Utilitarianism is Objectively Valid: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Utilitarianism is Objectively Valid » Utilitarianism is Objectively Valid

Utilitarianism is Objectively Valid

Page: 1 2 3 4

Utilitarianism is Objectively Valid

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 10/25/09 - 02:48 PM:	#31
I think a large majority of Utilitarianisms problems come from a fundamental misunderstanding of happiness. Happiness is relative to the person. That being said general moral statements are then contingent on those relative relations. Forcing an hydrophobic person into a swimming pool would be immoral, where as forcing an hyrdophilic person into a pool would be moral(Stipulating that neither individual is made unhappy by being forced, this is a real rarity in our time).
Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 617

Posted 11/02/09 - 10:01 PM:	#32
Odin wrote: Not really, because my own pleasure is not my motivation to act morally and it is also not how I derive morality. I use science and reasoning to determine an objective morality. But its true that there's really no reason that I should surrender my own happiness when it is earned by my good deeds and my virtues. I'll also point out, though it sounds kinda corny, that your happiness can not be achieved by anyone but yourself. Happiness is the result, not the motive of your actions, that means that there is a separate moral standard. Happiness cannot tell us how to act, it can only evaluate how we have acted. While I see the distinction between happiness as a motive and happiness as an end, I do not see them as mutually exclusive. Certainly there are many people who do things because they think it will make them happy. (some) women have children; (some) people strive to earn a lot of money; (some) wrap themselves in their work; (some) people go on long vacations. While people may do these things for any number of reasons, the section of people that pertains to this thread, are those that do these things because they want to be happy. And sometimes, they wind-up being happy because they act in this manner. When it comes to morality, I would say that personally, I would not subscribe to the GHP for a host of reasons that go along the lines of what you are saying; however, I recognize that these reasons still have nothing to do with whether or not Utilitarinianism is Objectively valid. You say that you use science to determine morality (and I am not sure how that is possible), but isn't that a lot like using a squirrel to gamble. What does science have to do with morality, aside from the creation of moral dilemmas? Do you think it possible to empirically prove moral standards? This questions comes from curiosity, for I see many problems with this notion, and I am not quite sure how one would go about proving that one thing is actually moral and another is not. You also say you use reasoning to determine objective morality, but is it not the case that reasoning is in constant flux, swaying with opinions in nearly every subject in which it is involved? The reason I make these points is that Utilitarianism, though you may disagree with its tenets, came about through using reasoning, and while there is no doubt that there may be problems with the reasoning behind it, it does not seem proper to discard it as being completely irrational. Odin wrote: They are just not the same and the first is not derived from the second. In the second you are talking about an arbitrary, subjective feeling, while in the first you are talking about an instrintic good and evil. Sorry, but if we accept the greatest happiness principle, then what causes one to be happy (or Good 2) actually is what is moral (Good 1). I do not see how you can force these two to be separate in a discussion concerning Utilitarianism as GHP is the basis of Utilitarianism. That is much like discussing Science and denying the validity of Induction; it simply cannot be done. Odin wrote: And I won't just assume a 'greatest happiness' principle. Science says otherwise. Why would humans evolve to have these feelings of happiness and painfulness? To make us moral people? Would certain actions still be wrong if humans were not a species that could feel happiness? Good questions. You should leave them as rhetorical. Odin wrote: Humans evolved to have a desire for happiness in the same way we evolved with a desire to drink. We have a desire to do what is morally right because it is best for the survival of the species. Now that's not to equate 'survival of the species' and morality, simply to say that morality is what tends to result in survival. Happiness is only an incentive for us to do what is right, but it can also lead us to do things that are morally repugnant, and that is where humans, being a rational animal, are meant to use their reason to temper their instints in order to be moral. It seems like you are arguing against hedonism, not necessarily GHP. If the answer to every moral question were really as simple as attaining the survival of the species (which may not be so simple), then the debate would be short and sweet. Abortion: immoral; Cloning: moral; Homosexuality: immoral; Promiscuity: moral. But for you to claim that "morality tend to result in survival" makes it seem like you already know what is moral. I would say that morality is more the result of a species that has already survived and has reached a point where the "kill or be killed" version of morality has been transcended. The great thing about GHP is that it encourages to think of Happiness for ALL people, not merely individuals. The "morally repugnant" things that people do in the name of happiness are perhaps not done in the name of GHP, but rather personal pleasure. Thus, GHP used in a rational way ultimately does result in "humans, being a rational animal, are meant to use their reason to temper their instints in order to be moral." Of course, I have numerous objections to your framing of the debate from your assumption that Objective morality exists all the way through to your denying of human instincts, your assumption that humans are "meant" for something specific, etc. But I am reserving those only so that we can keep the debate focused on the Objective validity of Utilitarianism.

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 11/03/09 - 12:02 AM:	#33
Happiness is the sign that things are going right for us. That the needs/desires (certainly not identical, but that's a different discussion) are fulfilled. The question is to identify those needs and find the best way to answer them. There seems to be some confusion between needs and the means to fulfill them. Zum beispiel: People are lead to believe that consumerism will fulfill their needs - which is true only to a certain degree, and it is certainly not the best way (economically, ecologically, socially) to achieve it. We don't need all that 'stuff', we're just buying it because you think it's the easiest way to meet our needs/desires.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 11/03/09 - 12:48 AM:	#34
Question: A devious sprite grants you one wish. You know that the sprite is bound by unbreakable laws to grant your wish, but that he will do everything possible to avoid the result being what you expected. What can you wish for that the sprite cannot ruin? Answer: Happiness. OK, but perhaps that's like wishing for the correct answer to a sum. Of course we want the answer to the sum to be, whatever the answer is, correct. But knowing that we want the correct answer tells us nothing about what the answer is. So knowing that we ought to aim for maximal happiness does not tell us whether we would achieve that through, for example, everyone getting what they deserve for their prior actions or everyone getting what they require for their future needs or some combination or something else. Are happiness and pleasure the same? The sprite might make us constantly uncomfortable and yet claim we are happy by fulfilling some morally high purpose. It could be just our luck to get a sprite with that medieval kind of attitude. To prove him wrong we might object that we are not happy and that our happiness lies in pleasure and that whilst we are displeased we are not happy. But he might shrug and say we are begging the question.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.