Utilitarianism

[Loffler]

I'm a utilitarian. Anyone else?

For those unfamiliar, utilitarianism is the belief that the way to gauge ethical behavior is by how much happiness it brings to the world or how much unhappiness it alleviates.

The simplest form, "act utilitarianism," is the practice of judging each individual action by its individual results. Of course, the far more useful and significant form is "rule utilitarianism," in which we assess which rules and systems are most conducive, in the long term, to happiness.

Questions?

[pjkeeley]

I'm sort of utilitarian, but I have different views on its priorities that probably make me somewhat un-utilitarian. The problem is that happiness and pleasure aren't always good, and pain and lack of pleasure aren't always bad, and... I know, I know! Just wait, read my whole reply, don't start preparing your rebuttal just yet! I'm not insane. Let me explain.

Have you heard of the pleasure machine objection to utilitarianism? Basically, the idea is this: what if there was a machine developed that human beings could be plugged into that would stimulate perfect happiness for the rest of our lives? In addition, it's assumed that all our basic needs would be met by the machine, so there would be no reason, according to a utilitarian, for anyone to leave the machine once everybody's plugged in. We could sit around in perfect, permanent bliss until we expire. Of course, most people would consider such a machine to be a pale substitute to real life, yet according to utilitarianism such a thing is what we ought to strive for.

Here's how I see it. Life is worth living because of happiness, yes, but how we reach that happiness is vital. Life is worthwhile precisely because of the struggles and even the pain that we have to endure at times in our lives. We don't just live to satisfy needs and desires, there actually has to be some sort of process involved in satisfying these needs and desires, otherwise life is stale and pointless. Creativity, to name just one thing, suffers most when nobody is suffering. To put it another way; the nature of the experience is far more important than the level of pleasure that is attained, which is why for example I'd rather travel the world than live out my life in the wonderful dream-like haze of the opium addict. So how do I reconcile all this with utilitarianism? I just try and take it into account when I think ethically. In most ethical situations that I would describe as being 'small-scale' the utilitarian answer would be the most sensible. For example, the classic sinking ship scenario, where if you can only have a limited number of people in a lifeboat then you choose to save the doctor because he can save other lives, and so on. It's only where there are larger political and social questions that you have to take into account that unhappiness can be as important as happiness.

That's my view anyway. It's why I value the more Epicurean standard of happiness as opposed to the purely hedonistic concept of happiness that some people seem to have. Hedonism is great fun of course, but the smart hedonist will work out how to enjoy life's pleasures over a whole lifetime rather than just one night...  

[weedoch]

utilitarianism is the belief that the way to gauge ethical behavior is by how much happiness it brings to the world or how much unhappiness it alleviates.[/quote  

This all sounds so simple until you start to realise that happiness is a different concept for each person, and some decisions must be made emotionally. If you consider the biggies like capital punishment and abortion, the idea of happines coming into the equation is a little pointless. Abortions, for example, have no impact on the broader world, (apart from disapproval) and only have an impact on the person involved. This decision almost certainly brings with it a near equal level of happiness and unhappiness, so the decision must be made form a more emotive perspective, 'despite all the evidence what do I feel is the right thing to do?' An example would be a mother with six children who decides against a termination despite the fact that she will no longer be able to provide her existing children with all their basic needs. In utilitarianism she would be morally wrong as her decision negatively effected more people.
I agree with PJKeeley, permanent bliss would be too dull - besides, apart from endorphine junkies no-one would ever work out again!

[Loffler]

Have you heard of the pleasure machine objection to utilitarianism? Basically, the idea is this: what if there was a machine developed that human beings could be plugged into that would stimulate perfect happiness for the rest of our lives? In addition, it's assumed that all our basic needs would be met by the machine, so there would be no reason, according to a utilitarian, for anyone to leave the machine once everybody's plugged in. We could sit around in perfect, permanent bliss until we expire. Of course, most people would consider such a machine to be a pale substitute to real life, yet according to utilitarianism such a thing is what we ought to strive for.

What are hobbies but smaller, less refined versions of that pleasure machine? When someone dedicates his whole life to something like football, for example, which gives him pleasure, or working in his woodshop, which gives him pleasure, how different are these artificial worlds we create for ourselves from the artifice of the pleasure machine? The conflict in a football game is completely artificial; the warring factions actually have no disagreement. The conflict is intentionally fabricated for the purpose of watching a competition between two teams. It's a complete construct for the purpose of entertainment. What if football brings me great happiness and I dedicate my life to playing until I retire, at which point I retire to color commentary or sports writing? John Madden, in a sense, is living inside a pleasure machine of his own design, having dedicated his whole life to the societal invention known as football.
What about movies? Roger Ebert is a movie lover and watches and reviews them nonstop. He literally sits in a big pleasure machine called a movie theater and watches movies. But those stories aren't true! They're made up. He has dedicated his whole life to something that's merely entertainment.
Let's say in your life you have 3 careers you love and 3 hobbies you love. In a way, that's 6 pleasure machines. Do you really think you're living a less moral life or a less fulfilled life than the man who struggles all his life in vain to find something that makes him happy? Why is that more genuine to you?

Here's how I see it. Life is worth living because of happiness, yes, but how we reach that happiness is vital.

Then you place value in the journey, not just the destination. The idea of the journey brings you happiness. That's still adding points to the happiness calculation.

Life is worthwhile precisely because of the struggles and even the pain that we have to endure at times in our lives.

Not if they don't teach us something or make us stronger. If you struggle all your life, never learn a lesson, and ultimately fail or even die from the struggle, is that a good thing?

Actually, not even that is the point. We're supposed to be talking about ethics. Is it more ethical to struggle and suffer? Should we place value in suffering even if nothing good comes of it? Should we then whip ourselves nightly?

We don't just live to satisfy needs and desires, there actually has to be some sort of process involved in satisfying these needs and desires, otherwise life is stale and pointless.

That's just a long way of saying some needs and desires are higher than others.

Creativity, to name just one thing, suffers most when nobody is suffering.

Then the suffering which leads to creativity is a net good (when good creativity minus bad suffering equals a net of good creativity, that is).

To put it another way; the nature of the experience is far more important than the level of pleasure that is attained, which is why for example I'd rather travel the world than live out my life in the wonderful dream-like haze of the opium addict

Would you rather travel to all the most war-torn parts of Africa than live out your life in the "wonderful dream-like haze" of a happy home life with a loving family? Clearly you don't value traveling intrinsically above pleasure, since the worst traveling is worse than the best pleasures. It depends on where you're traveling, and what the form of pleasure is.  Either way it's a utilitarian calculation, since you wouldn't travel if you didn't think you'd benefit from it in the long run.

So how do I reconcile all this with utilitarianism? I just try and take it into account when I think ethically. In most ethical situations that I would describe as being 'small-scale' the utilitarian answer would be the most sensible. For example, the classic sinking ship scenario, where if you can only have a limited number of people in a lifeboat then you choose to save the doctor because he can save other lives, and so on. It's only where there are larger political and social questions that you have to take into account that unhappiness can be as important as happiness.

I can't think of any political or social situation where unhappiness is the goal rather than happiness.

That's my view anyway. It's why I value the more Epicurean standard of happiness as opposed to the purely hedonistic concept of happiness that some people seem to have. Hedonism is great fun of course, but the smart hedonist will work out how to enjoy life's pleasures over a whole lifetime rather than just one night...  

Preference utilitarianism leaves that up to the individual adherent.

[Loffler]

utilitarianism is the belief that the way to gauge ethical behavior is by how much happiness it brings to the world or how much unhappiness it alleviates.

This all sounds so simple until you start to realise that happiness is a different concept for each person,

That's the point of preference utilitarianism, and why personal freedom is a good rule for utilitarian human interaction. I know me better than anyone, and you know you better than anyone, so the best way to maximize happiness between the two of us is to trust us each to make our own decisions.

and some decisions must be made emotionally.

I can't say I know what you mean here.

If you consider the biggies like capital punishment and abortion, the idea of happines coming into the equation is a little pointless.

Happiness plays a huge part in those issues.

Abortions, for example, have no impact on the broader world, (apart from disapproval)

Disapproval is part of the calculation.

and only have an impact on the person involved. This decision almost certainly brings with it a near equal level of happiness and unhappiness, so the decision must be made form a more emotive perspective,

Happiness is an emotion.

'despite all the evidence what do I feel is the right thing to do?'

Feeling is what we should resort to when the evidence has failed us. We don't rely on our feelings when crossing the street; we wait for the crosswalk signal.

An example would be a mother with six children who decides against a termination despite the fact that she will no longer be able to provide her existing children with all their basic needs. In utilitarianism she would be morally wrong as her decision negatively effected more people.

A utilitarian who didn't consider the fetus a human being would say she should terminate it. A utilitarian who did consider the fetus a human being would say she should not.

Utilitarianism is a meta-ethical system. The specifics therefore differ depending on the calculations of the theorist in question. Think of it as how deontologists differ if one is a Christian and the other is a Muslim.

I agree with PJKeeley, permanent bliss would be too dull

He didn't say it would be dull, but since you did say that, I'll point out that if it's dull, a utilitarian would not value it either. Dullness does not equal happiness.

- besides, apart from endorphine junkies no-one would ever work out again!

That sentence you just wrote was a utilitarian calculation. You're weighing the value of exercise against the value of artificial bliss.

[pjkeeley]

What are hobbies but smaller, less refined versions of that pleasure machine?

Maybe, but most people like the idea of hobbies. Most people do not like the idea of being permanently plugged into a pleasure machine. What is it that makes people comfortable with one idea and not the other? It's because people value pleasurable experiences over pleasure alone, even if the amount of pleasure they derive is the same. Ergo happiness is not the only good; experience too must be considered part of what makes life worth living.

If you struggle all your life, never learn a lesson, and ultimately fail or even die from the struggle, is that a good thing?

No, and I never said it was.

Would you rather travel to all the most war-torn parts of Africa than live out your life in the "wonderful dream-like haze" of a happy home life with a loving family?

I'm not sure why I'm being asked this question. All I said was that I'd rather travel the world than be an opium addict (for example), even though they might both induce the same amount of pleasure. Your example is completely different.

I can't think of any political or social situation where unhappiness is the goal rather than happiness.

I never said unhappiness was a goal. I said unhappiness can be as important as happiness. The pleasure machine thought experiment leads me to believe that happiness alone is less desirable than a balance of happiness and unhappiness inherent in experience. I'll call this balance "worthwhileness". So, the reason I am not strictly a utilitarian is that instead of wanting to maximise happiness, I want to maximise worthwhileness. Otherwise the ultimate ethical goal would be to plug everyone into pleasure machines, yet very few people would want this.

The best kind of life to me would be one that I could say I actually lived, involving experiences which I could write an interesting story about. It would be a mostly happy life, but it wouldn't all be happy. Some people might disagree, and they'd be entitled to. And they might lead a "happier" life plugged into a pleasure machine, but they sure as hell wouldn't have any interesting stories to tell.  

[pjkeeley]

On reflection it seems as though I've completely neglected to talk about ethics at all in my replies. As I said in my other post, I do consider myself a utilitarian to a degree, and in most cases probably wouldn't object to the utilitarian solution to an ethical problem. The only problem I have with it is that I disagree with the idea that happiness is the only measure of how good an outcome is, for reasons already stated. The other problem I have is that quantifying happiness and trying to measure it against pain can be incredibly hard.

[Loffler]

On reflection it seems as though I've completely neglected to talk about ethics at all in my replies. As I said in my other post, I do consider myself a utilitarian to a degree, and in most cases probably wouldn't object to the utilitarian solution to an ethical problem. The only problem I have with it is that I disagree with the idea that happiness is the only measure of how good an outcome is, for reasons already stated. The other problem I have is that quantifying happiness and trying to measure it against pain can be incredibly hard.

I don't think the lack of measurement is a bad thing. It keeps happiness personal, so that it's better to rely on other people's own judgment of their own happiness than on my judgment of their happiness.

Furthermore, all other ethical theories also suffer from the measurement problem, they're just clever enough to avoid calling it that. Whether deontologists like it or not, they have to decide what they'd do in the situation where a murderer is asking for the whereabouts of his potential victim. The rule against lying and rule against complicity to murder come into direct conflict, and one must weigh the value of one against the value of the other.

[Loffler]

What are hobbies but smaller, less refined versions of that pleasure machine?

Maybe, but most people like the idea of hobbies.

Then liking the idea of hobbies counts in the calculation of its worth.

Most people do not like the idea of being permanently plugged into a pleasure machine.

Then disliking the idea of pleasure machines counts in the calculation of their worth.

What is it that makes people comfortable with one idea and not the other? It's because people value pleasurable experiences over pleasure alone, even if the amount of pleasure they derive is the same.

They place compound pleasures over simple ones, as they should.

Ergo happiness is not the only good; experience too must be considered part of what makes life worth living.

I'm pretty sure a negative experience would and should be weighed against the final happiness, and negative experiences greater than the total happiness gained would and should be avoided.

If you struggle all your life, never learn a lesson, and ultimately fail or even die from the struggle, is that a good thing?

No, and I never said it was.

Well then that doesn't say much about the intrinsic value of struggle.

Would you rather travel to all the most war-torn parts of Africa than live out your life in the "wonderful dream-like haze" of a happy home life with a loving family?

I'm not sure why I'm being asked this question. All I said was that I'd rather travel the world than be an opium addict (for example), even though they might both induce the same amount of pleasure. Your example is completely different.

I'm pointing out that you're merely placing some sources of good feelings over other sources, which is itself a utilitarian calculation. There's nothing intrinsically valuable about traveling beyond actually experiencing it and what you gain from it.

I can't think of any political or social situation where unhappiness is the goal rather than happiness.

I never said unhappiness was a goal. I said unhappiness can be as important as happiness.

Even unhappiness that doesn't lead or contribute to something better in the future?

The pleasure machine thought experiment leads me to believe that happiness alone is less desirable than a balance of happiness and unhappiness inherent in experience. I'll call this balance "worthwhileness".

You consider experiences you half loved and half hated more worthwhile than experiences you completely loved? Do you plan to sabotage the second half of your honeymoon?

So, the reason I am not strictly a utilitarian is that instead of wanting to maximise happiness, I want to maximise worthwhileness. Otherwise the ultimate ethical goal would be to plug everyone into pleasure machines, yet very few people would want this.

Only due to aversion to the word "machine." Sounds cold and unloving. If you call the pleasure machine "Heaven," suddenly you've got people packed into the pews for more information on how to get there, and more devoted hopefuls flying planes into buildings for their ticket. Call the pleasure machine "retirement," and you've got nearly all of society meeting regularly with accountants to figure out how to hasten its arrival down the road. Call the pleasure machine "the Internet," and you've got losers like me wasting a perfectly sunny Sunday morning enjoying the cold, artificial contact of an online forum. All the pleasure machine illustrates to me is people's knee-jerk aversion to machines rather than their aversion to happiness.

The best kind of life to me would be one that I could say I actually lived, involving experiences which I could write an interesting story about. It would be a mostly happy life, but it wouldn't all be happy. Some people might disagree, and they'd be entitled to. And they might lead a "happier" life plugged into a pleasure machine, but they sure as hell wouldn't have any interesting stories to tell.  

You're touching on a more sophisticated pleasure machine argument, sometimes referred to as the "Family Machine." That's a machine which simulates having a close, loving family. It would allow people the experience of interpersonal fulfillment without actually interacting with any real people. This is more significant because it directly compares a "real" human experience with a fake one.

My usual response to this one is: if you met someone who had a virtual or robotic family, and he was unaware they were artificial, but they brought him immense fulfillment, and you knew for a fact he'd never find out, what would be your motivation in revealing to him the truth?

[pjkeeley]

I'm pretty sure a negative experience would and should be weighed against the final happiness, and negative experiences greater than the total happiness gained would and should be avoided.

Probably so. Would I call it a rule, and go around referring to myself as a utilitarian? No. But that's just me.

Well then that doesn't say much about the intrinsic value of struggle.

No, I just said that your example, "struggle all your life, never learn a lesson, and ultimately fail or even die from the struggle" wasn't a good thing, but I wouldn't be prepared to say for certain that a life such wasn't worth living, or if you like that that person would have been better off having never existed. I still think there is intrinsic value in experiences, including struggles. I just wouldn't say it's a good thing if the life of struggle was devoid of happiness or lessons learned. That seems to me to be a terribly sad thing.

Even unhappiness that doesn't lead or contribute to something better in the future?

Maybe. I'm not prepared to say for sure though.

Only due to aversion to the word "machine." Sounds cold and unloving. If you call the pleasure machine "Heaven," suddenly you've got people packed into the pews for more information on how to get there, and more devoted hopefuls flying planes into buildings for their ticket. Call the pleasure machine "retirement," and you've got nearly all of society meeting regularly with accountants to figure out how to hasten its arrival down the road. Call the pleasure machine "the Internet," and you've got losers like me wasting a perfectly sunny Sunday morning enjoying the cold, artificial contact of an online forum. All the pleasure machine illustrates to me is people's knee-jerk aversion to machines rather than their aversion to happiness.

No, I really don't think that's the point of the pleasure machine idea. You could call it a pleasure genie instead, or the pleasure machine could instead be a magic spell or something, it's the same deal. How about this instead: the Pleasure Rainbow? Nobody has an aversion  to rainbows. The point is that the things you mentioned aren't the same as a literal pleasure machine; pleasure isn't guaranteed (with the exception of heaven, I assume), instead they involve experiences from which we may attain pleasure but they are entirely different from being in a completely inactive state and just having pleasure induced somehow. How can you not see the difference? Even with the internet example, you are still doing things: you're looking at a screen, you're clicking a mouse, typing, thinking about the things you read or see on the screen, and so on -- you have to act in order to gain pleasure from it. Even television isn't analogous to the pleasure machine, because there's nothing intrinsically pleasurable about watching it, and you are still required to look and sometimes think, and you will eventually get bored and the pleasure will stop. The Pleasure Machine involves being inactive but receiving constant, pure pleasure for the rest of your life.

You're touching on a more sophisticated pleasure machine argument, sometimes referred to as the "Family Machine." That's a machine which simulates having a close, loving family. It would allow people the experience of interpersonal fulfillment without actually interacting with any real people. This is more significant because it directly compares a "real" human experience with a fake one.

I've never heard of it. My response would be that if you were unaware that it was simulation then it would be equivalent to the real experience, but most people given the choice would not want to simulate a family because we prefer reality over the simulation. But maybe one day people will prefer simulations over reality.  

[Loffler]

I'm pretty sure a negative experience would and should be weighed against the final happiness, and negative experiences greater than the total happiness gained would and should be avoided.

Probably so. Would I call it a rule, and go around referring to myself as a utilitarian? No. But that's just me.

Feel free to call utilitarianism whatever you wish. While you're at it, call a salmon a shoehorn.

No, I just said that your example, "struggle all your life, never learn a lesson, and ultimately fail or even die from the struggle" wasn't a good thing, but I wouldn't be prepared to say for certain that a life such wasn't worth living, or if you like that that person would have been better off having never existed. I still think there is intrinsic value in experiences, including struggles. I just wouldn't say it's a good thing if the life of struggle was devoid of happiness or lessons learned. That seems to me to be a terribly sad thing.

If struggle + benefit =  a good thing, the benefit by itself = a good thing, but the struggle by itself = a bad thing, that would suggest to me that the benefit is the whole point, while the struggle is at best the means.

No, I really don't think that's the point of the pleasure machine idea. You could call it a pleasure genie instead, or the pleasure machine could instead be a magic spell or something, it's the same deal. How about this instead: the Pleasure Rainbow? Nobody has an aversion  to rainbows. The point is that the things you mentioned aren't the same as a literal pleasure machine; pleasure isn't guaranteed (with the exception of heaven, I assume), instead they involve experiences from which we may attain pleasure but they are entirely different from being in a completely inactive state and just having pleasure induced somehow. How can you not see the difference? Even with the internet example, you are still doing things: you're looking at a screen, you're clicking a mouse, typing, thinking about the things you read or see on the screen, and so on -- you have to act in order to gain pleasure from it. Even television isn't analogous to the pleasure machine, because there's nothing intrinsically pleasurable about watching it, and you are still required to look and sometimes think, and you will eventually get bored and the pleasure will stop. The Pleasure Machine involves being inactive but receiving constant, pure pleasure for the rest of your life.

Do you find your formulation of the Pleasure Machine tempting? If not, perhaps you're not giving the dilemma its due respect. If you're just imagining a machine that gives pure, thoughtless pleasure, that's easy to refute: both you and I would find that unfulfilling, therefore it would not maximize our happiness, therefore it's not the most utilitarian option.

A machine that simulates anything you ever wanted -- I believe you mentioned a genie? -- presents a more formidable dilemma.

I've never heard of it. My response would be that if you were unaware that it was simulation then it would be equivalent to the real experience, but most people given the choice would not want to simulate a family because we prefer reality over the simulation. But maybe one day people will prefer simulations over reality.  

There are certainly situations where people are split on whether the whole truth is a good idea. Let's say you learn your mother cheated on your father years ago, and he still doesn't know. Telling your father the truth is quite similar to waking someone from a "loving family simulator" long enough to inform him of the nature of his illusory family. Your father might actually find himself wishing you'd never told him.

Neither telling the truth nor maintaining the ruse are the "correct utilitarian answer." But furthermore, neither answer is immediately evident in other ethical theories either, so I don't see this problem as unique to utilitarianism, and therefore don't recognize it as a weakness of utilitarianism.

[pjkeeley]

Feel free to call utilitarianism whatever you wish. While you're at it, call a salmon a shoehorn.

Dude, that's not what I'm saying. Stop misrepresenting me.

I'm not trying to pretend not to be a utilitarian; I'm just not one. Yes, in general I would agree, but what you said was too vague and hypothetical for me to say for certain that I would agree in every single scenario. That's my choice, I know you don't agree and you're entitled not to. But since I haven't committed myself to making utilitarianism an ethical rule by which to live, I can't exactly call myself a utilitarian can I? Nor do I want to. You can feel free to though.

If struggle + benefit = a good thing, the benefit by itself = a good thing, but the struggle by itself = a bad thing, that would suggest to me that the benefit is the whole point, while the struggle is at best the means.

This is getting abstract and the choice of language here is getting confusing. The way you've worded it makes it sound like "benefit by itself" is as good as "struggle + benefit". What is an example of "benefit by itself"? And what exactly is "struggle"? I can't really answer this without knowing what you mean.

If by "benefit by itself" you mean a scenario where you essentially get pleasure without having to do much (taking drugs, say), then I would say that is not as good a thing as "struggle + benefit", if by that you mean having to overcome challenges in order to attain pleasure. But this is way too abstract, and is exactly why I don't want to committ myself to utilitarianism or any other ethical philosophy for that matter.

The benefit is the whole point, I would agree, but what I'm saying is that you can't have benefits without some form of struggle, or they are hollow. And from what you said here it sounds as if you agree:

If you're just imagining a machine that gives pure, thoughtless pleasure, that's easy to refute: both you and I would find that unfulfilling, therefore it would not maximize our happiness, therefore it's not the most utilitarian option.

Yes, but they aren't the same thing. You can experience fulfillment without happiness and happiness without fulfillment. And that's been my objection the whole time. Perhaps your definition of "happiness" is something different; what is happiness to you? Perhaps all we are arguing over is semantics.

A machine that simulates anything you ever wanted -- I believe you mentioned a genie? -- presents a more formidable dilemma.

Returning to the last point, such a machine would be unfulfilling because there needs to be some challenges, obstacles, struggles, whatever you want to call them, in order for fulfillment of our desires to feel worthwhile. Like that saying: be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

You seem to think I think bad things are good in and of themself, but I never said that.

Do you plan to sabotage the second half of your honeymoon?

Of course not. Grow up. Just because I'm saying I want challenges in life doesn't mean I go around deliberately making things harder for myself. Most people want challenges in life, they don't sabotage themselves for it. Life is unpredictable enough as it is.

There are certainly situations where people are split on whether the whole truth is a good idea. Let's say you learn your mother cheated on your father years ago, and he still doesn't know. Telling your father the truth is quite similar to waking someone from a "loving family simulator" long enough to inform him of the nature of his illusory family. Your father might actually find himself wishing you'd never told him.

Neither telling the truth nor maintaining the ruse are the "correct utilitarian answer." But furthermore, neither answer is immediately evident in other ethical theories either, so I don't see this problem as unique to utilitarianism, and therefore don't recognize it as a weakness of utilitarianism.

Indeed; I never said it was.

[Loffler]

I started out wanting to explain utilitarianism to a non-utilitarian, but now I'm having difficulty finding a way in which you yourself aren't a utilitarian already.

Perhaps all we are arguing over is semantics.

I'm a utilitarian, so if we're only confused by semantics then you're probably a utilitarian too.

Perhaps your definition of "happiness" is something different; what is happiness to you?

Utilitarianism "happiness" includes both base pleasure and higher-faculty fulfillment, everything from sex and soft shirts all the way up to the sensation of occupying the office of the presidency or other such self-actualization. If it feels good, it counts in the utilitarian calculation.

You consider successes you had to work for more worthwhile. This is still a utilitarian calculation, as you are adding the self-esteem points of overcoming odds to the actual sensation of the success itself (Some mornings when I think I'm taking my life for granted, I spend a few minutes trying to convince myself I lost my legs 10 years ago in an accident, and that this morning they'd either grown back or I'd received donor legs. This fabricated "struggle" makes me temporarily appreciate my legs more, but I'd still prefer a decade of legs to a decade of stumps followed by a miraculous surgical reattachment).

Let me give you an example of a non-utilitarian ethical statement. Immanuel Kant believed that the most ethical actions are those which a person does completely out of duty and with zero motivation by personal self-esteem -- in other words, if you give to the poor and feel better about yourself as a result, that's not quite as moral as you could possibly be. But if you give to the poor purely out of a sense of duty to the principle of charity, and derive no pleasure or even self-congratulation from it, that's more ethical.

That is very contrary to utilitarian thought. A utilitarian would consider the self-congratulation ego boost one of the things that makes giving to the poor a good act. You're making other people's life better, and making your own life better.

Which point of view do you feel more closely resembles your point of view?

If by "benefit by itself" you mean a scenario where you essentially get pleasure without having to do much (taking drugs, say), then I would say that is not as good a thing as "struggle + benefit",

An example of "benefit" would be never getting cancer; an example of "struggle + benefit" would be battling cancer for 10 painful, expensive years, but ultimately winning. Another example of a benefit by itself would be world peace; another example of "struggle + benefit" would be World Peace after a particularly gruesome World War III. Which do you consider preferable?

[Promethium147]

I've scanned this thread, and there's a problem - no one knows what Utilitarianism is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism starts from -

Pleasure = GOOD
Pain = EVIL

- and old Plato (who no doubt got the idea elsewhere)-

The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

From there we proceed in a Logical/Empiricist, or Scientific manner.

It's called Utilitarian because - the outcome of an act determines the "moral" value (no - ETHICAL value) of the act. The measured value of the outcome = the "utility" of the act.

That makes perfect sense, but - it gets corrupted in common usage. When we rephrase it in NowSpeak, we might say - "the end justifies the means". This is viewed as "evil", somehow - but - what could POSSIBLY justify a means, other than an end?

Superstition breaks this. The religious assign an inherent value to the act, without regard for the outcome. Thus, they have means without ends; acts that do nothing, but have high Moral value, such as prayer, worship, and blind tithing - giving money to a Church while unconcerned with how the money will be used. All these DO have high value - to the Church, their Oppressor.

High negative values are placed upon acts without regard to outcome, too - such as Taking the Name in Vain, wearing lipstick, dancing, playing at cards, or Impure Thought. Who does it really hurt? Only the Authority of, say, a Church.

______________________________________________

My complaint about Utilitarianism - which is very much alive today, as American Liberalism - is that the original premises are far too simplistic.

I have been tortured, I have suffered the most intense physical and emotional pain, and I have been clinically dead, and I say - Pain can be very, very good. It is the Greatest of Teachers. That's EXACTLY what it's there for.

I have had cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and a host of others, and I say - Pleasure can be very, very bad. Pleasure can kill you, and make you kill others.

I prefer to start with -

Freedom = GOOD
Oppression = EVIL


And for once, I will not contradict Plato.

Freedom is complete Freedom to do whatsoever I will. Oppression is any effort to proscribe the Freedom of another. Since we live together, and that is best, we must each agree to limit our Freedoms such that we do not Oppress each other, OR, I do not have Freedom to limit your Freedom, and vice-versa.

A lie is a small, but key, Oppression - we try to control others with them, place false ideas in their heads that they might act upon them - to our profit. We are Using them.

Freedom of Thought is the basic Freedom - but if you tell me lies and I believe and act upon them, you have stolen this Freedom. You are the Greatest Oppressor of all - you steal my very Mind.

Lies are the most efficient tool of the Oppressor - easiest to do, biggest outcome.

Physical Force is used too, but - combined with the above, we take a few Guns and project the idea that they are everywhere. We barrage the populace with Cop Show on Boob Tube, and create the firm impression that all criminals are swiftly and brutally punished, the law always wins - NAWW, 'tain't so.

Oppressions -

LIES
THEFT
THREAT
PHYSICAL INJURY

- and let us not forget -

THREAT OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN THE AFTERLIFE

I rest my case - until you Poke me.    

[Loffler]

I have been tortured, I have suffered the most intense physical and emotional pain, and I have been clinically dead, and I say - Pain can be very, very good. It is the Greatest of Teachers. That's EXACTLY what it's there for.

The pain itself is good? Independent of anything it lead to? Do you look forward to more of that pain in the future, for the sake of the pain?

I have had cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and a host of others, and I say - Pleasure can be very, very bad. Pleasure can kill you, and make you kill others.

The pleasure itself was bad? Independent of anything it lead to? Do you fear ever experiencing similar pleasure again in the future, even if that pleasure comes from something other than drugs?