Utilitarianism

[alb0zfinest]

Utilitarianism is essentially a theory that holds that your one purpose is to maximize utility. So the rightness or the wrongness of an action depends if utility is maximized. The intent is irrelevant. Now there is obviously much more to Utilitarianism but this is the underlying idea.
Now I wanted to ask a few questions: What do you think of this? is it right or wrong by your standards?

[alb0zfinest]

No one into philosophy huh? :P

[McCauley]

I would seek to maximize efficiency (at the personal cost of others) if it benefits me or my family, but as far as working for the man? Nah, fuck the government, if I worked for the government I'd probably slack off as much as possible while only doing the bare minimum to earn my paycheck.

[Breedingvariety]

Utilitarian utopia would be all people having food and shelter. That's the essence of goodness in utilitarianism. Anybody who has more than that, should give away to homeless and starving to achieve highest absolute utility.

It seeks to achieve most happiness for all, but it doesn't explain what happiness is. How can you work (synonym of good in utilitarianism) towards an unknown goal?

[Pinatèu]

Utilitarianism is understandable but misguided. From a purely utilitarian point of view, things such as art and faith are contemptible as they serve no direct purpose. Yet, both tend to influence individuals deeplier than tangible realities, proving that they, despite possessing no quantifiable value, are as much part of our lives as the cold hard facts that condition directly our existence.

[The Lawspeaker]

According to my philosophy teacher (for as far as ROC can be considered education - my fellow Dutchmen would understand my remark) utilitarianism is "whatever makes most people happy" . I'd say that it is surely lacking in even the most basic aspects of common sense: what happiness is worth more ? A glass of beer or a classical concert ?

[Theron]

Any "Most Good for Most people" principle means that the strong must make sacrifices to make the weak happy.

[Kalimtari]

No one into philosophy huh? :P

I pretend to be smart, but I iz not, so, no help from me, sowwie










http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/276/files/2014/04/gump.gif

:P

[Minesweeper]

Utilitarianism sounds nice on first touch, maximal utility as highest value, we would all live a nice and relaxing life. But when one thinks about it, the consequences of its implementation could lead to bizarre situations that are everything but just. According to utilitarianism, if all of you enjoy me suffering it is alright if I suffer. If you share it via internet so that millions could see it and enjoy it too, it is quite alright. Ancient equivalent would be gladiator fights.

[alb0zfinest]

Utilitarianism sounds nice on first touch, maximal utility as highest value, we would all live a nice and relaxing life. But when one thinks about it, the consequences of its implementation could lead to bizarre situations that are everything but just. According to utilitarianism, all of you enjoy me suffering it is alright if I suffer. If you share it via internet so that millions could see it and enjoy it too, it is quite alright. Ancient equivalent would be gladiator fights.

I see nothing wrong with this :D

It could even go up by a few notches if you were to introduce slavery to this equation. Slavery can be acceptable as long as it is maximizing utility. Now that is obviously wrong, but Utilitarianism is partly right when it comes to deciding whether a decision was morally just or unjust for the most part. A utilitarian says that a decision is morally just as long as it maximizes utility, where as a Kantian lets take for instance says that intent is what makes a decision morally good or morally bad. So if you run over 11 people its fine as long as you had good intentions while you were doing that.

[alb0zfinest]

Any "Most Good for Most people" principle means that the strong must make sacrifices to make the weak happy.

Not necessarily. Utilitarianism doesn't say you can't look at your needs. You just need to look at everyones needs equally.

[Minesweeper]

I see nothing wrong with this :D

It could even go up by a few notches if you were to introduce slavery to this equation. Slavery can be acceptable as long as it is maximizing utility. Now that is obviously wrong, but Utilitarianism is partly right when it comes to deciding whether a decision was morally just or unjust for the most part. A utilitarian says that a decision is morally just as long as it maximizes utility, where as a Kantian lets take for instance says that intent is what makes a decision morally good or morally bad. So if you run over 11 people its fine as long as you had good intentions while you were doing that.

Find couple of people more who share your preference and we'll maximize the utility. :D Utilitarianism would be a sadomaso utopia with all these new technologies and ways of communication, among other things.

[Aldaris]

It can be illustrated by many counterexamples, that absolute utilitarianism goes against human moral intuition, therefore does not represent it well. Now, someone can argue, that whether it goes against our moral intuition or not is irrelevant, since morality of an action does not necessarily depend on our views. That'd be wrong however, as this is exactly how we define moral behavior in the first place, what we call morality is based solely on our consensus, there is no objective morality outside of our minds, somehow written in the very fabric of reality in the same sense gravity is, for example. So an action is moral if and only if it satisfies our consensus. That being said, it is important to realize that the label which we put on a action is not binary (just moral vs immoral) - representing it as a continuum between two extremes is much more accurate.

[de Burgh II]

Not feasible in the long run, self-interest will always be paramount/manifesting in some form.

[Aldaris]

Not feasible in the long run, self-interest will always be paramount/manifesting in some form.

While many of utilitarianism's principles are derived from our intuitive notion of morality, it does not work at all, when the said principles are formalized and taken to their extreme. Indeed, human nature is, for the most part, incompatible with utilitarianism. Practical utilitarianists could use some psychology lessons.

[de Burgh II]

While many of utilitarianism's principles are derived from our intuitive notion of morality, it does not work at all, when the said notions are formalized and taken to their extreme. Indeed, human nature is, for the most part, incompatible with utilitarianism. Practical utilitarianists could use some psychology lessons.

Utilitarianism in itself can contradict conventional wisdom. When common good for the whole is taken to the extreme; such zealousness distorts itself into a hegemonic regime. Such authoritarian idealizations then distorts itself into elitist, nepotistic oligarchs that can be akin to socialism or communism in principle. Utilitarianism takes away the need for meritocracy by spoon-feeding everyone their basic necessities. People aren't governed by such esoteric developments such as hard work or individualism (that are shunned overall); much rather, more so on their ability to conform and bend their will to the other. Hence, meritocracy is lost as a result.

Will power and courage derives itself by going against these hegemonic principles; by leading by your own example in the face of great adversity and turbulent times is needed in order to make righteous decisions from one's innate moral code derived from intuition, common sense, pragmatism and logic meshed together.

Utilitarianism lacks the capacity to detach itself from "groupthink" (the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility). Hence, logic and reason is lost when idealism exceeds these higher cognitive functions. Such schools of thought needs (utilitarianism) to embrace the good and bad in life when it comes to individual growth and experience.
Both good and bad experiences in one's life leads to wiser mindsets and proper self-development to grow and expand one's horizons (akin to stoicism).

A flawed human being is a sensible human being.

[jingorex]

Utilitarianism in itself can contradict conventional wisdom. When common good for the whole is taken to the extreme; such zealousness distorts itself into a hegemonic regime. Such authoritarian idealizations then distorts itself into elitist, nepotistic oligarchs that can be akin to socialism or communism in principle. Utilitarianism takes away the need for meritocracy by spoon-feeding everyone their basic necessities. People aren't governed by such esoteric developments such as hard work or individualism (that are shunned overall); much rather, more so on their ability to conform and bend their will to the other. Hence, meritocracy is lost as a result.

Will power and courage derives itself by going against these hegemonic principles; by leading by your own example in the face of great adversity and turbulent times is needed in order to make righteous decisions from one's innate moral code derived from intuition, common sense, pragmatism and logic meshed together.

Utilitarianism lacks the capacity to detach itself from "groupthink" (the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility). Hence, logic and reason is lost when idealism exceeds these higher cognitive functions. Such schools of thought needs (utilitarianism) to embrace the good and bad in life when it comes to individual growth and experience.
Both good and bad experiences in one's life leads to wiser mindsets and proper self-development to grow and expand one's horizons (akin to stoicism).

A flawed human being is a sensible human being.

you're one of those smart bugs, arent you?

https://media.giphy.com/media/12bxS6JVQBhqU/giphy.gif