Thomas Ash

Utilitarianism

Here's an essay by me on Big Issue Ground, my website, on utilitarianism. Does anyone have any comments on the essay, or just some random thoughts about utilitarianism? I'll happily try to defend it on this thread, if I can .

Wiploc

The essay reads well. I think I'm a utilitarian. But some deontologists have confused me. I thought I was a rule utilitarian too, but you say that doesn't work. I don't know what that leaves me. It seems to me that every alternative ethical system has to either ground itself on human happiness or admit that it is worthless.

crc

User

What is the difference between Utilitarianism and Epicureanism?

Defiant Heretic

Not all variants of utilitarianism are hedonistic. One might define "good" as something other than pleasure, and seek to maximize that.

User

That makes Utilitarianism sound even more like Epicureanism.

Could Utilitarianism be a wider branch of ethics, which Epicureanism is under?

Thomas Ash

Hey, I think I am too! Tentatively, that is: I can see all the difficulties people raise, and I wouldn't want to be overconfident. But my position is based around what you hint at in your last sentence - utilitarianism springs from what I think is the only genuine foundation for morality: a concern for human (and animal) welfare. Deontology really doesn't have such a defensible foundation, unless you can discern some intrinsic good in the universe to rule worship, which I have to admit I can't. It might give neater results (or not, in some cases) but so long as it's built simply as an ad hoc response to utilitarianism, a way of accomodating the results we'd like our morality to give us, I can't really respect it.

As to rule utilitarianism: don't take my word for it! What reasons do you/did you have for being a rule utilitarian? Do you think my criticisms work? How would you solve the problem of the most beneficial rule boiling down, with all the exceptions added, to the act utilitarian one: do whatever will maximise utility in the situation? Of course, people may find simpler (well, they could hardly be simpler - neater, perhaps) rules more manageable, but in that case act utilitarianism is still the theoretical underpinning, and should be applied by anyone who can apply it. If you don't think the rules boil down to act utilitarianism, where and why do you think you should stop short? At 'never kill'? Or 'never kill, except in war'? Or 'never kill, except in war or self defence'? I'm sure you can see what I'm driving at .

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Thomas Ash

Epicureanism was an ancient ethical system, developed by Epicurus (who'd have thought? ) in the Hellenistic period in Greece. Basically, it held that you should try and achieve the good life, which was understood as one of moderation in all things (so calling wild indulgence in food and drink 'Epicurean' is a total misconception - the Epicureans were rather frugal guys in that field.) Other things seen as being part of the good life were philosophy (who'd have thunk it? ) and a stoical lack of caring about suffering and the world. Epicureanism was a kind of enlightened egoism, holding that friendship and civil discourse were a part of the good life, but (like most moralities in ancient Greek) lacking the sort of morality-towards-others found in Christianity (and modern humanism too.) Actually, I should post my essay about egoism soon, as it has a bit about that difference.

Thomas Ash

No, actually all variants of utilitarianism are hedonistic . Sorry. You're thinking of consequentialism, which is the broader field of moralities concerned with the consequences of actions and the extent to which they maximise "the good", however understood. Utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialism, which sees the good as naarrowly equivalent to happiness, understood hedonistically as the balance of pleasure and pain (see the Mill quotation in my essay.) To some extent, Epicureanism is a consequentialist system due to its concern with the good life, but I wouldn't really call it such, as it does't evaluate acts/rules in terms of their consequences alone.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Rusting Car Bumper

I didn't read your essay. If you have something relevant to comment on you should post it here and not advertise your own website as you frequently do. You should at least post a summary of your own conclusions and opinions. That's my own opinion. Thanks for reading. Feel free to disagree.

I think Utilitarianism arises out to our common experience. It becomes flawed when its made overly formal. From time to time everyone makes moral decisions which are essential utilitarian in nature because they have limited information, limited power, and little other choice.

We are all forced to be utilitarians from time to time and I don't see anything wrong with that.

DC

Thomas Ash

Hi DigitalChicken, I didn't post the essay beacuse it contained quite a few footnotes that I couldn't replicate here, and would also be a very long chunk of text to put at the start of a thread. It's in more or less plain text on the website, without complex header graphics or page layout that takes ages to load. But, if people find that inconvenient, I can always copy and paste it to the thread, minus the footnotes.

Re your comments: in what times do you think we are "forced" (odd way of phrasing it - why do you see it like that?) to be utilitarians? Only exceptional ones? You seem to imply that utilitarianism is necessary only when we have "limited information, limited power, and little other choice" [well, we always have other choices] - often people take the opposite view, thinking utilitarianism requires an unrealistically great knowledge of the likely consequences fo our actions, stretching some way into the future, and that in the situations where we have very limited info about these, we should adopt some simple rules, or some other morality. As for utilitarianism becoming overly formal: act utilitarianism, at least, involves a very basic principle (act to maximise total happiness), and it's a question of whether you think this sums up what is required for morality or not. of course, it would be a pretty terrible morality which totally ignored human welfare! best, Thomas