Utilitarianism
 

Hey there banterers. Philosophy is part of the title of this forum, so I thought it might be interesting to talk some moral philosophy. Are there any utilitarians among you?

Out of the moral philosophies, it is the one that has resonated the most with me. If you don't know what it is, it is basically a moral theory that says actions that result in increased happiness and/or reduced pain/suffering are morally preferable.

There are various formulations of this principle, but generally utilitarianism is more concerned with good consequences (in terms of happiness/pain) than it is with specific dos and donts.

A couple of caveats for myself:

• I don't think moral theories need to guide us in every common, everyday moral situation. For good or bad, we have a moral compass, a gut feeling, and people generally follow that. To expect people to not act like this is futile. We mostly need moral theories when we are confronted with moral dilemmas that nature and nurture has not equipped us to deal with and where we are morally unsure.
• When it comes to societal issues, I tend to adjust the utilitarian principle accordingly: The best decision is the one that promotes quality of life for people in the long run.

Many criticize utilitarianism, but I believe we often follow it when push comes to shove. For example, we might not like the idea of placing different worth on the lives of people, yet we might still prefer the death of a sick old person to one young and healthy.

So whatcha think?

I think that's true for most moral theories. Like someone might say they're against murder, except if it's war - then it's okay.

Every conceivable context is hard to account for. However, I do think utilitarianism is better equipped than many moral theories considering it's often a little unclear exactly how to achieve the wanted results. It tells you what to aim for, but not how to achieve it.

It's pretty uncontroversial. That's what makes it such a great tool for propaganda, since heinous acts can be misframed as the utilitarian alternative to a hypothetical worse situation that's allegedly being prevented (nuking Japan's an obvious example of this in my mind). It's still a strong baseline for the critical mind that few people truly reject, but in practice, it's applied retroactively to justify actions as opposed to predicating them.

Your example generally holds but I think that when push comes to shove, people view things in a more shortsighted way that runs contrary to utilitarianism. For example, if the older person was a relative, they might prefer the short term emotional utility that they provide to them versus the longer term and more widespread social/labour utility that the younger person would provide.

Yes. I believe defending the nukes is a difficult and controversial example, but in general, I tend to accept that line of reasoning as long as the arguments are solid enough.

Sometimes they probably would and sometimes not. I do agree that if a gut feeling of right or wrong presents itself (such as when sparing a relative), people are generally not going to choose counter to that. I wouldn't expect anyone to.

Yeah I'm more of a negative utilitarist (minimising unhappiness seems better to me than maximising happiness) but I'd call myself a utilitarist.
Also in its pure form its virtually impossible to apply, which leaves a lot of freedom which I think is part of the reason it's abused so much

The only possible way of applying it is to generalise somehow since you can't look into the future and judge outcomes case by case. I think the best way is not to base rules on it (with laws like 'stealing is bad' there are too many exceptions) but evaluate abstract concepts, like empathy, jealousy, etc. and go from there, which requires a lot of honest introspection. But I guess you need that for any kind of moral compass

I don't think people are going to en masse act in a utilitarian manner in their day-to-day lives. At least not consciously and consistently.

To me, utilitarianism's big potential is I think it's a good value and goal for society to pursue. A utilitarian principle, like the one posed in my first post, should be used as a guide to figure out best politics / legislation. F.ex. whenever a new law or national road project or whatever is up for discussion, whether or not it is going to, in some manner, add to the (long term) quality of life for people should be the ultimate thing to consider.

that's just what I was talking about I think. Those notions of righteousness are ultimately based on the idea that they lead to a good outcome, and that idea gets generalised by assigning those values to concepts like freedom. Then you don't even realise where it originally came from, but you have a concept like freedom that you can apply easier than 'gee let's weigh all possible outcomes of this decision'

yeah that sounds like just a pretentious way of saying what I thought you said. Instead of flipping the order of things around you're thinking in circles, because how do you decide what is ethical?

You can't really separate ethics from outcome on a social level. By the time something requires a social response, it's often past the abstract state of pure ethics and well into the realm of action and outcome. I get where you're coming from though, many dishonestly define the ethics of a potential action by a hypothetical outcome that can easily be addressed case by case (the slippery slope fallacy, I guess) and on some level, public opinion molds itself around that framing and solidifies in the systems they support.

is the term deontology? I think that's the most common alternative to utilitarianism.

I don't agree with you though. Like freedom doesn't have inherent value despite the outcome. . necessary limits are always put on freedom because of the bad outcomes that unmitigated freedom can cause

As for truth... See the Jews hiding in your attick and a Nazi asking you about them example

Everything is a means to and end imo

But none of these moral systems work perfectly cause they are all ad hoc rationalizations for an inner sense of morality that is ultimately more instinctual and less strictly rational... Imo

*cries in Russian*

No, I mean ultimately your system of ethics is developed on some basis, which is most likely utilitarian. The default is deciding some abstract concepts are right or wrong, based on utilitarian principles. So that you don't have to judge outcomes case by case (even though those things are entangled, as frown said).

Also, the whole idea of an ethical system like this is that you can (in theory) determine which outcomes are desirable without ethics, in this case by somehow measuring people's happiness. No ethics are coming in there

why?

It seems like the only thing you could say it's cause it's more fair or something which in itself is a sort of good outcome

Like any of those values if you drill down to the core... Freedom, truth, democracy etc are only valued because they're implicitly associated with the utility they provide

Omg the whole point is that you develop ethics from utilitarian principles so that you don't have to go through that calculation. That ethics system is developed ages ago and we inherit it with our culture, so of course it feels like that. That doesn't mean there isn't anything like utilitarism at the root of it
That's just like the axioma the theory is built on
Thats exactly what I mean

Sorry for interupting the discussion but it looked unaviodable. While ethics might be determined by the dictionary, that is predetermined by someone. What does it commonly connect, if i may use the word common sense?

Is it not something what every human being feels generaly regardless of how/where she/he develops?

Humans have an inbuilt moral compass. All social animals do. To varying degree, it is derived by evolution through natural selection and so the very basics of moral is somewhat predictable. For example, you would expect humans and other animals to generally not like being stolen from because genes that accept being stolen from won't be as successful, won't be competitive and proliferate and so will get weeded out. Similarly, we should f.ex. expect men to want their female partners to remain sexually loyal because if you spend your resources raising someone elses kids, your altruistic genes are not going to get passed on as much. We should expect humans to want kindness to be reciprocated and so on.

Then, so you don't think I'm a complete idiot, I should add that there's of course morals derived from culture on top of that which can potentially attempt to reprogram our base morals, like what might happen in very religious environments like a cult.

Generally, everyday human interactions is something we've adapted to by natural selection. For good or bad, this (along with culture/experience) does equip us with a knee-jerk sense of morality which is what most of us operate on in our daily lives. However, evolution has not necessarily equipped us with a way to figure out big issue stuff like politics, so that's where I think moral theory is valuable.

Morals is a social thing in that if you were the only person in the world, you wouldn't have a need for morals. If you think of the nature of humans, being social is kind of our super power. Long before we became Homo Sapiens, we did it because through cooperation, our fitness will increase. Natural selection drove us to become more social. Because morals regulate social interactions, it also made us more morally minded.

So we know why humans have morals. We know what naturally selected morals are attempting to achieve, which is roughly speaking all those social interactions that has historically let us proliferate our genes into the future. Each person instinctually knows what these things are. Humans are social animals, so we want to have positive and meaningful relations with others. Humans are programmed to act in a way that leads to reproduction, so we want sex. We are programmed to avoid pain, so we want to be healthy and not suffer. And so on. Normal, healthy people want these things, consciously or not. We form societies and cooperate to better achieve them.

In utilitarianism, happiness to me is just the simplest way to represent these things that we naturally want. Getting them satisfies our natures and so makes us happy. However, it's not perfect because we also want some things that we don't need. Like some of us want heroin. Hence, I like to sometimes add a time perspective (long term) because I think that tends to distill utilitarianism a little more into what really matters as described above. I personally could just go for a more long-winded principle (my own version of utilitarianism), but I see the value of making it simple ("happiness").

Something which is nice with a consequence-based moral theory is that it can be empirically tested. Let's say you study life satisfaction compared to income and you find good evidence that satisfaction rises until a household earns 150 000 USD, but then the curve flattens out or even becomes negative. You could use that information to try to make a society which makes 10 households earn 150 000 instead of one household that makes 1 500 000 and 9 that makes nothing. That's an example of how I think utilitarianism should be used.

To me, the question is not that difficult, but also the end goal of utilitarianism is not so simple. Take a democrat and a republican. Both could have utilitarian ideals for society, but have two different and perhaps even opposing ideas of how to achieve it.

A slight side note, I also like the some of the ideas of social contracts as I find them quite descriptive. A society is a bunch of humans getting together. In order for everyone to do better, they agree to abandon certain freedoms. For example, everyone can on average can do better if everyone agrees not to murder and not to steal from eachother. The goal of society is to raise up those who adhere to the social contract. That is done through cooperation and also the removal of the freedoms that would put otherwise everyone down.

I don't disagree with you with regard to it not being based on utilitarian calculus.. or in other words we don't work out said calculation when making moral decisions. like I said I think all these systems are basically ad hoc rationalizations for something more instinctual. But those instincts can also be intrinsically based on a sort of evolutionary cost benefit analysis which goes back to the same question of utility.

So if you say we have a visceral reaction to unfairness that's no difference from saying we have a visceral reaction to suffering.... Both of these can be framed as "bad outcomes" and once again fed into a sorta question of utility

Like the deeper question is why do we have visceral reactions to these things... And I think that essentially it's because they're implicitly associated with negative outcomes

Like you said before even these concepts you say have inherent value don't have infinite value... I would argue the extent to which they don't have infinite value is the extent to which they can lead to bad outcomes when left completely unrestricted.

Like the reason that the inherent value of truth breaks down with regard to an example like the Jews in the attick... The only reason it breaks down is because the outcome it leads to there is so obviously negative. Or do you have some other explanation...?

Of course it is, but justice systems are like the atomic model.

Atoms don't really have shells with small ball electrons flying around them like planets. But it's a simple model that we "get". Similarly, breaking laws don't always lead to unwanted consequences, only usually, which is why we also tend to operate with judge and jury to assess severity of crimes.

We do care about consequence, but we make simpler rules, virtues and explanations because it is practical. It's easier to communicate.

About natural selection and genes to describe human behaviour, we wouldn't exist without our genes. Their blueprints make our bodies including our brains, so the idea that you can separate behaviour from genes is.. kinda religious, I guess? For all the evidence we have, genes do matter.

edit:

As is, the answer from a utilitarian point of view is no. However, the example makes itself somewhat irrelevant by imposing the impossible caveat of the surety of knowing it has no ill effects. In a real world scenario, cheating does tend to include risk to the one being cheated on.

I would also say the example is in the realm of knee-jerk morals and so isn't necessarily something that needs to be tackled by moral theory or something that moral theory needs to deal with.

Yeah ok you can say that but that seems like a different way of phrasing the same thing

The value of truth is overridden but the otherwise negative consequences it would cause

Why would you wanna know your wife is cheating if it doesn't lead to better outcomes? I get the instinctual response is to say people would prefer to know such a thing but I think there's an implicit logic as to why which generally once again boils down to striving for better outcomes.. like people would say stuff like honesty in a relationship is paramount to a successful relationship etc... It's not so easy to actually divorce any of these values from either certain outcomes or at least the perception of pursuing certain outcomes.

why do we value justice though? Any ideas on that?

So far I'm hearing from you that we just value some things cause we value them... Which seems pretty unsatisfying. You don't think there's any underlying logic at play?

Upon reflection, the difficult question of utilitarianism (for me) isn't happiness, but why it should be maximised for all or wherever it potentially exists instead of for just a few.

I think you could couple it with evolutionary biology or other philosophies to figure that bit out, f.ex. the aforementioned social contract.

No, I mean there must be some basis for the morals you feel, for some people it's more logical and for others emothional, but even emothional reactions are a kind of subconscious ethical system. That ethical system doesn't have to be utilitarian, but for basically everyone it is. There is always an underlying system, like to use a different example the traditional visceral religious convictions can be traced back to wanting to keep power structures intact

I don't have time to read the rest of the discussion, I may get back to it later

How do you know if that value is misplaced or not?

I'd like a moral basis that is a little firmer than blind faith and conjecture :laughing:

I also think that's it's easily achievable.

They established that I'm a utilitarian then said I have to play with unrealistic hypotheticals because it's what utilitarians do. I don't like dumb hypotheticals.

One example was if you should kill somebody that doesn't want to die if I know that death would cause less suffering for them than letting them live. Or something like that. I said imposing on somebody's choice will cause an unnecessary suffering and also the psychological suffering it would cause me, personally, wouldn't justify it.

It was a stupid hypothetical that has no practical use in the real world.

Nah that's an add on they install at the hospital.

it's subjective but it's not random. And if it's not random that means there is some underlying influences that ultimately shape the direction that it takes, and those influences I would argue are intrinsically tied to instincts that we formed over however long which in themselves are shaped by pursuing certain types of outcomes. Whether consciously or unconsciously.

I.e. there's probably a reason most people would value freedom rather than slavery, truth rather than deception, etc

Like you say democracy is self justified. What is it about democracy that makes it self justified as opposed to tyranny being self justified instead?

you're using utilitarian/consequentialist language/reasoning whether you are aware of it or not

I.e. framing it as an attempt to maximize well being and reduce suffering.

>_>

And there we have what I suspected: the ethics you proclaim to follow are basically aesthetics. I guess that's your intention though

we do appeal to a higher morality. but that higher morality is based on principles which are fundamentally utilitarian. cruel totalitarianism + lack of freedom = less happiness -> freedom and democracy = good -> Chinese system = bad

Lets make some stupid hypothetical that has no utility in the real world because it's vague and unspecific do to the lack of real world examples I can give.

Edit: Anything that requires too much assumption is a **** moral hypothetical in the first place. It's exactly what Frown was describing when saying the ideology is easily manipulatable for people that are short sighted. Lets assume people are just as happy even if I take their freedoms. There for it's okay to take their freedoms. Let's assume somebody will suffer less if I kill them. There for it's okay to kill them.

one axiomatic belief is not the same as an entire ethical system.
and yes, the freedom = good idea is based on the idea that it generally leads to more happiness (or rather less unhappiness, which is why I favour that approach). Of course there are exceptions and you can't judge for sure most of the time, which is exactly why such a general idea is necessary. You're not doing a calculation at any point because that idea is preposterous: instead you create an ethical system with values like you describe, but as long as these are ultimately based on the idea that humankind is happier/suffers less that way, it's essentially utilitarian

I don't have to play with unrealistic hypotheticals regardless. It's ****ing stupid because it's vague with a complete lack of context mostly because it's ultimately unrealistic and not a real choice anybody would have to make. Even if I do you still don't like my answers.

I should add one qualifier: the concept of justice may be the only exception where people believe in it because of an instinctive conviction, but I'm not sure it even applies there

if I believed reducing freedom would lead to happiness on a really fundamental level then yes. not necessarily always though

Oh please, go off on your unrealistic hypotheticals that rely on dumb ass assumptions thinking that you're being intellectual when half the time you're just espousing half baked theories with the amount of brain power behind it as saying "Well god created it and that's just what it is."

There's literally no point in questioning the ideology with a hypothetical that has no real world example you could ever give. You're literally just saying, "Well what if the floor was lava!" Well, yeah, of course I'd try to avoid the floor if it was lava but it's not lava so who gives a ****?

What about Hawaiians, you privileged ****?

"Government is a necessary evil." -Thomas Paine.

Wow so thoughtful. Much deep. How can anybody muster the brain power to answer such a profound question?

You're right, you're right.