How can anyone be a Utilitarian?

[Zulu Elephant]

How can anyone be a utilitarian?
If torturing, say, one thousand innocent people for the rest of their lives could increase the happiness/fulfiment of desires/whatever-you-want-to-define-it-as of the general population a hundred-fold how would you justify that?

[Mr. President]

Don't start asking these questions! It'll never stop!

How can anyone be a . . .

. . . liberal?!

. . . communist?!

. . . Canadian?!

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Don't start asking these questions! It'll never stop!

How can anyone be a . . .

. . . liberal?!

. . . communist?!

. . . Canadian?!

I was going to reply to this in a serious manner until you had to go and be a killjoy.... (j/k)

[Drogue]

Zulu Elephant: You already have, however lives for happiness would normally be a bad trade, and not something a Utilitarian would go for. However, is torturing one person, to save the lives of a thousand worth it? If you knew a terrorist was about to launch an attack, and you had one of thier number in your custody, who knew what was going to happen and when, would you torture them to find out and prevent that terrorist attack? Would you kill a person to prevent them for killing many people?

If killing one innocent person would bring untold happiness to the lives of millions, it may be worth it. For example killing Hitler or some other such dictator to bring happiness to millions. Although I would morn the loss of that one innocent person, if it would bring a society that was immeasurably better, and happiness to millions, I would choose that over the life of one person. I break it down simply: Would I give my life for the untold happiness of millions? Yes. Therefore, IMHO, it is worth it. However I do not presume to choose for others.

I think the pursuit of the maximum amount of happiness, of good for society, for want of a better phrase, is a noble pursuit, even possibly the noblist of pursuits. I do not see why people think of it as evil, trying to do what is good for as many people as possible.

[Zulu Elephant]

Firstly, I know this could be the start of a "how can you be a *communist/liberal/conservative*" thread

Lets hope it doesn't turn out that way

But on with the real question...

Drogue- This isn't an arguement about torturing or killing a guilty man to increase the happiness/whatever of society - Its about whether a utilitarian is right to say that the suffering (torture/rape/killing) of an innocent few should be permitted to provide for the greater happiness/whatever of the many which is the main point of utilitarianism

Is anyone willing to argue FOR this

[Giant_Squid]

I am. The way you put it sounds stupid because by "happiness" you make it sound like it would necessarily just be sort of a "guy-watching TV" type happiness. On the other hand, if by torturing one innocent person I could, say, solve world hunger for all time, then I can't imagine how anyone could NOT do that. It's basically a matter of "so, do I cause a lot of pain to this one person directly, or do I indirectly cause a lot more pain to the millions of people who are going to die of world hunger". This is obviously a weird example since there's no way torturing someone is going to help the hungry, but to make it more real, take war. In war, the US knows it's going to be killing its own innocent soldiers, and it's going to be killing a lot of guys on the other side whose only crime was being born in the wrong place. From a deontological viewpoint, it's almost impossible to justify war, but the true justification is obvious - if we DON'T do this, we're going to get killed/enslaved/the fat cats who support Bush won't have enough oil money/et cetera.

[Lancer]

The pursuit of happiness...it that what being a utilitarian is about? I always visualized utilitarians as those who forego bullshit, and hype and all things not needed in order to arrive at the essencial. Happiness perhaps wouldn't be achieved until the root of existance is reached, making wasting a thousand people a pointless exercise, and froward to the goal. The goal being only utilizing the needed, in its most perfect form, without the scrollwork and WooHoo. Perhaps happiness and emotion isn't at the end of a utilitarian's journey, more likely simple satisfaction, with a hint of pridefulness denied.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Drogue- This isn't an arguement about torturing or killing a guilty man to increase the happiness/whatever of society - Its about whether a utilitarian is right to say that the suffering (torture/rape/killing) of an innocent few should be permitted to provide for the greater happiness/whatever of the many which is the main point of utilitarianism.

That is what I was arguing for. To me, it matters little as to the innocent or guilt of a person, as I don't think we have free will anyway. If torturing one person saves thousands, then it may well be good. The main point of utilitarianism is that you do what creates the most happiness or 'good', however people seem to dwindle more on the "so you'd torture one person if it's for the overall good?" than on the many other aspects of it. Utilitarianism is about creating the most happiness, with (rule) or without (act) breaking promises and agreements to do such. The definition of happiness is so open that it can mean many things, and has been used to mean and justify many things though.

[Zulu Elephant]

First, I have been very carefull not to strictly define the ends as "happiness" since there are so many definitions of what utilitarianism is trying to maximise (Rawls defines is as "fulfillment of desires" which I suppose is as good a definition as any)

Secondly, by saying "War will kill as lot of people but will serve the common good" (even if it does - such as WW2) ducks the main question. A volunteer soldier VOLUNTARALLY puts himself in harms way to protect his way of life. Could anyone here pick some innocent person off the street against their will and subject them to the most terrible torture to increase the "fulfillment of desires" of the many (if that is what it takes) - This is the true test if whether an individual can call themselves a Utilitarian - The net happiness/whatever of society is more important than the individual

[Drogue]

Lancer: This is an extract on Utilitarianism and what it is:

A moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain or unhappiness, than any alternative. Instead of 'pleasure' and 'happiness' the word 'welfare' is also apt: the value of the consequences of an action is determined solely by the welfare of individuals.

Welfare is probably a much better way of saying it, as the passage suggests.

ZE: Although I believe the net happiness is what is most important, the most horrific torture is probably, indeed, almost certainly, far worse than any gain to society from it, and therefore is a bad action. The welfare or happiness of society is more important, but the consequences of such an action, what is important to Utilitarianism, will mostly be negative, not jst in the actual torture, but in the 'bad feeling' from the person perpetrating it, and from society for having witnessed, or even gained from it. It will almost certainly cause more harm than good, torturing an innocent.

[Drogue]

Utilitarianism is about choosing the action with the most Utility. Utility is described by Bentham (the man who came up with the idea of Utilitarianism in the most part) as

That property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness...or...to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness

Therefore the Utilitarian chooses the option that creates the most Utility, as defined above

[Lancer]

Drogue, thanks.

[Cruddy]

How can anyone be a Ute?

How should I know? People believe all kinds of weird crap. It doesn't bother me unless it affects me.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Drogue
ZE: Although I believe the net happiness is what is most important, the most horrific torture is probably, indeed, almost certainly, far worse than any gain to society from it, and therefore is a bad action. The welfare or happiness of society is more important, but the consequences of such an action, what is important to Utilitarianism, will mostly be negative, not jst in the actual torture, but in the 'bad feeling' from the person perpetrating it, and from society for having witnessed, or even gained from it. It will almost certainly cause more harm than good, torturing an innocent.

Firstly, If society didnt learn about how it had aquired this extra "fulfilment of desires", would that make it ok? (since the 'bad feeling' would not be inflicted on society)

And, lets take another example.
Killing the top 100 rich people in the country and dividing up all the money between the impoverished would give a massive boost to the impoverished's "fulfillment of desires" - this would not be right however

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Firstly, If society didnt learn about how it had aquired this extra "fulfilment of desires", would that make it ok? (since the 'bad feeling' would not be inflicted on society)

No. You are torturing someone, inflicting pain onto them and onto the person causing it (mentally) for no gain. If it would ave thousands of lives, then it could be argued to be good, and thus utilitarian.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
And, lets take another example.
Killing the top 100 rich people in the country and dividing up all the money between the impoverished would give a massive boost to the impoverished's "fulfillment of desires"

No it wouldn't. Utilitarian's choose the option which creates the most happiness. Income redistribution via tax may be utilitarian, as might be the best option, however killing them in completyely unnecessary. Would the boost to the poor be more than the pain caused by the deaths? I doubt it personally.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
this would not be right however

Who are you to say what is or is not 'right'? I agree it would not be my choice of action, but that does not mean it is not right, it means I believe it is not right. Moral absolutism is a nasty little concept IMHO.

[Zulu Elephant]

No. You are torturing someone, inflicting pain onto them and onto the person causing it (mentally) for no gain. If it would ave thousands of lives, then it could be argued to be good, and thus utilitarian.

I think this is the centre of the arguement - I would not torture or kill one innocent to save even a thousand lives (unless the innocent agreed to it - in which case it is a whole other argument)

[quote}Who are you to say what is or is not 'right'? I agree it would not be my choice of action, but that does not mean it is not right, it means I believe it is not right. Moral absolutism is a nasty little concept IMHO[/quote]

I am saying what I think is right, not saying what IS right. I am a liberal and would not be so presumptuous as to try to define the absolute right

[Q Classic]

i dunno. as long as it didn't weigh on my conciousness directly, i see no problem with a million people dying to make ten billion happy.

in other words, as long as i didn't have to carry it out, or order it, or have my hands dirtied by it. it's a lot easier and more fulfilling to protest the injustices of having that happen rather than actually having to perform said injustices yourself.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I think this is the centre of the arguement - I would not torture or kill one innocent to save even a thousand lives.

And that is where we differ. I would. One life is not worth 1000 IMHO, given that they are people at random. However it would depend on knowing the consequences, as it may work out that it creates greater utility by not doing it. The consequences is what would guide me, and which option has the 'best' consequences.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I am saying what I think is right, not saying what IS right. I am a liberal and would not be so presumptuous as to try to define the absolute right

Sorry I misinterpreted. My bad. In being a Liberal, we find ourselves in agreement.

[Giant_Squid]

Zulu - the soldiers may be volunteers, or they may be drafted.

Let me address the killing the hundred richest people thing - you're assuming it's a utilitarianally (ha! new adverb!) justifable thing to do and trying to question utilitarianism in the line of it's common sense just wrong. I believe that this line of action would, along with almost everything the average person finds to be "common sense"-ibly wrong, NOT be utiltiarian. Let me give some reasons:

1. This will create an atmosphere in which people live in fear that they will be killed for "the greater good". This will increase pain and decrease happiness compared to a society where everyone's reasonably sure the government will respect their desire to keep on living.

2. This will create a disincentive to be rich, and hence a disincentive to keep the economy turning. This sounds a bit Friedmanesque, but I do think it needs to be considered. There's probably a point at which the harm to the economy caused by wealth redistribution exceeds the benefit caused by poor people having more money - and I think that point is WAY before the scenario you envision.

3. Even if we decide that it IS necessary to redistribute this sort of wealth, it seems pretty evident that it would be far less painful to, say, give the rich an extremely high tax bracket level rather than just go around and kill them, which causes pain. There are NOT only the two choices of a stratified society and a society in which we, to take a phrase from O'Rourke, eat the rich. There are gradations that our modern American society and to a greater degree modern European societies have learned to work within.

[Az]

I am a Utilitarian. I am here. Bring it on, Biyaaatch.

If torturing, say, one thousand innocent people for the rest of their lives could increase the happiness/fulfiment of desires/whatever-you-want-to-define-it-as of the general population a hundred-fold how would you justify that?

Ahem, how is this scenario possible?

Oh and yes, what we pursue is happiness. That's the goal of people's lives. That's what people strive for. Therefore, maximizing it is the most ethical thing to do. I see that Giant_Squid and Drogue are here to pick up the slack while I will be in Uni, so... carry on.

On the "kill the rich" theme, GS has given a great answer, but since I am a socialist, my answer may slightly vary.

[Berzerker]

Oh and yes, what we pursue is happiness. That's the goal of people's lives. That's what people strive for. Therefore, maximizing it is the most ethical thing to do.

Then taking away someone's happiness is unethical.

[Az]

It could be ethical if more happiness is created by the act of taking.

[Dis]

I demand this thread be closed

someone asked how someone could be a conservative and that thread was closed.

but for the answer to the question, I will have to look that word up in the dictionary . I never really heard anyone use that word.

[Drogue]

Berzerker: In original, Act-Utilitarianism, Azazel is completely right. Take the welfare generated, minus the welfare lost, and then choose the option that gives the highest value for this. However there is Positive Utilitarianism and Negative Utilitarianism. The former of these wants only the maximisation of welfare, regardless of the negative implications, the latter wishes for the minimisation of pain and unhappiness, regardless of the benefits. These are not quite 'true' Utilitarianism, as per Benthams ideals, but are versions that have been invented.

Dissidents: Whether a thread or not is closed is notn just about the title, it is about how people react. People have reacted by having a discussion about Utilitarianism, which was the intention, and thus needs not be closed. If people acted by giving troll ratings, smilies and flaming, it would have been closed. If you want a definition, look at the one I gave a few posts above

[Az]

Negative utilitarianism is a bunch of bullshit. If everyone were dead, noone would suffer, right?

Both "suffering" and "happiness" should be taken into the equation.

There is also "Rule Utilitarianism" which a bunch of crap.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Azazel
I am a Utilitarian. I am here. Bring it on, Biyaaatch.

Ur presence on this thread was like... so foreseeable.

[Drogue]

Well, maybe death is a release. I am not so quick to dismiss either, although I think total welfare should be what is important. However I do understand the attration of a stress and pain free life, even if it does not bring the rewards of a more 'full' life. All the forms of Utilitarianism seem a little superficial, for instance, Rule Utilitarianism is just where someone believes that keeping promises creates the most welfare. It is still Act Utilitarianism, since it is the option which creates the most welfare in total. Moreover, the more long term view, that keeping promises can lead to more welfare in the future, rather than just the short term effects that some people think of Act Utilitarianism, is a good idea IMHO. Utilitarianism should be viewed in the long term.

[Az]

Originally posted by Zero


Ur presence on this thread was like... so foreseeable.

I think I am becoming the David Floyd of utilitarianism.

Well, maybe death is a release. I am not so quick to dismiss either, although I think total welfare should be what is important. However I do understand the attration of a stress and pain free life, even if it does not bring the rewards of a more 'full' life. All the forms of Utilitarianism seem a little superficial, for instance, Rule Utilitarianism is just where someone believes that keeping promises creates the most welfare. It is still Act Utilitarianism, since it is the option which creates the most welfare in total. Moreover, the more long term view, that keeping promises can lead to more welfare in the future, rather than just the short term effects that some people think of Act Utilitarianism, is a good idea IMHO. Utilitarianism should be viewed in the long term.

I don't think that welfare is what people seek, but happiness. Some people will find happiness in welfare, i.e. peacefull, stressless existance. Others will take up extreme sports to spice up their lives.

[Drogue]

Azazel: Welfare is happiness. Welfare was what Bentham used instead of happiness to describe utility. Read utility or happiness instead of welfare if you wish, they are meant in the same way, although I find happiness to be a bit ambiguous and not quite what is meant personally.

[Az]

you find "happiness" ambigous but you think that "welfare" is a clear-cut definition?
define welfare, then