[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif *snip*

Good points. Also, are we measuring total utility? If so, is it the world's total utility or your own country's total utility? Should we count animals? What about future utility (as in the case of pollution and environmental destruction)? The problem with measuring total utility is that it is blind to the distribution of the utility among the population.

Or, perhaps we're measuring average utility? That can lead to serious problems as well. For example, it's possible that if we were to kill off the most miserable segments of our society, we might raise average utility.

Probably the biggest problem I have with utilitarianism is that it can lead to moral monstrousness: see the genocide example above. Additionally it is difficult to justify any civil or political rights in a utilitarian world; you only have rights when it is utility-maximizing for you to do so.

Finally, to bring it back to Head-Fi, it seems to me that in a utilitarian world none of us would have any audio equipment because the decrease in utility to us would be outweighed by the increase in utility to starving people somewhere who would sell it to buy food.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif One problem in utilitarianism is that happiness of different people is not commensurable, i.e. not measurable by common standard or units (minutes and hours are commensurable). If you take Bentham's utility calculus, there are problems such as the lack of subjective dependence of happiness, which depends on a person's creativity, spontaenity, etc. Even if two people are exposed to the same happiness potential for a given event, e.g. a party, happiness only becomes effective by utilizing this potential, which is something that cannot be juged obectively from an outsider's point of view. Further, for a given happiness potential there are always several courses of action that may lead to unforeseeable results. Finally, there are interpersonal preferences, which the the writer of the "happiness balance sheet" cannot possibly be aware of. In light of these problems, the utility calculus has to be insofar relativised that it loses most of its initial scope. There's also the imperialistic/paternalistic touch in utilitarianism which stands in contrast to an autonomous concept of happiness, which I believe in. To base actions on what's best for everyone doesn't necessarily have to be utilitarian. Also, pursuing one's own happiness in a virtuos and conscious manner might as well lead to the same results as always thinking about what might be best for everyone else (as long as one keeps the world's imperfections in mind and counterbalances them). For more utilitarianism you can read on Jeremy Bentham (famous) and also Peter Singer (a German, living utilitarian philosopher famous for his bioethics issues).

X2
The problem is: It is pretty much impossible to decide for other people what will make them happy or what is good for them. You could even do them a great injustice in thinking and deciding for them. Mosttimes they will not be very grateful for your well meant efforts.
I think not being selfish is a good thing, but it is not so good to impose it upon or expect it from others as well. Which makes utilitarianism a bit difficult in practice.
It also has to do with a proper balance between giving and taking. There has to be a balance in that to be able to maintain a good relationship. Giving too much is as bad as taking too much.
Much more to tell about this, but I think that goes a bit too far for this forum...
Good of you to take thinking about this seriously though!!!

 

[wali]

"What is good for me is good-in-itself", to paraphrase Nietzsche.

You might consider reading about Master and Slave morality by Nietzsche, since utilitarianism is a form of slave morality.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah /img/forum/go_quote.gif are we that starved for something to believe in?

Doesnt everyone want something to believe in? Is that an essential element of existence?

Somewhat apropos:
"If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have a paradise in a few years."
-Bertrand Russell


History from a textbook usually is boring, because textbook manufacturers require as little controversy as possible. How you can teach history without controversary is beyond me. (I should know, I am a history teacher.)

 

[Genetic]

I was on the impression that after John Rawls there was no place anymore for utilitarism....( LOL....I dont plan to reread all of this since THAT was realy painfull...

)

Amicalement

 

[3DCadman]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That's what I believe in.

What's wrong today is too many people have it the other way around:
"Do unto others BEFORE THEY DO IT UNTO YOU".

 

[musicmonkey]

Quite a few "weighty" discussions going on in this thread so far, i won't add to them but i will say i try to live my life by Karma or Karmic principles, whatever is the preferred terminology.

 

[Krug995]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DCadman /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That's what I believe in. What's wrong today is too many people have it the other way around: "Do unto others BEFORE THEY DO IT UNTO YOU".

Been around for quite a while...Hobbes, in 1651:

"And though this may seem too subtle a deduction of the laws of nature to be be taken notice of by all men …, yet to leave all men inexcusable they have been contracted into one easy sum, intelligible even to the meanest capacity, and that is Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself; which sheweth him that he has no more to do in learning the laws of nature but … to put them into the other part of the balance, and his own into their place, that his own passions and self-love may add nothing to the weight and then there is none of these laws of nature that will not appear unto him very reasonable." (Leviathan, Chap. XV.35)

 

[uzziah]

you know "do unto others" is jesus

 

[Krug995]

Right, but the inversion isn't.

 

[Fallingwater]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DCadman /img/forum/go_quote.gif What's wrong today is too many people have it the other way around: "Do unto others BEFORE THEY DO IT UNTO YOU"

You can't really blame other people.

People may start idealistically giving the other cheek, but there's only so much slapping one can take. And when offering the other cheek time and time again changes the behaviour of those who slap not one bit, a time comes when even the most good-hearted, idealistic person thinks "they slap me and feel good, I offer the other cheek and feel miserable. Maybe it's me who's wrong".

 

[1967cutlass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula /img/forum/go_quote.gif Classy.

Saying you hate history is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone would bother trying to have any kind of meaningful conversation with someone that says that.

Is it not foolish to hate/ignore history?

 

[Zenja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif i actually prefer kantian (ethics) over utilitarianism...

I just finished writing a paper a few hours ago about animal equality, involving Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant. I practically made fun of Kant for his silly opinions on the topic. That guy is a weird guy. He basically says that the only reason we should be nice to animals is because being bad to them makes us the same way toward other humans. I didn't think there would be many people following Kantian ethics.

I suppose I'm sort of utilitarian, but not really. It's funny, I've also went through the process of basically describing utilitarianism to a friend before I knew what it was, and he told me that utilitarianism is pretty much what I described.

 

[socrates63]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamerz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, she inspired me to critically think.

Good for you! This is the most important thing for you as a person. You're personal philosophy will probably change and evolve but your ability to think critically and willingness to examine your assumptions should always be things you hold dear for the rest of your life.

Your teacher should be commended and and she should be very proud of you. The Seattle school district has hope yet.

 

[socrates63]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1967cutlass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saying you hate history is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone would bother trying to have any kind of meaningful conversation with someone that says that. Is it not foolish to hate/ignore history?

OP explained that he meant studying history out of textbooks is what he hates, not history as a subject.

A simple case of misunderstanding by all parties involved... let's not get into a flame war. It'd be a shame to derail a thread started by a young student who has been touched with inspiration because of adults bickering.