What do you think about my views? ( Quasi-Utilitarian ) - Page 2

Illyrien · January 12, 2003, 12:00

"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."

Try reading that example again.

The problem with utilitarism is that it is okay to violate the rights of somebody as long as more people gain from it. A Rape is a good example of this. Sending 10% of the population into workcamps as long as the remaining 90% benefits from it, is the same.

Drogue · January 12, 2003, 12:39

Yes, were that to create more happiness, Utilitarianism would be for it (IIRC). In the real world however, I doubt a rape could ever create more pleasure than the damage it causes, and the same about the workcamps. I don't think the benefit to the other 90% would be that great, but the damage to that 10% would be enormous.

A better example I see is about doctors in this country (the UK). There is a lack of them, and such many work extremely long hours (100+ hours per week for some. That is a large disadvantage to them, but the extra lives saved make up for it, and they are remunerated for this. In this way, if people pay and recieve the total social cost/benefit for a particular act, the market will sort out everything to promote the most happiness. However that would involve many subsidies/taxes to reach the true social cost, and moreover, it is impossible to get the true social cost for everything. However were it to be that that doctors worked worse because of lack of sleep due to long hours, the best thing would be to cut their hours.

Az · January 12, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

The problem with utilitarism is that it is okay to violate the rights of somebody as long as more people gain from it. A Rape is a good example of this. Sending 10% of the population into workcamps as long as the remaining 90% benefits from it, is the same

1) What are rights? why do people have rights? Do people have rights now?
2)There is NO way that the enjoyment of utter total complete extatic sex that would last for a couple of minutes, would be more than the mental scarring of a woman because she was forced to sex, not to metion the shock and the horror of the act itself. If it would be, it would be ok. BUT THERE IS NO WAY.
3)The work camps example: the amount of actual benefit that the 90% would get from slave labor would be rather minute. The rest of society will still have to feed them, and cloth them, and even that minute benifit would be overwhelmed by the agony of the people suffering in the slave camps.

Quote:

, it is impossible to get the true social cost for everything.

sure it is, but you can get a good approximate. A good judicial system that would value these things is needed. How deep will they dig, how close will the try to stive? AS LONG AS IT IS WORTH IT, in utilitarian terms.

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

following the same logic, most utility comes from the entire world getting continuously stoned. However, for the long run, this will result in the death of humans.

Drogue · January 12, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
1) What are rights? why do people have rights? Do people have rights now?
2)There is NO way that the enjoyment of utter total complete extatic sex that would last for a couple of minutes, would be more than the mental scarring of a woman because she was forced to sex, not to metion the shock and the horror of the act itself. If it would be, it would be ok. BUT THERE IS NO WAY.
3)The work camps example: the amount of actual benefit that the 90% would get from slave labor would be rather minute. The rest of society will still have to feed them, and cloth them, and even that minute benifit would be overwhelmed by the agony of the people suffering in the slave camps.

I tried to say much of that, although I think you worded it much better.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
sure it is, but you can get a good approximate. A good judicial system that would value these things is needed. How deep will they dig, how close will the try to stive? AS LONG AS IT IS WORTH IT, in utilitarian terms.

Yes, i agree, I wanted to present the limitations though. Since it is so complex a problem, egtting close can be hard. Nevertheless, I agree it is needed, rather than letting private cost/benefit rule all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
following the same logic, most utility comes from the entire world getting continuously stoned. However, for the long run, this will result in the death of humans.

I think ramo's view was valid. I have often heard that "a man is at his best when he is free from oppression". I believe this is partly true, and so overall happiness often comes from freedom. However, I think happiness, not freedom, is the overall goal. And rights are just a concept invented by people. I do not think there is such a thing as a 'natural right', but that rights are given by people, for mutual benefit.

Az · January 12, 2003, 13:40

Quote:

I have often heard that "a man is at his best when he is free from oppression".

yes, but when you go the libertarian way, it's a slippery slope. taxes are theft, remember?

Drogue · January 12, 2003, 13:54

Yes. Libertarian, in some cases, is a good way to find happiness. However, I don't think freedom and happiness are necessarily intrinsic. You can be happy without freedom, and you can (very easily) be free without being happy.

BTW Azazel, what are your political views? You said before you were centrist, yet you're a member of the Apoyton Communist Party?

Combat Ingrid · January 12, 2003, 14:09

Drogue · January 12, 2003, 14:26

Um... What's that about?

Am I being really thick or is that a joke?

Combat Ingrid · January 12, 2003, 14:37

It's a joke.
The movie is about a tv-show where they kill people for entertainment, slightly utilitarian perhaps...

Drogue · January 12, 2003, 14:52

Hmmmm.... And that entertainment is worth that persons death? I get the joke, but it seems a little strange trying to brand a ideal that wants to create the most happiness as immoral

Az · January 12, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

BTW Azazel, what are your political views? You said before you were centrist, yet you're a member of the Apoyton Communist Party?

I am a centrist in today's Israeli security dillema, and I vote for the Liberals, but that's only because they're the only political party with credibility left, and are anti-religious.

Combat Ingrid · January 12, 2003, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I get the joke, but it seems a little strange trying to brand a ideal that wants to create the most happiness as immoral

I never said that utilitarism is immoral, overall I actually agree with it. It's just that you can get into weird situations if you follow it too strictly. I can imagine situations were you kill/rape/etc people and there will be a net happiness increase, like in the movie above (which btw is really cool!) but I don't think the increased happiness would justify it at all.

I say treat others as you want them to treat you

Az · January 12, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

I can imagine situations were you kill/rape/etc people and there will be a net happiness increase, like in the movie above

didn't actually see the movie.

Ben Kenobi · January 12, 2003, 19:23

Process- how the decision is made
Outcome- what decision is reached

An efficient process makes moral considerations quickly.
An efficient outcome improves the way in which society/ people operate.

"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."

Intriguing. How does one compare time spent with improving the moral decision? What kind of calculus is used? If one can spare a life by spending another 6 months making a moral decision, is that time spent worthwhile?

"However one must remember, that to each action there are imm[edia]te, and long-term rep[er]cussions."

This is one of the problems- you cannot figure out all the consequences your actions will have. Could Einstein have foreseen the horrors created by the atomic bomb? If he did, would he still have embarked on his research?

I believe we are responsible even for the unforeseen results of our actions. Do Utilitarians believe the same?

As for the rapist example, what if the woman was killed after being raped numerous times? Is there any amount of pleasure/happiness equivalent to someone's life? If no, then why?

Illyrien · January 13, 2003, 01:31

How do you deside what will help the most people the most?

And who should deside this? Greenpeace, UN, Oil companies or what?

And how about those that disagree? What should be done about them? Afterall they are fighting against the "Right" cause!

Azazel
The point with my Rape example was that if you are being truly utilitarian, you dont care about the rights of people. They prevent the greater good afterall....

One more thing, about those rights you ask about... well freedom to post your oppinions in this forum is a right... just imagine that somebody though that you positng your oppinions cause more damage then good, then they could, according to utilitarian though, take your freedom of speach away.

Ramo · January 13, 2003, 02:12

Quote:

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

Yep. I tend to weigh the long-term implications more than the short-term implications, but not by that much.

Az · January 13, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

One more thing, about those rights you ask about... well freedom to post your oppinions in this forum is a right... just imagine that somebody though that you positng your oppinions cause more damage then good, then they could, according to utilitarian though, take your freedom of speach away.

If i'd start mudslinging someone for no reason whatsoever, I don't think it's a right I wish to cherish. people should be accountable to the things they say. Rights?! they don't exist.

Ramo: I don't think that the happiness of future generations weighs less than our own. That's why am rather pro-enviromentalist. However, for example in the case of abortion rights, an individual won't be created at all, so his happiness is not trampled. The society will exist in any case, but if will suffer tremendously.

Quote:

This is one of the problems- you cannot figure out all the consequences your actions will have. Could Einstein have foreseen the horrors created by the atomic bomb? If he did, would he still have embarked on his research?

1) "If I only had known, I would've become a locksmith" A. Einstein.
2) I don't agree with Einstein (and with you as well) the benefits of his theory outway the dangers of the nuke, in all aspects of life, including electronics, chemistry, etc. And that's even if we don't include the restraining effect it had on wars.

Quote:

How do you deside what will help the most people the most?

And who should deside this? Greenpeace, UN, Oil companies or what?

I imagine a juducial system could be created, not so different that our own, but would use different standards and values.

Quote:

And how about those that disagree? What should be done about them? Afterall they are fighting against the "Right" cause!

what do you think we'll do to them? kill them? starve them to death? that sound more like the libertarian way to run things.

It all depends on utility, (as always). If they start violently targetting these policies they'd be treated as criminals, jailed. If they organize some kind of warefare, they'll be destroyed. this, once again depends on utility. If the resistance to the actions would reflect higher discontent of change (natural human conservatism) than the meausres would create, the government should delay the plan, and should start explaining why would the actions be better for everone. in any case, it would be utility that will decide.

Az · January 13, 2003, 14:32

BUMP

Ramo · January 13, 2003, 15:04

Other way around, Dal. I think the future should weigh more than the present.

Az · January 13, 2003, 15:12

Well, obviously, the future is more important than the present. After all, it lasts for much longer. The future is nearly infinite, while the present lasts in the broadest term for a decade or so.

Ben Kenobi · January 13, 2003, 22:54

"I don't agree with Einstein (and with you as well) the benefits of his theory outway the dangers of the nuke, in all aspects of life, including electronics, chemistry, etc. And that's even if we don't include the restraining effect it had on wars."

-Azazel

Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

Compare Einstein's discovery with the discovery of Penicillin, which saved many people's lives, and can you not see his anguish? How many different kinds of research revolutionise the way we do things without the same cost in human lives?

I'm inclined to follow Einstein's own assessment of his research.

Lorizael · January 13, 2003, 23:29

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?

My only problem with this is that if everyone is inside the machine living happy lives, then their is absolutely no room for improvement. At this point humanity has essentially stopped advancing and has accepted its current level. There needs to be someway of beneficially affecting humanity outside of the machine so that everyone is as happy as possible.

Odds are the machine wouldn't be perfect to start with, so you would need someone on the outside to maintain and improve the thing. The difficulty here is that the people on the outside won't be living a perfect, care-free life like those on the inside would be. This creates a separation of class, which of course has all the terrible problems we know about.

Utopia is difficult. But if the machine could be perfected, it'd be okay.

Az · January 14, 2003, 06:11

Quote:

Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

I think that ships are a terrible invention. look at how sailing caused slavery, and the deaths of millions of native americans. the japanese used ships in warfare, to attack pearl harbor.

It's terrible, terrible. the germans used U-boats.

Terrible, JUST TERRIBLE. I think we should ban ships and scrap this field of science, to be banned for eternity.

see how this line of reasoning is illogical and non-productive?

Lorizeal:
exactly. IF the machine was as large as the universe, and would use up resources perfectly, and wouldn't break down? I'd be for it.

Drogue · January 14, 2003, 08:31

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Tell that to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can't forget those who died immediately, as well as those who continue to die from cancer and other radiation effects.

It's an awful price to pay for scientific 'progress'.

Compare Einstein's discovery with the discovery of Penicillin, which saved many people's lives, and can you not see his anguish? How many different kinds of research revolutionise the way we do things without the same cost in human lives?

I'm inclined to follow Einstein's own assessment of his research.

You're only looking at the bad points. It is an awful price, but it is as enormous benefit. Is the death of those people worth the lives of all the other people that would have died if Japan had continued fighting for a time, plus the extra energy from nucleur power, that would otherwise have to use more fossil fuels for, plus all the benefits of the knowledge we have, both now and in the future, of nucleur physics, plus all the other effects that I'm bound to have forgotten

? Which is better for humanity? Having saved those people that have died from atomic bombs, vs having saved the people that would otherwise die if we had no nucleur deterrents, from all the other wars that would have happened, from the extra deaths that would have happened had we prolonged WW2, and all the other benefits, economic, scientific, past and future from that knowledge. From a utilitarian point of view, I would say it's probably worth it. It has worked as a deterrent, and the two bombs dropped, combined with the one major disater (Chenoble (sp?)) are worth the sacrafice. It is an awful price, but it is as enormous benefit. However, also, as Azazel hinted at, it wasn't just the bombs that killed people, it was the people using them. With strict safeguards and reegulations we can avoid another Chenoble, and with detterents and pacifism we can avoid another Hiroshima or Nagosaki.

Az · January 14, 2003, 09:21

I'd only would like to point out that I am not a pacifist. I think that a even when the world would have a united government, It should have a military (used as police) force, against terrorists, bands and organized crime, which is bound to only be more strong, with the removal of boundries. there will always be bad people sadly. the government's job is to minimize their number.

Tripledoc · January 14, 2003, 10:40

The utilitarian utopia fails in that while it is able to produce 'happiness' it is unable to provide any existentialist meaning. To the contrary the 'happier' or rather more efficient we are the less meaning life holds for us.

That life holds any meaning for society as a whole is an absurd notion. Ultimately meaning is derived from the fact that each person is hos own universe - which makes each individuals integrity unbreachable. This means that if a person is happy it is because he has found meaning in what he does, not that 'happiness' has been provided to him from an external social construct.

Az · January 14, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

That life holds any meaning for society as a whole is an absurd notion.

right.

Quote:

Ultimately meaning is derived from the fact that each person is hos own universe - which makes each individuals integrity unbreachable.

no it's not. What meaning does it give life, success etc.? unless it's something religious, of course, which is an innocent lie, at best.

Quote:

This means that if a person is happy it is because he has found meaning in what he does, not that 'happiness' has been provided to him from an external social construct.

whatever a person finds happiness in, utilitarianism is for it. The question is, what do people want? to be individuals? to be free? or to simply, be happy? I know these do not contradict, the question is, what is the part, and what is the whole, what is the cause, and what is the effect?
The reason people usually want to be free ( people don't always want to be free, freedom is about making decisions, and people don't actually want to make decisions all the time ) is that for some reason, making decisions on their own makes them HAPPY, decisions and that's what they seek, and that's why they usually seek freedom.

Tripledoc · January 14, 2003, 12:18

The universe is the whole - that universe is ultimately defined by the worldview of each individual. Life cannot be planned from A to Z. rather life is a trial and error process. If the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then some fundamental rules has to be laid down by some authority that works beyond and against the individual.
Regarding the cause and effect of happiness. What causes happiness, or rather a lack of despair, is in my opinion the human spirit and it often express itself in the 'small things' in life - in reality these things are what really counts.
If the tyranny of the majority is to decide what is good then one might say the people are free. The majority percieve themselves to be free because they are in possesion of power - meanwhile the minority percieve themselves to be unfree because they have to submit. In reality it is the other way round because the majority has shackled itself while the minority has been shackled by the majority.
The minority might then find happiness that their despair is not of their own making while the majority is not afforded such an escape route.
Hence the pursuit of happiness as laid down by the majority actually contradicts itself - because the unfree are the most happy.
The maximisation of happiness for the greates number of people must then logically be defined by a dictatorship by the fewest number of people - one man. Monotheistic religion is then to absolve that last unfree man, the dictator or king, and make him free because now ultimate responsibilty rests with the single god entity.

Zero · January 14, 2003, 12:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

The reason people usually want to be free ( people don't always want to be free, freedom is about making decisions, and people don't actually want to make decisions all the time ) is that for some reason, making decisions on their own makes them HAPPY, decisions and that's what they seek, and that's why they usually seek freedom.

When I am leaving my decision to be carried by somebody else, I think of it still as free will, (I am free to not make a decision and base my decision to someone else's judgement) so I do not think people never ever want to be "un-free".

Az · January 14, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

Life cannot be planned from A to Z. rather life is a trial and error process. If the purpose of life is to maximize happiness, then some fundamental rules has to be laid down by some authority that works beyond and against the individual.

what this has to do with... anything really? I am saying that the things that cause the most happiness, i.e. happiness in more people, or more happy people. or people happy for a longer time.
the perfect government would adhere to these laws. period. that government would have a legal system that would work according to these laws.

I don't understand the rest of your post, at all.

Calc: Ok, so let me get this straight. So when people choose a dictator/king to reign over them. ( This contrary to popular belief happened in history ) and he then controls the life of the country and their lives as well, until he dies, this is still an expression of free will?