Seeker196

I need someone to remind me of the criticisms of utilitarianism.

I need this for emotional/intuitive reasons.

A. There is no magic morality floating somewhere (God and Co).

B. I have this feeling that things can be right or wrong.

Science tells me that my beliefs are the product of nature and nurture.

I really want to condemn 'barbarities' like the Nigerian executions, Christian child abuse, etc.

How can I say and be logical that my N & N created beliefs are true or better and yours are not?

Can I use the axiom 'all rational moral systems are based on utility'?

What about the Kamikazi bomber or suicide bomber? Why are 'rational' moral systems better? Who am I to say?

Do moral systems come down to might makes right? I feel X is wrong, therefore I am justified in stopping it even if you believe X is right? Morality comes down to do what you feel (Crowley paraphrase?)

So, two questions:
1. I want to rescue a universal ethics so I can condemn things about other cultures/people I don't like.
2. If I can't do that then I'd like a way I can condemn people of radically different cultures (N & N) then my own.

Help me to condemn other people! Can I do it rationally?

Or is blame really for "Gods and small children"? -Papillon

Bill Snedden

A series of interesting questions, but I think that you'll get a better response in the MF&P forum, so I'm moving this there...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Alonzo Fyfe

Others here have seen this before.

I had the same questions as you. In my case, my quest to look for answers carried me through 12 years of college studying moral philosophy. In those twelve years of study, I actually think I may have stumbled over an answer or two that makes sense.

It includes the view that both subjectivism (in its most common form -- that makes moral claims dependent on the sentiments of the person making the claim), and intrinsic-value objectivism are fatally flawed ideas.

I am presently involved in a task of describing that quest, and the lessons learned, in a series of posts that I have called Ethics Without God.

Ultimately, I think that propositions of moral condemnation or praise are true (or false) and substantially independent of the attitudes of the person making the claim -- yet not at all dependent on any type of mind-independent, supernatural, "intrinsic" value either. They are dependent only on the fact that other minds exist, and relationships to attitudes not my own (and statements about those relationships) are just as "objective" as anything else a scientist may want to study.

There is no problem at all making moral statements that are substantially independent of any reference to (1) God, (2) Intrinsic value, (3) the sentiments of the speaker. And, indeed, the moral claims people actually make (regardless of their mistaken beliefs about God or intrinsic value) actually happen to be independent of all three.

Wiploc

People generally attack utilitarianism by pretending to be confused about the differences in Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

They can also attack it by pointing out that you don't have a meta rule that justifies your morality. (They hope you won't ask them whether they have a meta rule justifying their morality.)


Note that this is not a criticism. The truth or justice or goodness of your beliefs has nothing to do with where they came from.


You can condemn them on the basis of utilitarianism. That's all there is. Nobody has any better basis for a moral system. Nobody can reject utilitarianism without being a sociopath.

You're either in favor of human happiness or you're not; you're either a utilitarian or you're not.


We're talking about attitude, motive, personality. Truth doesn't come into it. Get comfortable with the fact that you are against rape for no other reason than because it makes people unhappy. That's all the reason you need. It is all the reason you should even want. It is the best possible reason anyone could have.

If someone doesn't agree with you, because he doesn't care whether people are happy, he is a sociopath. He will seem bad to you. It doesn't matter whether you also seem bad to him.


I don't think so. If I base a system on making the most cheese, and you make a system based on making people happy, mine will be the more rational if I do a better job of working from my premise to my conclusions.


You suggest that they are not rational, and by implication perhaps also that they are not utilitarian. These facts are not in evidence. Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches is a facinating read that establishes that some seemingly perverse behaviors are actually beneficial.


No. If you were the last utilitarian left alive, you would still be the good guy.


No, rule utilitarians don't always get to do that.


Rescue away: Anything that universally causes unhappiness is universally bad.


Don't settle for that. Lots of people in your own culture do bad things.


As long as your conclusions flow from your premises, you are being rational. If your premise is that it is wrong to hurt people, then it is rational to condemn rapists.


No, blame is a useful tool in the quest for human happiness.

crc

xorbie

My basic problem with Utilitarianism is this. Yes, we are all utilitarians, but this is only becaus we all do want what contributes to our overall good. However, this does nothing as a moral statement. It is a descriptive, not predictive theory... sorta like evolution vs. theory of relativity. Evolution can describe what goes on, but only the theory of relavity can actually help predict the future.

In order for a moral theory to be worth anything, it needs to be able to make someone be able to decide what to do (IMO, anyway). All Utilitarianism can do is say "you should do what will increase your overall happiness." Oh sure, that helps

Kalvan

Utilitarianism as I understand it is not about making somebody happy or sad but about acting based upon a determination of what will bring the greatest good to the greatest number. Since you can't really know in advance what really is the greatest good for the greatest number you are reduced to using cost-benefit analyses which may rest on faulty input. The biggest problem I have with social utilitarianism is that it is antithetical to individual rights as advanced by Locke. Under utilitarianism human sacrifice of an innocent is acceptable to rreach the desired goal. In short, the end always justifies the means.

Alonzo Fyfe

There are different types of utilitarianism. Eudaemonistic act utilitarianism holds that the best act is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. But this is because eudaemonistic utilitarians hold that happiness is the only good.

Hedonistic utilitarians, on the other hand, hold that pleasure is the only good and pain the only evil. So, hedonistic act utilitarianism holds that the best act is that which brings the greatest amount of pleasure (and least pain) to the greatest number.

Yet, it is true, most forms of utilitarianism are incompatible with rights theory. Utilitarians have an answer to this. These natural rights you talk about are "nonsense on stilts." Sacrificing utility for the sake of a 'right' makes as much sense as sacrificing a virgin to an ancient diety. You are sacrificing real-world good for the same of something that is merely a figment of your imagination -- sacrificing people to a god called 'rights' that does not exist.

Yes, utilitarianism holds that it is permissible to sacrifice an innocent person in order to realize a sufficiently important goal. However, does anybody doubt this? You are in noisy bus station, you have a shotgun, and you see a kid ready to push a button on a vending machine that will set off a nuclear weapon in a different city. Do you shoot the kid? I would.

When Hitler had his forces tie innocent civilians to its tanks to prevent the allies from destroying the tanks, would you have refused to take out the tank?

We routinely sacrifice innocent people to reach a desired goal -- where the desired goal is important enough.

Yet, there are forms of utilitarianism that can raise objections to sacrificing the innocent. The rule-utilitarian would say that a rule against sacrificing the innocent except under unusual circumstances would bring about overall happiness, so we ought to have a rule against sacrificing the innocent.

A desire utilitarian (that's me) would argue that a psychological aversion to harming the innocent, if universally adopted, would generally result in the fulfillment of the most and strongest desires both directly and indirectly. So, we have a reason to promote an overall aversion to harming the innocent. Yet, such an aversion (like all aversions) can be outweighed in extraordinary circumstances such as preventing the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a city or taking out an enemy tank belonging to a truly horrendous dictator.

(Note: The person with a strong aversion to harming the innocent would find himself unable to harm the innocent except in extraordinary circumstances. And when those extraordinary circumstances apply, the aversion will still motivate him to look for alternatives where possible. And if no alternatives exist, the aversion will cause him to feel bad even after he killed the innocent person, knowing that he had no choice.)

So, on this model, I can give you a nice desire-utilitarian justification for these so-called rights. To say that there is a "right to X" is to say that society is generally better off if people acquire a strong psychological aversion to not-X. Such a desire can be outweighed in unusual circumstances, but in most day-to-day situations will simply prevent all properly motivated persons from acting against X.

This gives you all of the desirable properties of 'rights", without the metaphysical nonsense.

Rusting Car Bumper

I hear this criticism often but I think this is mistaken.

It assumes a very literalist interpretation of utilitarian principle(s). It assumes a specific metaethical framework which I don't believe utilitarianism was intended to belong under.

Metaethically I think Utilitarianism works from a premise that ethics is messy and uncertain in many cases and that is just a fact of existence.

Given this premise, utilitarianism then simply brings to the table a focus for moral reasoning. That is, to try to expand the umbrella of that which is regarded as good.

DC

Wiploc

You don't have a specific question, so you can't get a specific answer.

What the heck, I'll provide you a question: "Is it ever good to lie?"

A utilitarian might answer this way: If people never lied, bad things (things that make people unhappy) would happen. Burglars could evade punishment by saying, "You aren't going to tell on me are you? Because if you are, I will torture you until you change your mind." If people didn't lie, a bad president could ask people how loyal to him they were, and consolodate power in those most loyal to him until he established a totalitarian state.

A utilitarian might conclude, then, that perfect honesty would increase human unhappiness, and that, therefore, some degree of dishonesty is morally good.

Does this address your concern?
crc

Wiploc

But, the reason you are against sacrificing an innocent is that you think it will make people unhappy. And the reason Locke advocated individual rights (unless he was just a jerk) is that he thought people would be happier in a society with individual rights.

In other words, your objection to act utilitarianism is that you are a rule utilitarian, and Locke's individual rights were based on utilitarianism.

crc