Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Any other utilitarians? Any hedonists? Deontologists? etc.?
Why utilitarianism? I once thought that utilitarianism was the best framework to follow, but I stumbled off that path when I realized that I cannot accurately measure pleasure and pain. I found that it wasn't until after I committed an act that I could even come close to measuring the pleasures and pains of a consequence. Guilt has its way of bringing to light variables that are not seen until after a decision is made.
Well, I believe that utilitarianism is the most natural...
You are right that it is hard to measure the outcome of pleasure, pain, and 'utility' beforehand, but I do believe that utilitarianism is the most functional, practical, and natural moral theory, simply because it tries to do good "for the clan," and not just for oneself (hedonism), and it also doesn't try to protect the individual (deontologism) even if it'd be better for society to not protect that individual.
I truly feel that utilitarianism is also the evolutionary answer to morals: throughout history, it was sometimes useful to sacrifice yourself or others to save your clan, and to let their genes (which were partly your genes) pass on.
Also, if you look at modern political ideologies, all of them, at least the realistic ones, are in essence utilitarian. What is best for the majority? Socialists, communists, libertarians, capitalists, anarchists, and fanatics always believe that their way is the best for the majority, even if a minority has to suffer (i.e. in socialism the rich 'suffer' since they no longer can be as rich while in capitalism the poor suffer due to social and economic inequality).
So the minority should not suffer? Is that because they can afford to have others suffer for them? Everyone should suffer alike and every form of idealism ensures that all should suffer. If it is not equal then it is certain.
Quite the contrary, what I was saying is that the majority should not suffer, even if it is at the cost of the minority.
So, for example, socialists argue that the upper classes (the minority) should suffer so that the middle and lower classes (the majority) do not. Of course, they do not want the upper classes to actually 'suffer', but the idea is to not have them be as 'happy' as they would be with all their wealth, but to distribute that wealth among the poor.
None sense. Everybody suffers, and there is nothing in ideology to prevent that. The thing is, that societies are all one boat. Each is a closed system, and this is sort of an oxymoron because all systems are closed; but if suffering is not general, then it is more extreme at one end so it can be less on another. It is not that this is not fair that offends me, but that it is destructive of the society. Sooner or later division means weakness that invites defeat from outside or revolution from within.
I don't think you grasp socialism in the least. Honors and wealth will always flow in society. If a society is to function as it should, without an expiration date, then the society should encourage innovation, and invention with rewards, but it should constantly work to achieve justice and make wealth general. Wealth does not have to become hereditary where it will become divisive. Rather, society should tax wealth while the owners are alive and redistribute wealth upon the death of its owner. Socialism is the government of resources and industry. Since these govern us if we do not govern them, we must control them as an essential factor in the quality of our environment.
*sighs*
Do you even know anything about ethics?
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory any action which increases the utility/happiness/pleasure of the majority of society is an ethical action. An action which reduces the utility/happiness/pleasure of the majority is unethical.
Almost all political systems claim to fight for the majority. As already stated, socialists want to increase the utility of the poor and lower middle class by giving higher wages to workers, providing better housing, etc. Libertarians want to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes, as well as "the individual," by increasing the economic and social rights of the individual. I could provide an example for almost every political ideology that is not based on fanatical religion.
I honestly don't care what "you think" about my knowledge of socialism or of how society should be organized.
And considering that my family lived in a socialistic nation, I do believe I 'grasp' what it is. I've studied socialist, communist, and anarchist thought quite extensively for "the average Joe." I'm more than well acquainted with left wing theories.
I was simply using socialism as an example of a utilitarian ideology.
Just to add some clarification: libertarianism has absolutely no interest in the well being of one class of people as compared to another. They do not seek "to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes". Libertarianism is concerned with the individual's rights, utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of all.
Under utilitarianism, it would be justified to ignore the rights of one individual, to make happier two individuals. Completely contrary to libertarianism.
Sure, I know the difference between Ethics and Morals. It is kind of like the difference between pagans and heathens. How about you? Do they got any ethics there in da mitten.
So what? Am I supposed to deny our common humanity for the sake of a majority? Majorities are what is wrong with our society. When people think they can run others on the basis of a simple majority the society can go to hell by halves. Right now, over fifty percent are secure, happy, educated, meditated, and medicated. What about the rest? The majority can feed on the misery of the minority, and even when that minority is effectively erased, there will be another minority, and the process will continue. If you are looking for an everybody solution then include me in.
Sir, I grew up on socialism. SLP socialism, and I would suggest you have your facts wrong. Socialist look for a democracy governing industry. Since industry rules our lives we must rule it. What does economic anarchy gain for any society but poverty, misery, waste, and war?
Well, if you are honest there is hope. Have you read das Capital?
There are no socialist nations. There are socialistic nations. It is like calling us a democracy. We are not. We are democratic. We lean toward democracy. Some countries lean toward socialism.
Socialism as a theory may seem like an ideology. Since all peoples every where came out of some form of socialism as the first organization of society, what every socialist wants to do is to recreate the past in the future. Part of the problem with this plan is that when socialism was the only form of social organization it was very much forced upon people. The level of technology was low, and enemies everywhere required of each a great deal of social control. Those who believe mankind in his so called natural state was more free are wrong. Primitives are and were much more constrained in their behavior. This did not stop them from being happy or being human. But the facts were that no one had any choice in the matter. Increased technology and wide spread law has reduced the need for socialism and all forms of cooperative efforts. The survival that once depended upon every person working together for a common goal has been assured withthe concentrated labor of only a portion of the people. So, where is the need for socialism? Think about getting any part of the people to endure socialism without their recognizing the need for it. Shall we do it for justice? If I have mine then your justice is your lookout. Shall we have it to curb waste. As long as we cannot walk accross the ocean on waste, why the worry? We will have socialism; when we have no choice. When the waste becomes too great. When the energy runs out. When to keep the economy every right is destroyed. When there becomes only masters and slaves. That is when we will have socialism; when the people consent. It cannot be forced.
[/i]
Can someone explain the difference to me please.
In other words, they mean the same thing.
Oh, I actually thought there might be a difference, so I tried to reason out what that difference would be, and this is what I came up with:
Ethics are an objective statement of beliefs about the right thing to do.
Morals are a subjective statement of beliefs about the right thing to do.
The difference being that Morals, more or less, are the way one person interprets Ethics. The word 'morals' itself seems to to have a possesive conotation, I don't know why.
But, if you all say they are the same, it sounds good to me.
-----
Fido, if you don't mind, I would like to know who coined the term. Also, as a Michigander myself, 'da' is typically meant to infer that someone is from the UP, which is the not the mitten part of Michigan. (That was typed in Jest!)
Not quite true.
Libertarians recognize that there would still be a 'lower class' which would necessarily suffer more than the rest of society.
You are right, there is a strong emphasis on individual rights, and in libertarianism you cannot simply ignore the rights of one person, but there still are economic/social 'losers' and 'winners'.