6 replies to this topic

[Acheron]

Discuss your opinion on the subject. Should it be the only factor in deciding policies? Should it be a factor at all?

And how does the measurability of value work, contribution to your local community, taxes paid annually?

I'm interested to hear from the forum.

[jaredennisclark]

I'm not sure what direction you're bringing this in, but one of the glaring problems with philosophical Utilitarianism for me (as espoused by the likes of Peter Singer), was its inability to rigorously define what exactly is to be meant by the term 'pleasure'.

Edited by jaredennisclark, 15 December 2010 - 01:52 AM.

[redlion]

Discuss your opinion on the subject. Should it be the only factor in deciding policies? Should it be a factor at all?

And how does the measurability of value work, contribution to your local community, taxes paid annually?

I'm interested to hear from the forum.

Biggest problem - how do you normalize the measure of pleasure? It's subjective in the worst way, and most experiences are unique if only because of the person experiencing them. Utils are the most contrived jargon I've ever heard of, and they're less useful than the redundant Celsius and Fahrenheit, which at least have respective strengths to their use.

I'm not sure what direction you're bringing this in, but one of the glaring problems with philosophical Utilitarianism for me (as espoused by the likes of Peter Singer), was its inability to rigorously define what exactly is to be meant by the term 'pleasure'.

There are a couple types of utilitarianism. Singer is only fooling himself. Just read from his wikipedia page:
"He has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests or the most satisfied interests among those beings who already exist prior to the decision one is making. The second edition of Practical Ethics disavows the first edition's suggestion that the total and prior-existence views should be combined. The second edition asserts that preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, incorporating the 'journey' model, applies without invoking the first edition's suggestion about the total view. But the details are fuzzy and Singer admits that he is "not entirely satisfied" with his treatment." He can't even decide if we should weigh our decisions by the affects on those now living, or the affects on future generations as well. Wouldn't the answer obviously depend on the question? Not to utilitarians. For rule-utilitarians, every action has a theoretical rule to determine when that action is acceptable. But generalizing between acting for the present and acting for the future is over-simplification.

I hate modern utilitarians because they're stuck in an outdated ideology. They remind me of the catholic church in Galileo's time (interesting parallel actually) in that they are convinced their model is right because it has a history of a strong following. The idea that the greatest good is always that which amounts to the greatest pleasure is, frankly, a little childish. Hedonism is as old as the sun, that's no founding principle for a government or personal lifestyle. Of course I know that pleasure has many meanings, and more modern utilitarians might use fulfillment instead of happiness or pleasure, but the change is arbitrary. It is irrational to expect that individuals will willingly sacrifice themselves to do the greatest good, when that very often means putting their own personal pleasure, fulfillment and happiness in limbo.

Further quotes from wikipedia, sourced to his book Practical ethics offer valuable grounds for critiques: "Practical Ethics includes a chapter arguing for the redistribution of wealth to ameliorate absolute poverty (Chapter 8, "Rich and Poor"), and another making a case for resettlement of refugees on a large scale in industrialised countries (Chapter 9, "Insiders and Outsiders")." What conception of justice involves resettling refugees thousands of miles from their homes? I'm pretty sure the Palestinians in southern Lebanon are there because it's as close as they can be to home. As to the former chapter, that's verging on communism (dirty word, I know) believing that poverty is about money when it's really about the inequality of labor training and merit-based incentives to grow.

[Frizzle]

tl;dr

simplfiy please

[Ment0r]

tl;dr

simplfiy please

The debate forums aren't meant for people who don't take the time to read things.


TL;DR.

[redlion]

The debate forums aren't meant for people who don't take the time to read things.


TL;DR.

Frizzle just wants other people to do the work of interpreting for him. Plus he likes to get under my skin. I guess my post was kind of... messy. I could have organized it a little better, instead of quoting a wikipedia page. But still you're right, TL;DR isn't applicable in the debate section. If you CBA lee, you CBA to post.

[Frizzle]

The debate forums aren't meant for people who don't take the time to read things.


TL;DR.

Good reponse in a debate thread. I will be taking advice from you now on.

Frizzle just wants other people to do the work of interpreting for him. Plus he likes to get under my skin. I guess my post was kind of... messy. I could have organized it a little better, instead of quoting a wikipedia page. But still you're right, TL;DR isn't applicable in the debate section. If you CBA lee, you CBA to post.

Don't post debates if you cba to reply.