Utilitarianism

[pianofrieak2]

After talking with one of my atheistic friends (who's wicked smart!!!), he said he believed in utilitarianism for morals. No suprise there...gotta believe in something. But, anyway, this isn't a debate against atheists.

 

 

 

He simply brought up this interesting point on utilitarianism. How that's the best way to determine morality and all that. BTW, for all of you that don't know what utilitarianism is, it basically determines morality (what's right and wrong) by saying whichever option of your choice has the most good for the most people. That's a quick definition.

 

 

 

Anyway, I then went to another Christian friend who said utilitarianism is outdated. *GASP* He said that robots are much more efficient than humans, and showed how machines and factories are going into China and India because operating machinery requires no special skills and those people will work for very cheap. 10 cents an hour!

 

 

 

I suppose this question is most likely gravitating towards philosophy majors, those interested in theology, and, of course, atheists who believe in a certain type of morality even if it is nihilism. If not utilitarianism, then what?

 

 

 

Just wondering! :)

[insane]

My problem with utilitarianism is that it is consequentialist. If you try to murder someone, fail, and end up making $100 out of it, it's considered a "good" act.

 

 

 

My other problem with it is that it's impractical. In split second situations, or just normal everyday situations, you're not going to be able to take the 15 hours it takes to calculate every single possibility of your action to make "the right choice".

 

 

 

Another problem is moral luck, which I guess is the same as #1.

 

 

 

That being said, I think it's a good model for making business/governmental decisions, where majority/democracy come into play and alot of time can be spent making the decision/applying the principle of utility.

[dymed]

I believe in utilitarianism to a certain point, and I can see where it comes from, but I am not a complete believer of that philosophy. I just don't think that you can always quanitfy morality/happiness. Morality is a very subjective and circumstantial issue; I don't believe that there can ever be an end-all-be-all approach to it. Everyone has a diferent idea of what's right and what's wrong and new types of ethical dilemmas are always coming up, especially as technology and science advance as fast as they are.

 

 

 

However, it definitely has it's uses sometimes. Everyone makes utilitarian decisions without even realizing it in everday life. It's when you start applying it to life on a larger scale and to ethically controversial issues that it becomes tricky.

[Astralinre]

As a Christian, I believe in absolute morality, but I believe that utilitarianism is often useful for applying those absolute moral principles. There are many situations where one must chose between evil and evil or between good and good, and the only way to make the choice is to determine which option will do the least harm or the most good. In other words, I don't believe in it as a guiding philosophy, but sometimes it can be a handy tool.

[Death_By_Pod]

My problem with utilitarianism is that it is consequentialist. If you try to murder someone, fail, and end up making $100 out of it, it's considered a "good" act.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about that; how about the emotional stress from something attempting to kill them, that is quite detrimental to the victim and everyone around them. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between thinking about killing someone and physically preparing to kill someone (without going through with it); both solely live inside your domain. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prosecute someone before they commit a crime. There is nothing wrong with consequentialism, much like deontology; both have gaping flaws but both have uses nonetheless.

 

 

 

Utilitarianism taken literally is silly; if you did take it literally then you should go to the nearest hospital and give away your organs to everyone (the number of lives you save could easily make up for your single life).

[pianofrieak2]

My problem with utilitarianism is that it is consequentialist. If you try to murder someone, fail, and end up making $100 out of it, it's considered a "good" act.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about that; how about the emotional stress from something attempting to kill them, that is quite detrimental to the victim and everyone around them. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between thinking about killing someone and physically preparing to kill someone (without going through with it); both solely live inside your domain. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prosecute someone before they commit a crime. There is nothing wrong with consequentialism, much like deontology; both have gaping flaws but both have uses nonetheless.

 

 

 

Utilitarianism taken literally is silly; if you did take it literally then you should go to the nearest hospital and give away your organs to everyone (the number of lives you save could easily make up for your single life).

 

 

 

Utilitarianism is all about predictions. You are predicting the good and bad outcomes of your act, but what happens if your predictions are wrong? Of course, no one knows everything. And everyone is limited by their own experiences.

 

 

 

Limitations. God doesn't have too many of those. :)

[Make7upu101]

My problem with utilitarianism is that it is consequentialist. If you try to murder someone, fail, and end up making $100 out of it, it's considered a "good" act.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about that; how about the emotional stress from something attempting to kill them, that is quite detrimental to the victim and everyone around them. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between thinking about killing someone and physically preparing to kill someone (without going through with it); both solely live inside your domain. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prosecute someone before they commit a crime. There is nothing wrong with consequentialism, much like deontology; both have gaping flaws but both have uses nonetheless.

 

 

 

Utilitarianism taken literally is silly; if you did take it literally then you should go to the nearest hospital and give away your organs to everyone (the number of lives you save could easily make up for your single life).

 

 

 

What if you considered the fact that by living and devoting your life to a cause you could save many more lives than just by your organs?

[Hannibal]

So. In Iran, a few homosexual people were hung (as in, killed by being hung) in public, in a football stadium to be precise. Suppose there were 10000 people present and just 5 murdered that way. These 10000 people had a brilliant time, popcorn and everything. Does that make it morally right to sacrifice those five lives for the entertainment of thousands?

 

 

 

Another example. Suppose you are a doctor in a hospital. There are two patients you can choose to help, but due to time constraints you can only help one. The first patient lives alone, looks repulsive, does repulsive things, has no job, and is generally not a very well-accepted member of society. He has no friends or relatives. The other patient is the opposite of that - he's married, has children, lots of friends, and organizes fairs to help the poor in the neighbourhood and such. Now, suppose you have to operate on both of these men. For the repulsive, single man, you have a 99% chance of saving his life. For the family man, you have a 1% chance of saving his life. If you don't operate on one of them, they face certain death. What do you pick?

 

 

 

Utilitarianism makes these questions hard, while if you would consider any human life valuable, the decision would be obvious.

[insane]

 

Utilitarianism makes these questions hard, while if you would consider any human life valuable, the decision would be obvious.

 

 

 

Exactly - these "calculations" would take forever and are simply impractical. That's why I prefer dutiful morality systems like Kantianism, even though i don't totally agree with that one.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Utilitarianism makes these questions hard, while if you would consider any human life valuable, the decision would be obvious.

 

 

 

Exactly - these "calculations" would take forever and are simply impractical. That's why I prefer dutiful morality systems like Kantianism, even though i don't totally agree with that one.

 

 

 

What is kantianism?

[Guest GhostRanger]

So. In Iran, a few homosexual people were hung (as in, killed by being hung) in public, in a football stadium to be precise. Suppose there were 10000 people present and just 5 murdered that way. These 10000 people had a brilliant time, popcorn and everything. Does that make it morally right to sacrifice those five lives for the entertainment of thousands?

 

 

 

Another example. Suppose you are a doctor in a hospital. There are two patients you can choose to help, but due to time constraints you can only help one. The first patient lives alone, looks repulsive, does repulsive things, has no job, and is generally not a very well-accepted member of society. He has no friends or relatives. The other patient is the opposite of that - he's married, has children, lots of friends, and organizes fairs to help the poor in the neighbourhood and such. Now, suppose you have to operate on both of these men. For the repulsive, single man, you have a 99% chance of saving his life. For the family man, you have a 1% chance of saving his life. If you don't operate on one of them, they face certain death. What do you pick?

 

 

 

Utilitarianism makes these questions hard, while if you would consider any human life valuable, the decision would be obvious.

 

 

 

Wow Hannibal...I agree with you. :P It's such a perferct way to describe the flaws of utilitarianism.

 

 

 

What is kantianism?

 

 

 

Kantianism basically (I'm making this as broad and simple as possible guys) says that there is a good will, and that the morality of one's actions is not based on the results, but is based on the good intent behind the action. Aka, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong. It's the main opposing philosophy to utilitarianism.

[Death_By_Pod]

Aka, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong.

 

 

 

And you think this is any better of an alternative? What do you consider ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅrightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Guest GhostRanger]

Aka, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong.

 

 

 

And you think this is any better of an alternative? What do you consider ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅrightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[dymed]

Aka, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong.

 

 

 

And you think this is any better of an alternative? What do you consider ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅrightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Hannibal]

Hrm, I don't entirely agree with your definition of Kantianism though... Kant wrote that you should always do the thing which, by inference, you would want to become a universal law. For example, if you are faced with the decision to lie or speak the truth, you would speak the truth because you'd want it to be a universal law that everybody would always speak the truth, and you would definitely not want it to be a universal law that everybody was always free to lie when they wanted to.

 

 

 

According to wikipedia: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

[Guest GhostRanger]

Hrm, I don't entirely agree with your definition of Kantianism though... Kant wrote that you should always do the thing which, by inference, you would want to become a universal law. For example, if you are faced with the decision to lie or speak the truth, you would speak the truth because you'd want it to be a universal law that everybody would always speak the truth, and you would definitely not want it to be a universal law that everybody was always free to lie when they wanted to.

 

 

 

According to wikipedia: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

 

 

 

Right. I'm confused as to how that differs from my definition. It seems like you more added to mine than disagreed with it. :?

[Lime_Mercury]

Hrm, I don't entirely agree with your definition of Kantianism though... Kant wrote that you should always do the thing which, by inference, you would want to become a universal law. For example, if you are faced with the decision to lie or speak the truth, you would speak the truth because you'd want it to be a universal law that everybody would always speak the truth, and you would definitely not want it to be a universal law that everybody was always free to lie when they wanted to.

 

 

 

According to wikipedia: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

 

 

 

Right. I'm confused as to how that differs from my definition. It seems like you more added to mine than disagreed with it. :?

 

 

 

I think he just gave a clearer picture of the Categorical Imperative. I'm by condition a Utilitarian, but I don't follow it to its logical extremes (the hospital organ donation is a good example).

 

 

 

I, for one, work backwards from a goal that I assume others to want, a stable and prosperous society in which a great many people benefit. Then when it comes to a serious action that requires a good deal of forethought, I ask what action would best advance that cause.

 

 

 

A true utilitarian would have difficulty weighting the value of different individuals- feeding their sister v. feeding a person in Africa comes into play...

 

 

 

There just doesn't seem to be any practical/common sense philosophies, but that's primarily because there is no such thing as common sense. What seems logical and fair to one may seem completely different to others.

[pianofrieak2]

Hrm, I don't entirely agree with your definition of Kantianism though... Kant wrote that you should always do the thing which, by inference, you would want to become a universal law. For example, if you are faced with the decision to lie or speak the truth, you would speak the truth because you'd want it to be a universal law that everybody would always speak the truth, and you would definitely not want it to be a universal law that everybody was always free to lie when they wanted to.

 

 

 

According to wikipedia: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

 

 

 

Right. I'm confused as to how that differs from my definition. It seems like you more added to mine than disagreed with it. :?

 

 

 

I think he just gave a clearer picture of the Categorical Imperative. I'm by condition a Utilitarian, but I don't follow it to its logical extremes (the hospital organ donation is a good example).

 

 

 

I, for one, work backwards from a goal that I assume others to want, a stable and prosperous society in which a great many people benefit. Then when it comes to a serious action that requires a good deal of forethought, I ask what action would best advance that cause.

 

 

 

A true utilitarian would have difficulty weighting the value of different individuals- feeding their sister v. feeding a person in Africa comes into play...

 

 

 

There just doesn't seem to be any practical/common sense philosophies, but that's primarily because there is no such thing as common sense. What seems logical and fair to one may seem completely different to others.

 

 

 

The categorical imperative states that people apply their sense of morality to other people naturally. You think lying is wrong? Well, lying is wrong for all people.

 

 

 

The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

[Lime_Mercury]

The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

 

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people.

[Guest GhostRanger]

The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

 

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people.

 

 

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

[Lime_Mercury]

The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

 

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people.

 

 

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

 

 

Exactly? The notion that all other people cannot (and should not?) blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual, or any other of the sort, in question.

 

 

 

I mean to say that unless each person has miraculously (pun intended) tapped into that knowledge base, declaring it fit for use by all is laughable at best.

 

 

 

This would be the case with any arbitrary doctrinal standards set forth by any mortal or immortal.

[pianofrieak2]

The problem with all of those philosophies is that there are always exceptions. However, when Jesus is your standard of truth and good, there are none.

 

Except for the obvious fact that it is not fit for transferrence to all other people.

 

 

 

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

 

 

Exactly? The notion that all other people cannot (and should not?) blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual, or any other of the sort, in question.

 

 

 

I mean to say that unless each person has miraculously (pun intended) tapped into that knowledge base, declaring it fit for use by all is laughable at best.

 

 

 

This would be the case with any arbitrary doctrinal standards set forth by any mortal or immortal.

 

 

 

Hehe, you've never read C.S. Lewis! (Or if you have, you've forgotten the first chapter.)

 

 

 

Lewis addresses this topic in the first two chapters. First off, let me deal with your "blithely accept the dogma that comes with the acceptance of the standards of the religious individual" statement.

 

 

 

First off, if you choose to follow a religion, you are agreeing that the religion's basic tenets are true. You obey the leader's teachings. And you accept the results of following those teachings.

 

 

 

Christian-follow Christ's teachings

 

Islam-follow Muhammed's teachings

 

Atheist-follow your own teachings

 

 

 

Accept the consequences of all of them.

 

 

 

However, you are either forgetting or being blithely igornant when you say that everyone cannot apply their truths to others. Everyone does that without thinking!

 

 

 

You think lying's wrong? Well, you apply that truth (that lying's wrong) to everyone. Therefore, you get mad when others lie and get away with it. Because you've applied that truth to others universally.

 

 

 

Murder? You think murder's wrong and you apply that truth to everybody. Anyone who murders is wrong, basically.

 

 

 

It's impossible to go around that.

[assassin_696]

Whilst many of you people have highlighted specific flaws in the idea of ultranariasm I think it does provide useful moral model to base things around in some situations. However, as has been said it's not perfect, and when it's obviously not going to help make the right decision standard ethics and basic morals should be reverted to. However it does allow people to look at situations that they might be unsure about from a different perspective, one that might just make the difference. I don't think it would be wise however to use it all the time.

[Lime_Mercury]

Hehe, you've never read C.S. Lewis! (Or if you have, you've forgotten the first chapter.)

 

 

 

First off, if you choose to follow a religion, you are agreeing that the religion's basic tenets are true. You obey the leader's teachings. And you accept the results of following those teachings.

 

 

 

Christian-follow Christ's teachings

 

Islam-follow Muhammed's teachings

 

Atheist-follow your own teachings

 

 

 

Accept the consequences of all of them.

 

 

 

However, you are either forgetting or being blithely igornant when you say that everyone cannot apply their truths to others. Everyone does that without thinking!

 

 

 

You think lying's wrong? Well, you apply that truth (that lying's wrong) to everyone. Therefore, you get mad when others lie and get away with it. Because you've applied that truth to others universally.

 

 

 

Murder? You think murder's wrong and you apply that truth to everybody. Anyone who murders is wrong, basically.

 

 

 

It's impossible to go around that.

 

That's not correct. The notions that follow from the teachings of say, Muhammad are predicated by the belief, first and foremost, that he is the unquestioning source of the value of what is right and what is wrong. If you accept that at the outset, you are forcibly held to whatever doctrine is set before you.

 

 

 

This is why you cannot later on and say, well even though God's words say "Thou shall not kill" it's not immoral to go ahead and do it because it's best for society... If that was the premise the scripture might say "Don't kill unless it's good for society".

 

 

 

I also sorely disagree with your position on the athiest "doctrine" or how one is to follow their own teachings. I would probably be more inclined to view them as reserving their moral judgements to follow from whatever ethical system appeals to them the most.

 

 

 

You portray them making it up as they go along, which for many, is not the case.

 

 

 

When an atheist says lying is wrong it is not based on moral, but ethical standards.. that it is to say it doesn't fall under the good/bad (good/evil, divine/sinful) spectrum, but rather under the desirable/undesirable, productive/unproductive one.

 

 

 

Unlike the moral standards that one would adhere to in an organized religion, it does not have to be blithely accepted.

 

 

 

And to clarify, I was simply clarifying for Ghostranger the difference between their depictions of Kant, mainly Hannibal's attention to the CI, not that I follow it in its entirety.

[pianofrieak2]

I also sorely disagree with your position on the athiest "doctrine" or how one is to follow their own teachings. I would probably be more inclined to view them as reserving their moral judgements to follow from whatever ethical system appeals to them the most.

 

 

 

You portray them making it up as they go along, which for many, is not the case.

 

 

 

When an atheist says lying is wrong it is not based on moral, but ethical standards.. that it is to say it doesn't fall under the good/bad (good/evil, divine/sinful) spectrum, but rather under the desirable/undesirable, productive/unproductive one.

 

 

 

Unlike the moral standards that one would adhere to in an organized religion, it does not have to be blithely accepted.

 

 

 

Let me clarify for you.

 

 

 

An atheist bases their beliefs on a good/bad/productive/unproductive spectrum, as you said. I competely agree.

 

 

 

However, there are always exceptions to those rules. There are always ways to go around it, to change them. Utilitarianism, as you can see, has its faults. As does Kantianism and all other ways of discovering morality.

 

 

 

BECAUSE OF THAT, it is simple to see that atheists must, in order to make common sense decisions, pick and choose which belief system at different times.

 

 

 

My pick-and-choose philosophy for atheists is quite true. I see what you're saying, so that clarified it. Would you agree?

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, when you say blithely choosing dogma based on your religion is bad, I would counter by saying that truth (when it is found in Jesus) is never changing. Therefore, if I have found truth that applies in all situations in all cases with no exceptions, then I can "blithely" accept it as truth.