|
Utilitarianism should be good enough for everyone. You take a vote on what the goal is, or however your political system does that, and then let the experts work out how to best get there. Morality is not a factor.
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Murdering a random person is wrong because it has negative utility to society as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Utilitarianism requires that you first set goals, or targets, against which every decision is measured. The goals chosen are not morally better than any others, they merely are the ones you as a group or individual are trying to achieve. I don't think torturing a child, or oppressing minorities, would be beneficial to the kind of goals I, or indeed most people, would agree with. However, some other society might see that differently. What is right is determined by what you are trying to achieve, and how you define that. Utilitarianism does not make ethics "easy". There are no shortcuts.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, dude, I went with the very common goal of maximizing happiness in order to make that argument. Can you formulate that in such a way as to categorically exclude my argument without relying on deontological priors concerning what "real happiness" is or whatever? Do you truly believe people living in a state of prejudice and ignorance are maximally happy in the long term?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Maybe you could expand on what you mean with deontological priors W/R/T this argument.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
You are the one who claimed "maximum happiness" as the goal. Any attempt to define maximum happiness will instead start defining something else that is intended to result in maximum happiness. The goal, whatever it may be, is determined by a society, group, or even an individual. So, I have no interest in trying to define happiness.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I'm admitting that I don't have the answer, but that doesn't make utilitarianism false. It is up to each group to define their own goals, and to answer the question for themselves. It's almost like you are asking for god to tell you what the right answer is, but not only is there no such thing, there cannot be.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
By the way, utilitarianism is not a political system, so talking about how it would be implemented on a state level and whatever authoritarian methods might be used is a completely different, only tangentially related, discussion.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Statistics measure things like that all the time, and are only mildly intrusive.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Not directly, but with enough data and correlations you can learn things about behavior. Anyway, you don't have to have perfect information to act in a certain way, in fact almost no one ever has. Why are you placing this burden of needing an oppressive amount of information on an utilitarian and no one else?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I am a devil and here to do the devil's work, for all you know. In the absence of perfect knowledge you use the best available.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Why are you so hostile?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 19:16
|
|