Utilitarianism

[Promethium147]

[/quote]
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?

YES - at least in the Utilitarian scheme. The pain was minor compared with the yield - which is a tremendous (and medically measured) resistance to pain; as a result, I cannot be subjugated by the threat of pain.

Here's an incident - where I had three toenails extracted with a needle nose pliers.

I was placed in a very small room (claustrophobically designed) and strapped thoroughly to a stainless steel incline table. As a further matter of psychological warfare, the torturer was an attractive female, and the assistant was a very young and attractive girl (offend the sense of Mother/Nurturer). First, the toenail is split up the middle with a scissors, beyond the cuticle to the root, lest pull out the entire nail at once disjoint the toe - we save that for later.

Then each half of the nail is ever-so-slowly extracted. I craned my neck to watch - the intention here is that I may - and it's surprising how much blood is lost.

The saving grace was - the assistant freaked, and ended by squealing in the corner, hands over face, face to the wall, chanting ohmygodohmygod.

This provided a good focus. I grunted here and there, but refused them any satisfaction - and won. The Torturer left in disgust.

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?[/quote]

Any pleasure that distracts one from reality is bad - for reality is good. Pesky Utilitarianism!

You think Pleasure is good but I say pleasure in having done good is better. Try to live by avoiding all pain - and see what happens.

Pleasure and pain cannot be isolated, one can't be appreciated without the other.    

[Loffler]

Fix your tags. Remove a slash from the first quote tag, add a slash to the second, remove the slash from the third.

YES - at least in the Utilitarian scheme. The pain was minor compared with the yield

I distinctly asked if the pain was worth it regardless of the result. That's a big cheat when arguing utilitarianism: sneaking in an end when defending the value of the means. I'm asking if the pain by itself was good, regardless of the results that followed. And here's why: what if it had been the pain without the result? And what if it had been the result without the pain? Certainly the pain alone is worse than the pain+result, and certainly the result alone is better than the pain+result.

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.

Which would make it a net bad in utilitarianism.

Any pleasure that distracts one from reality is bad - for reality is good. Pesky Utilitarianism!

Reality is good in that it is a medium for potential pleasure. Is reality good for someone who experiences nothing but suffering?

You think Pleasure is good but I say pleasure in having done good is better.

That's pleasure too. That counts. That is utilitarian.

Try to live by avoiding all pain - and see what happens.

That is just a matter of methodology. In fact, if I tried to avoid pain and ended up experiencing pain instead, only a utilitarian would call that a failure. A non-utilitarian would have to look elsewhere to gauge the success of that life, because to non-utilitarians there's nothing wrong with a life of pain.

Pleasure and pain cannot be isolated, one can't be appreciated without the other.

When I'm experiencing pleasure, I'm not excited about how much this pleasure is going to enhance my future pain.

[Promethium147]

Dearest sir:

Before I begin, let me just say - that since we disagree on nearly every point, I have decided - I love you. You are my TrUe FrIeNd.

I've wandered far to find a decent, stimulating scrap. These forums filled with people who agree and exchange SPAM recipes in one vast mental circlejerk bring me to tears.

But this is Better'n Group Sex, Dewd. Bravo, Warrior.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Fix your tags. Remove a slash from the first quote tag, add a slash to the second, remove the slash from the third.

YA, I'm a dope about that, but - haven't been here long, got eight threads across three forums Multitasque.

          YES - at least in the Utilitarian scheme. The pain was minor compared with the yield

I distinctly asked if the pain was worth it regardless of the result.

- and I was saying subtext, indistinctly, I admit - that a Utilitarian must consider the outcome vs. the cost good/evil, and this is a repeating cycle - if it gets to perfect pleasure and stops, we are literally quite dead. You seem to be defying Utilitarianism, and I won't help. But - mebbe you are playing at something else. Play I can do.

That's a big cheat when arguing utilitarianism: sneaking in an end when defending the value of the means.

- I'm sorry, but I thought that was precisely what you were doing, and I am a Mocker - trying to isolate the act per se as good or bad apart from an end, fer shame. In Ute, means are a COST. OH WAIT - what DO you mean? Utilitarianism means we assign the value of a specific act according to the value of the end less cost of means, "the end justifies the means" is how we say it nowadays (as if that's bad), Utilitarianism is about the Utility of an action regarding the achievement of an End value, cost/benefit analysis. That is called Planning. Planning is generally considered better than random action. Utilitarianism is about planning the Good.

I'm asking if the pain by itself was good, regardless of the results that followed.

OK, I admit - I cannot see the value of an act beyond the final sum - the end. ALL means have negative value - a cost. No, pain is not good in and of itself, silly. Why should one act without an end in sight - what's the motivation? And when life gives us poop, Momma said - make poop soup. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, but this was thrust upon me.

I had poop - I made soup. I have developed an uncanny knack for turning the worst situation into biggest profit, yet another fine result.

Of course, as all know, when Poop Soup is spread on the garden, we get purdy flowers n' nummy vegies abundant, plus all the little birds that sing.

 And here's why: what if it had been the pain without the result? And what if it had bee then result without the pain?

It's nice to know why - lead and I will follow, demand and I shall flick thee. I have a contentious nature.

1) If it had been the pain without the result, that would be bad - for then I could be made to comply by merest threat of force. However, I was forced - drugged, awakening bound, and made best - the very best - of it. To make it work, intellect must be applied, emotional bias avoided - it is a learning process, this means repetition, repetition - and stone cold analysis.

2) I think the result impossible without the pain. Again, it is learned - by repeated experience. Pain alone desensitizes us to pain consistently, anesthesia is not always available. If you would learn to beat pain, all by yer lonely without a fix, you must apply pain - and work with it, experiment.

Certainly the pain alone is worse than the pain+result, and certainly the result alone is better than the pain+result.

Wait a minute - how are you certain? Certainly the End without cost is best - but that's Perpetual Motion, something for nothing, effect without cause (uh, I guess God can do it, or so they say), and I don't believe in any of that - do you?

But I am "there", and you are not, and I say It is Good, (cost)Pain + Result(gain) > Pain(initial). My dad always called it Deferred Reward. You are not in any position to be certain, and I am - quite certain about Me. Again, I say the result is unobtainable without pain itself, and thus the question Moot.

Poor Moot - no one even bothers to capitalize him anymore.

         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.

Which would make it a net bad in utilitarianism.

Exactly. The Net is the point in Ute, the only point - our desired end / cost of means + end value must be >1, or we have failed - in the End.

          Any pleasure that distracts one from reality is bad - for reality is good. Pesky Utilitarianism!

Reality is good in that it is a medium for potential pleasure. Is reality good for someone who experiences nothing but suffering?

But what drives the Astrophysicist, the Biologist, the Monk, the Sage - and the Utilitarian - in common? The desire to know Truth, which is Reality, to create a consistent, coherent structure of Truth upon which we may base our action, generating only Good thereby. Such labors expended, I assume the desired End in their sights is Good (to them).

Yes, reality is the medium of pleasure, so more reality is a medium for more pleasure.

All seek what they perceive as a Good End. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot - none sought evil, they merely disagree as to what Good is. Each organism must perceive some Truth of its environment - sense it accurately - to respond appropriate to its survival; or another will, better, and displace it in evolutionary success.

The more Object Reality available to me, and means of accurate calculation, the better we thrive.

Suffering motivates us to - eliminate suffering, and It is Good, for only thus may suffering be eliminated. Reality is not suffering - it is the thing itself, that which Is. Suffering is a limited reality - and reality less anything is  - less than real. Good = Object Truth.

The experience of my suffering has given me - the ongoing experience of life without a shred of suffering or potential for suffering - which few experience, I understand. All's well that ends well, Utilitarian. It is Good.

          You think Pleasure is good but I say pleasure in having done good is better.

That's pleasure too. That counts. That is utilitarian.

That is not exactly what I said, but we generally agree. The pleasures are not equal here. I meant that the intellectual pleasure of knowing one has done good is High Pleasure, Hedone, and superior to all other pleasures. This Hedone generates good, which generates Hedone - they are same-same.

          Try to live by avoiding all pain - and see what happens.

That is just a matter of methodology.

Weel, I don't think so. I would argue that one becomes accustomed to pleasure, by whatever mechanism (methodology) of pleasure, as quickly as one becomes accustomed to pain - one is needed to experience the other, by contrast. That's our biology.

In fact, if I tried to avoid pain and ended up experiencing pain instead, only a utilitarian would call that a failure. A non-utilitarian would have to look elsewhere to gauge the success of that life, because to non-utilitarians there's nothing wrong with a life of pain.

I would *guess* that by avoiding pain excessively, one would become hypersensitized to it, and start experiencing it in many unexpected places - and suddenly, much more pain. It's about balance - but I got pain up front, and now I live in the balance. Broke the scale, I did - the cycle of birth/rebirth is done for me.

NAWW, just kiddin'. Karma is BS, ya.

         Pleasure and pain cannot be isolated, one can't be appreciated without the other.

When I'm experiencing pleasure, I'm not excited about how much this pleasure is going to enhance my future pain.

But I would argue that - you realize it as greater pleasure because of prior experience with pain. Pain feels very good - when it stops, and nothing more. You future pain will be enhanced by your pleasure now. Nerve endings work that way, as well as cerebral neurons, all nerve cells. It is just loading the receptors. Ever notice that?

A rose smells good at first, but in minutes - you can't smell roses again for some time.

You might consider it in future - calculate via Utilitarianism and project future overall cost/benefit. Don't get TOO excited, proceed with Ataraxia, like a Good Ute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been grand, but shuteye now - it's after 3:00 AM, and there are asses to kick before dawn. Tweak ya Soon,

XOXOXO,

Lucifer.

[Jolly Sapper]

Point of clarification...

I thought Hedonism was the belief that you should enjoy the pleasures that life had to offer, with the caveat that all things should be enjoyed in moderation?

I thought Utilitarianism was the belief that when making a decision, you should choose the action that leads to the greatest amount of "good" for the largest number of people?  What constitutes "good" is still open for debate.  My understanding of Utilitarianism doesn't have anything specifically do to with pleasure, pain, or how people intepret the sensations.

[Loffler]

Dearest sir:

Before I begin, let me just say - that since we disagree on nearly every point, I have decided - I love you. You are my TrUe FrIeNd.

I've wandered far to find a decent, stimulating scrap. These forums filled with people who agree and exchange SPAM recipes in one vast mental circlejerk bring me to tears.

But this is Better'n Group Sex, Dewd. Bravo, Warrior.

I like that you talk like Gary Busey.

[Loffler]

Point of clarification...

I thought Hedonism was the belief that you should enjoy the pleasures that life had to offer, with the caveat that all things should be enjoyed in moderation?

I thought Utilitarianism was the belief that when making a decision, you should choose the action that leads to the greatest amount of "good" for the largest number of people?  What constitutes "good" is still open for debate.  My understanding of Utilitarianism doesn't have anything specifically do to with pleasure, pain, or how people intepret the sensations.

The word utilitarians use is "utility," but it refers to anything positive emotion or sensation in a human being: happiness, contentment, physical pleasure, mental stimulation, sense of joy, sense of success, sense of belonging, sense of self-actualization, etc. Conversely, disutility refers to negative emotions or sensations: sadness, misery, physical pain, boredom, sense of failure, loneliness, etc.

I'm just using the word "pleasure" because that's the word Prome used and I figured it was correct enough to continue using it.

Regarding hedonists, there's not really any reason to compare or contrast them. The hedonists were a specific group of people in ancient Greece, whereas utilitarianism was an attempt to form not just an ethical system but  an ethical metasystem. It's not just a standard for judging actions, but a standard for judging the very rules of actions.

[Loffler]

- I'm sorry, but I thought that was precisely what you were doing, and I am a Mocker - trying to isolate the act per se as good or bad apart from an end, fer shame. In Ute, means are a COST. OH WAIT - what DO you mean? Utilitarianism means we assign the value of a specific act according to the value of the end less cost of means, "the end justifies the means" is how we say it nowadays (as if that's bad), Utilitarianism is about the Utility of an action regarding the achievement of an End value, cost/benefit analysis. That is called Planning. Planning is generally considered better than random action. Utilitarianism is about planning the Good.

You are exactly right about utilitarianism. And that's exactly my point. Did you forget that you were using this to criticize utilitarianism? Because instead you demonstrated it.

I had poop - I made soup. I have developed an uncanny knack for turning the worst situation into biggest profit, yet another fine result.

This talent would be extremely useful to a utilitarian.

1) If it had been the pain without the result, that would be bad - for then I could be made to comply by merest threat of force. However, I was forced - drugged, awakening bound, and made best - the very best - of it. To make it work, intellect must be applied, emotional bias avoided - it is a learning process, this means repetition, repetition - and stone cold analysis.

Would you recommend it to anybody?

2) I think the result impossible without the pain. Again, it is learned - by repeated experience. Pain alone desensitizes us to pain consistently, anesthesia is not always available. If you would learn to beat pain, all by yer lonely without a fix, you must apply pain - and work with it, experiment.

The ultimate "goal", of course, being less pain felt in the future. A utilitarian goal.

Wait a minute - how are you certain? Certainly the End without cost is best - but that's Perpetual Motion, something for nothing, effect without cause (uh, I guess God can do it, or so they say), and I don't believe in any of that - do you?

Doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is if you consider the result a plus and the pain a minus, or if you consider them both a plus. If you consider them both a plus, then you would also be willing to just take the pain by itself at some later date.

But I am "there", and you are not, and I say It is Good, (cost)Pain + Result(gain) > Pain(initial). My dad always called it Deferred Reward. You are not in any position to be certain, and I am - quite certain about Me. Again, I say the result is unobtainable without pain itself, and thus the question Moot.

Yes, moot... and without any bearing whatsoever on the validity of utilitarianism.

But what drives the Astrophysicist, the Biologist, the Monk, the Sage - and the Utilitarian - in common?

An astrophysicist, a biologist, a monk, and a sage can all be utilitarians. In fact, the astrophysicist and biologist probably already are utilitarians.

The desire to know Truth, which is Reality, to create a consistent, coherent structure of Truth upon which we may base our action, generating only Good thereby. Such labors expended, I assume the desired End in their sights is Good (to them).

You refer here to philosophy in general; utilitarianism is just ethics specifically.


I stopped responding to your post after this because I noticed we don't disagree anywhere. This is peculiar for me for two reasons because 1) you started off offering your points as counter to utilitarianism, when in fact they're not, and 2) you said at the top of the post that we disagree on nearly everything, when I don't see where we disagree at all. Your pleasure/pain symbiosis hypotheses don't conflict with utilitarianism; in fact they are very utilitarian.

[Promethium147]

Ah yes, Loffler, but I will now attack Utilitarianism - which is very, very good, but not good enough for me.

First, Utilitarianism is a Philosophy, and Scientific process is but the engine. The original propositions of Ute are all that define it, and the engine - the same one that drives every potentially valid Philosophy - pumps out a stream of conclusions.

The original propositions of Ute are:

Pain = EVIL
Pleasure = GOOD.

PLUS - "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number."

The points I oppose are the definitions of Good and Evil. I offer that they are always present, and unavoidable - but controllable, one with the other.

My starting propositions are:

Freedom = GOOD
Oppression = EVIL

- and Oppression is the attempt to constrict or proscribe my Freedom BEYOND my Freedom to Oppress. Again, balance is required, but I think there are more fruits, it is more attainable, and that Ute itself may better thrive within it via Freedom to Choose.

There is no thing that's good or ill but thinking makes it so.

OHHH, sleepy time again. I'd Like to address the Great Deluge above - later. But I say you can't avoid pain completely, so you shouldn't try to avoid it completely - and if you get some, Use It - Feel Free, or better yet - be Free.

Love, Stinkie.

[Loffler]

Freedom = GOOD
Oppression = EVIL

I consider these subsets of Utilitarianism.

Unlike "act utlitarianism," there's something called "rule utilitarianism" in which you judge specific ethical rules by the overall happiness you estimate they're likely to produce. A great example is freedom: I believe a society of free people tends to be happier overall than a society of unhappy people. So I adhere to the principle of freedom as a utilitarian rule.

[Promethium147]

I would argue the other way 'round.

After all, we have Liberalism derived of Ute, and it oppresses us by forcing Individuals to pay for freedoms for others, thus restricting their own.

We need people to motivate us to do things - but do we need people to Force us to do things? Minimal Force, yes - many are insane, battier 'n Jehovah's Witnesses.

We need protection from each other, apparently - or most believe they do.

But within Freedom, Utes may agree to play as a sub-society, and if any change their minds, they may escape into larger freedom, and seek another path, without oppression - Utes could not stop them. Liberalism expressed as taxes is difficult to escape - but I have.

Pleasure is a Good, but as Hardcore Atheist, I say freedom is highest Good. The greatest scope of Pleasures lie within it, for instance, and without restrictions on pursuing them - like, taxing them out from under me.

_________________________________________

Me tired. I've been scrapping at TREMENDOUS length with Moderator, who dislikes suggestion of improving and expanding site by doing less as I donate money. I don't get it - No, he doesn't. He will only respond by saying Trolls are Bad, and therefore should NOT be better contained (?) or ever examined, and no one, anywhere, should have option of Troll Dissection and Experimentation. He won't address proposition, makes personal accusations, shakes fist, he actually got threatening - emptily threatening. What a dope. It is a Control / Ego issue, methinks.

I then argue that OK, but I may do it to your site from here easy, and the only way to stop me is - shut down. In which case I can recreate the site, with same URL. Huh. I just wanted to ask you first. As a result of this exchange, I am now Better Motivated to do as I will.

Iconoclasts, I guess.

It is difficult to have IQ, unless very careful. One forgets that many don't.

Einstein said - "God does not play dice!" - - - Bohr said, "Stop telling God what to do!"

[Loffler]

Me tired. I've been scrapping at TREMENDOUS length with Moderator, who dislikes suggestion of improving and expanding site by doing less as I donate money. I don't get it - No, he doesn't. He will only respond by saying Trolls are Bad, and therefore should NOT be better contained (?) or ever examined, and no one, anywhere, should have option of Troll Dissection and Experimentation. He won't address proposition, makes personal accusations, shakes fist, he actually got threatening - emptily threatening. What a dope. It is a Control / Ego issue, methinks.

This is an inappropriate venue for discussing your disagreements with the mods. We're not in any position to affect the situation.

[Promethium147]

OH YES you are - you just haven't realized it yet.

It is possible to destroy this site quickly and completely - and openly - without breaking or bending a single law.

It is not my intent to do that - but to preserve it, by anticipating this simple possible attack, and installing countermeasures.

[Loffler]

OH YES you are - you just haven't realized it yet.

It is possible to destroy this site quickly and completely - and openly - without breaking or bending a single law.

It is not my intent to do that - but to preserve it, by anticipating this simple possible attack, and installing countermeasures.

So your long frenetic posts are what, spam vaccine?