What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian )

Az · January 10, 2003, 13:20

I believe that the goal of life is life itself.
Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible. All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.

But it seems that I am not a true utilitarian after all.F.E. Utilitarians speak about spreading happiness, in general. My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race, not including animals, etc.

I know that many of you have doubts about utilitarianism. I had my doubts as well. You're are free to ask questions, counter my arguements, and present your own theories.

discuss.

Zero · January 10, 2003, 13:25

I am strongly opposed to Utilitarianism. I abhor the idea the happiness of many precedes over a happiness of an individual.

I also beleive the life of a goal is life itself... i guess.
However if you beleive this, don't you think there really isnt anyway you would consider something going against your goal, thus nothing would be bad for your goal?

Buck Birdseed · January 10, 2003, 13:26

If science could construct a machine that, while keeping your body in perfect health, tricked your mind into believing it was very happy, could achieve anything and you lived in your personal perfect utopia, do you think it would be morally correct to enter such a machine? If you've seen the film The Matrix, think the very first matrix built where humans were constantly happy and believeing they lived in paradise.

If not, why not?

DaShi · January 10, 2003, 13:29

I think you are sick and should be locked away forever.

Az · January 10, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

If science could construct a machine that, while keeping your body in perfect health, tricked your mind into believing it was very happy, could achieve anything and you lived in your personal perfect utopia, do you think it would be morally correct to enter such a machine? If you've seen the film The Matrix, think the very first matrix built were humans were constantly happy and believeing they lived in paradise.

If that machine could colonize the entire universe with humans that would live in an elusion of a very interesting stimulating and joyful life, and that machine would be able to maximize the universe's resources so it would accomodate as many as possible for the longest time possible, I would be for it.

Quote:

I am strongly opposed to Utilitarianism. I abhor the idea the happiness of many precedes over a happiness of an individual.

Do you fart in public? This is a serious question.

Zero · January 10, 2003, 13:45

The post of the double

Zero · January 10, 2003, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Do you fart in public? This is a serious question.

It's hard to take that serious but I'll try.

Yes/No. It's not much of a trouble to walk away form public and go into a bathroom and let out a gas. It saves people from learning the hard way I had baked beans for breakfast or something

Actually Utalitarians would also suggest that an individual should fart in public. My reason is this. An individual recieves discomfort while holding back the fart, which is as long as he/she is holding on to it and also not farting when you feel the need to isn't healthy. While smelling the fart by public is short and minor discomfort (unless you cant ventilate

) and isnt hazardous to your health. Thus Utalitariat would say the general good is weighed toward the need of the individual

However, Utalitarian's moral decision is locked into wherever the greatest good is. I never close my option to fart in public. So you better watch out if you're in a elevator with me

Az · January 10, 2003, 13:57

under certain conditions it is ok to fart in public. GENERALLY, it's not.

Zero · January 10, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
If science could construct a machine that, while keeping your body in perfect health, tricked your mind into believing it was very happy, could achieve anything and you lived in your personal perfect utopia, do you think it would be morally correct to enter such a machine? If you've seen the film The Matrix, think the very first matrix built where humans were constantly happy and believeing they lived in paradise.

If not, why not?

It should be left up to each individual to make a decison of whether it is morally correct to do so.

I don't know what I would do. I would not like the idea of denying myself the tragedies of life, yet at the same time I'm a very curious guy...

Az · January 10, 2003, 14:18

Quote:

It should be left up to each individual to make a decison of whether it is morally correct to do so.

THEORETICALLY, if such a machine would be possible, I'd be for it, even forcefully. however all machines malfunction.

Gangerolf · January 10, 2003, 15:26

"du skal ikke plage andre
du skal være grei og snill
og forøvrig kan du gjøre som du vil"

Combat Ingrid · January 10, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
"du skal ikke plage andre
du skal være grei og snill
og forøvrig kan du gjøre som du vil"

"don't hurt others,
be nice,
besides that, do whatever you want"

Lancer · January 10, 2003, 15:39

Clicking on this thread is like going to California.

DanielXY · January 10, 2003, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

THEORETICALLY, if such a machine would be possible, I'd be for it, even forcefully. however all machines malfunction.

You would really force ppl. that dont want to, to get in such a machine?

Nah I wouldnt do that

But Im kind of the same track. Only I value liberty right next to happyness (so I would never force anyone to be happy

)
And happyness dont have to be neccesserely for longest time possibel. For exampel you can live a long live working all day with 1 or 2 days off. Dont do anything that is maybe risky for your health. And you are maybe happy with it (for example cose you like your job and such)
Or you can work in a part-time job have much of freetime in which you can do all sort of fun things. Than with 40 you die in an racing accident. For the time it lastet you`d have maximum happyness.
The netto happyness in the first example maybe adds together to a bigger amount, but I would prefer a life ala example 2.

Zero · January 10, 2003, 17:05

My happiness is my liberty.

Provost Harrison · January 10, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
If science could construct a machine that, while keeping your body in perfect health, tricked your mind into believing it was very happy, could achieve anything and you lived in your personal perfect utopia, do you think it would be morally correct to enter such a machine? If you've seen the film The Matrix, think the very first matrix built where humans were constantly happy and believeing they lived in paradise.

If not, why not?

How you feel about any situation is all neurochemistry, and how you respond to particular stimuli. In some regards, yes - cogito ergo sum

Drogue · January 10, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I believe that the goal of life is life itself.
Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible. All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.

But it seems that I am not a true utilitarian after all.F.E. Utilitarians speak about spreading happiness, in general. My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race, not including animals, etc.

I know that many of you have doubts about utilitarianism. I had my doubts as well. You're are free to ask questions, counter my arguements, and present your own theories.

I agree with almost all of that. The more happiness, the better. Although I think the needs of the individual has to come in somewhere, so would not always follow whatb is best for society, but in the most part, I agree.

About farting in public, I think the utilitarian point of view would be to generally allow it. It is more of a benefit to the individual to expell it than it is to society not to have the smell IMHO. I guess it just depends on what you believe creats more happiness. However, since that does affect the rights of others, what would be the Libertarian point of view? In some case, would what's best for society be more what's best for the individual than the Libertarian point of view, since Utilitarianism means you can affect gthe rights of others?

GePap · January 10, 2003, 17:38

As individuals are transiatory, the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent: now, the question is how one can best achieve that. Giving individual mebers a significant amount of liberty ahs been shown to increase the overall happiness and productivity of the whole.

Drogue · January 10, 2003, 17:50

I agree. Which is why is support the legalisation of drugs, and socially liberal policies (with the exception of guns). "A man is always at his best when he is free from oppression"

Ben Kenobi · January 10, 2003, 19:00

The biggest problem I have with Utilitarianism is trying to define happiness. What counts when trying to maximise happiness, and what does not?

One could argue discomfort is less harmful then the smell since the smell affects many people, and discomfort just affects you.

It's very difficult with utilitarianism to look at a moral problem without coming up with opposite arguments and having both equally valid under the presuppositions of utilitarianism.

Also, it can be time-consuming to calculate the greatest good for each moral situation. Sometimes you don't have that time available, but still have to decide.

One response to these criticisms is to modify utilitarianism with deontological maxims, or rules to regulate what is moral. These rules are designed to maximise happiness, so that they remain consistent with other forms of utilitarianism. This approach is called Rule Utilitarianism.

Bereta_Eder · January 10, 2003, 19:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I believe that the goal of life is life itself.

Agreed. As long as it this doesn't make you an egotistical bastard

Quote:

Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible.

What happens when the happyness of one goes against that of the other?

But since I believe that this is a false dihlemma....:*1

Quote:

All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.

....I could rephrase this as such: Everything that helps people understand *1 is good.

Quote:

My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race

Agreed. But not forgetting to have fun too in the meantime

Quote:

You're are free to ask questions,

What is the best Ministry CD?

Tuberski · January 10, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

What is the best Ministry CD?

You kill me sometimes......

ACK!

Az · January 11, 2003, 07:49

Quote:

As individuals are transiatory, the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent: now, the question is how one can best achieve that. Giving individual mebers a significant amount of liberty ahs been shown to increase the overall happiness and productivity of the whole.

Over all, I agree.

Quote:

One response to these criticisms is to modify utilitarianism with deontological maxims, or rules to regulate what is moral. These rules are designed to maximise happiness, so that they remain consistent with other forms of utilitarianism. This approach is called Act Utilitarianism.

I am not sure, actually, what you describe sounds more like Rule Utilitarianism. The problem is that while certain action may increase the overall happiness, but when this action comes within a complex of desicions, it may not be the most efficient/effective.

Quote:

What is the best Ministry CD?

"The Land of Rape and Honey"

Ben Kenobi · January 11, 2003, 08:32

Edited earlier post for rule/act utilitarianism. I always get them mixed up.

Good catch.

Az · January 11, 2003, 08:44

But what do you think about my answer?

Ben Kenobi · January 11, 2003, 10:49

Azazel:

"when this action comes within a complex of desicions, it may not be the most efficient/effective."

By efficiency, do you mean the most efficient process, or the most efficient outcome?

If you mean process, this is one of the major flaws, at least with an act based utilitarianism. It is very hard to maximise happiness from our own limited perspective, while taking into account time allotted for decision-making.

If you mean outcome, then you need to be more clear on what constitutes a 'complex of decisions'. It's a rather vague term as it stands.

Az · January 11, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

By efficiency, do you mean the most efficient process, or the most efficient outcome?

could you please point out the difference?

Quote:

If you mean process, this is one of the major flaws, at least with an act based utilitarianism. It is very hard to maximise happiness from our own limited perspective, while taking into account time allotted for decision-making.

why is it so? the utility of preparing the best decision/solution for the problem/issue is not a linear function of the time invested into contemplating that decision. consider the most utility extracted from a certain decision (without considering the consequences of pondering it) as a certain value, and asimptote, to which the value of 'utility of decision' strives. After a certain amount of time, it's not worthwhile pondering that decision anymore, since the "cost" in utility of pondering will actually be bigger than the amount of utility that can be extracted from it.

Illyrien · January 11, 2003, 23:18

"Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible"

Well, it is a beatiful though, the only problem with it is this: Is it okay to rape a woman, if you get more pleasure out of it then her suffering... afterall this act does produce more happiness then is lost.

I dont believe it. I believe that the rights of the individual outweights anything else. This is why I am a liberalist (well, I think the term is Libetarian on these boards).

GePad
"the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent"
That just raises 1 questions. What is best for Humanity??? Since such a best does not exist (unless you are a Red, who tend to believe that it does, and that they alone know what it is), we should not try force "a best for Humanity" on people.

Ramo · January 12, 2003, 01:58

One can say that my views are utilitarian as well, only with the qualifier that happiness is maximized when freedom from authority is maximized.

Az · January 12, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

One can say that my views are utilitarian as well, only with the qualifier that happiness is maximized when freedom from authority is maximized.

I am glad to hear so. However one must remember, that to each action there are immidate, and long-term repricussions.

Quote:

Well, it is a beatiful though, the only problem with it is this: Is it okay to rape a woman, if you get more pleasure out of it then her suffering... afterall this act does produce more happiness then is lost

NO It's NOT! THe woman will probably be mentally scarred for the rest of her life! Also, lots of people will be afraid to walk around safely. The rapist will get just an enjoyment of a couple of minutes, and will feel bad about himself later.