscious and possibly without social or legal detriment.[/b]

Actually, it&#39;s morality and ethics, and objectivity, the idea that something is objectively right, that has caused half of the world&#39;s problems. Crusades. Why did they happen? Because people honestly thought their religion was objectively right.

Even if you want to take the holocaust as an example - was this an example of objectivism or utlitarianism? Well, if you ask me, it&#39;s BOTH. Utilitarianism isn&#39;t the opposite of objectivism, it&#39;s a derivative of it. Utilitarianism is a system of thought based on the principle that the greatest good to the greatest number is somehow objectively right. Utilitarianism is just a system of morality based on principles which are just as objectivist as any other. The objectivist tenets are just a bit hidden, is all.

Also, and maybe this is just me, but PJ: You see the idea of "The Greater Good" as behind some of the world&#39;s biggest atrocities. I wou;ldn;t dispute that. But to me, the idea of "The Greater Good" is OBJECTIVIST rather than neccesarily utilitarian.

Originally Posted by The

Also, and maybe this is just me, but PJ: You see the idea of "The Greater Good" as behind some of the world&#39;s biggest atrocities. I wou;ldn;t dispute that. But to me, the idea of "The Greater Good" is OBJECTIVIST rather than neccesarily utilitarian.[/b]

Both of your examples are pragmatism at work. The Crusades or any other "holy war..." - the ugly killing is necessary to bring "salvation" to these barbarians. The result justifies what needs to be done - which just happens to be some human slaughter and misery. Oh well.

The Holocost - the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem"... in the end we end up with a "pure race" and save mankind from a "polluted gene pool." So we need to massacre a few million people to get there - the end justifies the means.

These sorts of justifications are simply not possible under Objectivism - nor under any moral and ethical system that is not situational. It is the soft thinking of this world which justifies people in believing they can define a greater reality than their own perceptions that leads to much human misery and suffering, and is capable of bringing down entire nations. It is in the process of bringing down the United States of America even as we speak, as well as most of the rest of the Western world.

I have no idea which &#39;ism&#39; I belong to, but I definately dont like the mentality that the end justifies the means

An end goal that justifies any and all actions that go towards accoumplishing it, is not utlitarianism. It is idealism taken to the extreme. Furthermore, it entails that an objectively moral or good end result justifies all actions taken to get there.

PJ, that&#39;s NOT utilitarianism. That&#39;s objectivism.

If it were utilitarianism, the ends WOULDN&#39;T justify the means, as it would be a question of weighing up each.

Objectivism is the idea of "The Greater Good".

Utilitarianism encompasses more of an idea of "The better good" or "The least bad".

Originally Posted by The

Objectivism is the idea of "The Greater Good".[/b]

Not the way Ayn Rand defined it. You aren&#39;t even in the ballpark, Blue Meanie. We aren&#39;t discussing ways to define a word here - Objectivism is a recognized philosophy, not one we&#39;re inventing on the spot for our convenience.

Utilitarianism encompasses more of an idea of "The better good" or "The least bad".[/b]

According to whom? Where is the standard? Who sets the standard? Who is the authority in judging "better," "good," "least" or "bad"?

*edit*

I think where this is going astray is in mistaking an idea, "objectivism", with a concisely defined philosophy, "Objectivism". My originally bringing Objectivism into the discussion was specifically to introduce the idea of Rational Selfishness, not to end up with this thread crashing and burning in a tangle of philosophical disagreement over what a word means to whom.

Definition of "objectivism" and "utilitarianism" aside, where DOES pragmatism fit in? I hold that pragmatism is evil, pure and simple, no matter how anybody might perceive it as being part of a given philosophy. I also hold that rational selfishness is the ultimate standard we all use, whether willing to recognize it or not, and in spite of being carefully brainwashed into believing selfishness is inherently evil.

Ahh&#33; This is Great Extended Discussion &#33;
It is all a blur to me now I think I am just an (&#39;ist&#39; )
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TBM")</div>

I&#39;m certainly not a moral objectivist. (It is moral objectivism we are talking about here, no?) But, I wouldn;t classify myself as a utilitarian either. I would tend to be a political utlitarian and pragmatist, but when it comes to morality, I&#39;m pretty much a complete subjectivist - simply put. I don&#39;t believe in any moral system, whether utlitarian or objective, and I think that such systems are inherantly dangerous.[/b]

There almost has to be some form of moral system, has to be.

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

Atheism, totalitarianism, Christianity socialist and more. (*although I still claim no label) - I feel it is dangerous.[/b]

I certainly agree with you there.

Can&#39;t you conclude that an only true Objectist view could come from atrificail intellegance? As I described earlier, how many of us can truly out our own subjective twist out of any given situation. (I often think objective reasoning cannot have an accurate outcome with concern to judgment or morality.
It has to have some subjective view, as we as humans are inclined to judge character. On the other hand, an objective view is needed for proper judgment to oppose the ideology that us humans have.
Emotion tells us one thing and reason tells us another.)

But all that aside, before I even loose sight of my origianl thought are this.
This process of the "greatest good" is something that has always been there. Now as our cultures are ever changing then so to does the charachteristics of each lable.
A few scenarios I had thought up - maybe not the best, but hey.

• Becuase I had read a book on the life of the eskimos, is why this idea probalby came to mind.
  In their culture it is a very cut throat type of lifestyle, if you will. What I am leading to is, that if they have a female child they simply put the newborn out to freeze. Why. They cannot afford to feed another (body?) that cannot fulfill the needs that a male could provide.

Is this wrong?
We obviously live in a different environment. But take into consideration this.
If you are having a baby and your ultra sound indicates that the child will be classified as retarded. Objectively this newborn would become a drain on society. For the greater good of all society, would it not be best to abort this child?
(playing god -I know) But that is true Objectivism to me.
It mingles, every so closely to utilitarianism.

-It is a fight about morality and logic. (would you throw a fatally injured person of of a lifeboat to save the others?) to me that is a decisive - yes. Easily said behind my keyboard)
I guess science would conclude me as damaged. Damage to the (VMPC to be precise. The ventro media cortex something or other. < Not sure on that one

Some say it is sensible and some say it is ruthless. I guess because every one&#39;s judgment can very soo much, this could never have a conclusive outcome.
But it IS dangerous. If morality comes form the brain and not some transcendent reason or a god.
It is only our conscience we have to argue with. Once we make piece with our conscience decision it can lead to atrocities, as pj&#39;s quote pointed out.

I have more to add but this is a bit long winded now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("pj&#39</div>

I think where this is going astray is in mistaking an idea, "objectivism", with a concisely defined philosophy, "Objectivism". My originally bringing Objectivism into the discussion was specifically to introduce the idea of Rational Selfishness[/b]

Rational Selfishness:
Without a perfect formula for perspective, this is almost unachievable for man. Do you think?

Originally Posted by Howietzer

Rational Selfishness:
Without a perfect formula for perspective, this is almost unachievable for man. Do you think?[/b]

Not at all.

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.

The extreme opposite of this might appear to be self-sacrifice, but it really isn&#39;t. As you are the one assigning and recognizing value, what you choose to invest and ultimately expend your life on or for still comes down to what you perceive as valuable. If reducing suffering around you happens to be of value to you, then the argument ends there... for YOU. Your choice does not beholden me to support your values or choices, nor mandate my joining in your sacrifice.

Again... the moment anybody other than you imposes their choices on you, you are no longer free. And the moment you try to impose your choices on me, you have gone from being associate to enemy - from being one I associate with by choice in my freedom to one I must contend with as a threat to my liberty.

Having said all this, I need to add that I (and others like me) have chosen to use our freedom in service to God. This is very different from somebody imposing, coercing or otherwise forcing their faith on me. This is how I am able to call myself a Christian while espousing many of the tenets and precepts of Objectivism.

Originally Posted by pj

Definition of "objectivism" and "utilitarianism" aside, where DOES pragmatism fit in? I hold that pragmatism is evil, pure and simple, no matter how anybody might perceive it as being part of a given philosophy. I also hold that rational selfishness is the ultimate standard we all use, whether willing to recognize it or not, and in spite of being carefully brainwashed into believing selfishness is inherently evil.[/b]

To hold that something, specifically pragmatism, is "evil" is to accord it an objective moral worth which I just can;t agree with.

Originally Posted by pj

There almost has to be some form of moral system, has to be.[/b]

Why?

There doesn;t need to be any universal moral system. A subjective consensus of any society on their own moral codes, sure, but universal/onjective morality is not something needed.

Originally Posted by pj

Some say it is sensible and some say it is ruthless. I guess because every one&#39;s judgment can very soo much, this could never have a conclusive outcome. But it IS dangerous. If morality comes form the brain and not some transcendent reason or a god. It is only our conscience we have to argue with. Once we make piece with our conscience decision it can lead to atrocities, as pj&#39;s quote pointed out.[/b]

Yes, but on the other hand - if we want to ascribe the source of morality to some exterior force or objective truth, THIS is how atrocities begin. If people throughout history had used their own judgement and followerd their own "moral" instincts, rather than ABANDON the source of those instincts to a higher power or religion, many of the world&#39;s atrocities would not have happened.

Originally Posted by pj

The extreme opposite of this might appear to be self-sacrifice, but it really isn&#39;t. As you are the one assigning and recognizing value, what you choose to invest and ultimately expend your life on or for still comes down to what you perceive as valuable. If reducing suffering around you happens to be of value to you, then the argument ends there... for YOU. Your choice does not beholden me to support your values or choices, nor mandate my joining in your sacrifice.

Again... the moment anybody other than you imposes their choices on you, you are no longer free. And the moment you try to impose your choices on me, you have gone from being associate to enemy - from being one I associate with by choice in my freedom to one I must contend with as a threat to my liberty.[/b]

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by The

I agree with this.[/b]

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&#39;t mean you don&#39;t have them... in fact, we already know you do just by the way you choose to conduct yourself around here.

Remember that ethics is but one branch of philosophy - and it isn&#39;t the first. Metaphysics and epistimology necessarily come first... and politics comes last.

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&#39;t mean you don&#39;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&#39;t like the idea that the seeking of one;&#39;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".

Catagorising everyone and everything, including yourself, into categories is as human as it gets. People just love putting animals into certain families and races, while actually evolutionary it is just one big mush. People also like to label other people. What does it matter? You can not not have a descriptive name if you have an opinion on everything. People made up names for just about Every common general point-of-view. What is the problem?

For example: If one says: "The blacks/Jews/Mexicans/immigrants are to blame for everything." and some more then a few points that somewhat fit the defining characteristics of fascism (listed here) that person just is a fascist. The person is a fascist because we all agreed what makes a fascist a fascist.

Sometimes, especially in politics, people let the term that describes them lead them, but most smart people can avoid that. That doesn&#39;t mean a smart person can&#39;t just happen to have all the traits of a certain description &#39;socialist, Marxist, fascist, liberal, leftist, ect&#39; they have received / embraced.