Merits of Utilitarianism

[Ladratia]

For those who don't actively follow nerdy philosophical papers, utilitarianism is the idea that (for one reason or another) the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain are the ultimate goals for all logical beings to strive for. Wanted to see if I could start a discussion to try and convince others of its awesomeness and implications beyond obscure hypothetical scenarios, usually involving trains and homicide in some shape or form.

[Ladratia]

For those who don't actively follow nerdy philosophical papers, utilitarianism is the idea that (for one reason or another) the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain are the ultimate goals for all logical beings to strive for. Wanted to see if I could start a discussion to try and convince others of its awesomeness and implications beyond obscure hypothetical scenarios, usually involving trains and homicide in some shape or form.

I could also turn it into some regional discussion in Carcassonne if this starts rollin'.

[Durius]

It's not exactly awesome. I would actually be very afraid of interacting with people who fanatically applied those ethics. Maybe an AI could be trained to behave always in the most utilitarianist way, but I actually expect people to be a bit more flexible on their way of thinking. For me, like most if not all ethical philosophies, utilitarism is not useful to analyze certain situations and explore different points of view, but it should not be used a rule of conduct.

[Ladratia]

It's not exactly awesome. I would actually be very afraid of interacting with people who fanatically applied those ethics. Maybe an AI could be trained to behave always in the most utilitarianist way, but I actually expect people to be a bit more flexible on their way of thinking. For me, like most if not all ethical philosophies, utilitarism is not useful to analyze certain situations and explore different points of view, but it should not be used a rule of conduct.

Afraid? If you're hanging out with a case-by-case utilitarian you should be, but not someone thinking reasonably. I'm not gonna run around ripping people's organs out and redistributing them to those who need them, because that would undoubtedly cause more pain and fear over time. If not utilitarian philosophy, how do you justify most actions? Vibes?

[Durius]

It's not exactly awesome. I would actually be very afraid of interacting with people who fanatically applied those ethics. Maybe an AI could be trained to behave always in the most utilitarianist way, but I actually expect people to be a bit more flexible on their way of thinking. For me, like most if not all ethical philosophies, utilitarism is not useful to analyze certain situations and explore different points of view, but it should not be used a rule of conduct.

Afraid? If you're hanging out with a case-by-case utilitarian you should be, but not someone thinking reasonably. I'm not gonna run around ripping people's organs out and redistributing them to those who need them, because that would undoubtedly cause more pain and fear over time. If not utilitarian philosophy, how do you justify most actions? Vibes?

If human nature without hyperrationalization was enough for society to form and exist for thousands of years, I don't see why I need an AI dictating me what actions should I take to optimize a function of maximum societal happiness. Furthermore, I do respect my own survival instincts enough that I wouldn't in several instances prioritize societal happiness over my well-being. Of course, I can't claim either that I wouldn't sometimes sacrifice myself for some greater good, but I certainly don't make that a rule.

[East African Federation 2022RP]

One of the main problems is: how are you going to know what creates the most happiness? Also, how do you measure happiness?

[Technoscience Leftwing]

* Utilitarianism, that is, the pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, is, in my opinion, an infallible compass for a politician.
* There are bourgeois and socialist varieties of utilitarianism. In the bourgeois interpretation, each firm must improve its product within the framework of competition, and this will lead to the common good. Socialists criticized this interpretation, since competition leads to the rise of a handful of monopolies and the ruin of the rest to the level of paupers. Socialists proposed a different interpretation: a socialist party should lead to the common good, relying on state property, supplemented by the work of enthusiastic volunteers, enthusiastic creators within the framework of copyleft, and (in the transition period) small private firms and individual entrepreneurs.
* Leon Trotsky wrote in his article “Their Morality and Ours” that the morality of socialists is based on the principle “what is moral is what leads to the common good.”
* It should be remembered that people are different: one person will enjoy a green T-shirt and another a blue one, one person will enjoy listening to music and another will enjoy composing it, etc. Routine and hard work does not make anyone happy and should be automated. Moving in this direction, creating many subcultural niches for the joy of different types of people, relying on technology, and achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

[ARIsyan-]

Freedom to experience happiness in a way that doesn't infringe on other people's rights is the best way to apply this, given that there is no one consistent thing that makes everyone happy

[Ladratia]

One of the main problems is: how are you going to know what creates the most happiness? Also, how do you measure happiness?

Simple answer: Listen to people and statistics. You can't really measure emotions well, you're right, but you should still give it an attempt. For example, if you wanted to decide your opinion on mandatory organ harvesting following death, you could try to weigh the massive benefits of more people being saved by organ transplant without needing to rely as much on donors, while factoring in any risks you may face.

Weird analogy answer I just made up on the spot that probably doesn't make much sense:
Think of abstract emotion based decisions like the color spectrum, and the right answer is a specific color you're looking for. If I presented you with two options, or colors, you might be able to pick pretty easily in some cases. Like if you wanted to pick the more red color and I showed you blue and light red, you'd know what to pick. But if I showed y'all two really similar colors like cyan or turquoise then you might have some difficulty, like if you needed to vote for one of two candidates you really liked. In these tough cases, debate with others and speak to people qualified on the subject.

Tell me if any of my responses made sense and weren't just rambling...

* Utilitarianism, that is, the pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, is, in my opinion, an infallible compass for a politician.
* There are bourgeois and socialist varieties of utilitarianism. In the bourgeois interpretation, each firm must improve its product within the framework of competition, and this will lead to the common good. Socialists criticized this interpretation, since competition leads to the rise of a handful of monopolies and the ruin of the rest to the level of paupers. Socialists proposed a different interpretation: a socialist party should lead to the common good, relying on state property, supplemented by the work of enthusiastic volunteers, enthusiastic creators within the framework of copyleft, and (in the transition period) small private firms and individual entrepreneurs.
* Leon Trotsky wrote in his article “Their Morality and Ours” that the morality of socialists is based on the principle “what is moral is what leads to the common good.”
* It should be remembered that people are different: one person will enjoy a green T-shirt and another a blue one, one person will enjoy listening to music and another will enjoy composing it, etc. Routine and hard work does not make anyone happy and should be automated. Moving in this direction, creating many subcultural niches for the joy of different types of people, relying on technology, and achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

This. Absolutely this. I'm not the biggest proponent of socialism, but I share your philosophical ideas all the way.

Freedom to experience happiness in a way that doesn't infringe on other people's rights is the best way to apply this, given that there is no one consistent thing that makes everyone happy

I agree with that... mostly... but there are certain policies which could help people experience happiness that may interfere with their freedom a tad.

[East African Federation 2022RP]

One of the main problems is: how are you going to know what creates the most happiness? Also, how do you measure happiness?

Simple answer: Listen to people and statistics. You can't really measure emotions well, you're right, but you should still give it an attempt. For example, if you wanted to decide your opinion on mandatory organ harvesting following death, you could try to weigh the massive benefits of more people being saved by organ transplant without needing to rely as much on donors, while factoring in any risks you may face.

Weird analogy answer I just made up on the spot that probably doesn't make much sense:
Think of abstract emotion based decisions like the color spectrum, and the right answer is a specific color you're looking for. If I presented you with two options, or colors, you might be able to pick pretty easily in some cases. Like if you wanted to pick the more red color and I showed you blue and light red, you'd know what to pick. But if I showed y'all two really similar colors like cyan or turquoise then you might have some difficulty, like if you needed to vote for one of two candidates you really liked. In these tough cases, debate with others and speak to people qualified on the subject.

Tell me if any of my responses made sense and weren't just rambling...

* Utilitarianism, that is, the pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, is, in my opinion, an infallible compass for a politician.
* There are bourgeois and socialist varieties of utilitarianism. In the bourgeois interpretation, each firm must improve its product within the framework of competition, and this will lead to the common good. Socialists criticized this interpretation, since competition leads to the rise of a handful of monopolies and the ruin of the rest to the level of paupers. Socialists proposed a different interpretation: a socialist party should lead to the common good, relying on state property, supplemented by the work of enthusiastic volunteers, enthusiastic creators within the framework of copyleft, and (in the transition period) small private firms and individual entrepreneurs.
* Leon Trotsky wrote in his article “Their Morality and Ours” that the morality of socialists is based on the principle “what is moral is what leads to the common good.”
* It should be remembered that people are different: one person will enjoy a green T-shirt and another a blue one, one person will enjoy listening to music and another will enjoy composing it, etc. Routine and hard work does not make anyone happy and should be automated. Moving in this direction, creating many subcultural niches for the joy of different types of people, relying on technology, and achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

This. Absolutely this. I'm not the biggest proponent of socialism, but I share your philosophical ideas all the way.

I get you, but what if compulsory harvesting organs led to you being voted out so that you cannot improve people’s lives anymore, in total creating less happiness? Tiny unforeseen consequences can bring the whole utilitarian dream to a stop

[Ladratia]

just snipping this down a tad to prevent it from getting too long

Yes, you're right. Does that mean utilitarianism in itself is flawed? No. Applying utilitarian ethics may not always lead to the best thing, but that's the fault of the person applying them (because humans can't always think of every single thing) or sheer chance. Just because making decisions in a certain way can end badly sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't use said principles.

[East African Federation 2022RP]

just snipping this down a tad to prevent it from getting too long

Yes, you're right. Does that mean utilitarianism in itself is flawed? No. Applying utilitarian ethics may not always lead to the best thing, but that's the fault of the person applying them or sheer chance. Just because making decisions in a certain way can end badly sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't use said principles.

In principle utilitarianism is great, but so is communism and all the other ideologies. It’s what can be put into practice that matters

[Fort Viorlia]

straight outa a futuristic dystopian movie.
also nice to see ya again, lassratia.

[Goofy Movie]

Utilitu costas de moneyi soo is kinde bed bu we communist is lik fee yes !

[Ladratia]

Yes, you're right. Does that mean utilitarianism in itself is flawed? No. Applying utilitarian ethics may not always lead to the best thing, but that's the fault of the person applying them or sheer chance. Just because making decisions in a certain way can end badly sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't use said principles.

In principle utilitarianism is great, but so is communism and all the other ideologies. It’s what can be put into practice that matters

I just wrote like a bunch of crap only to realize I could have said it in just one sentence:
You can't say utilitarianism is good in principle but bad in practice since it's not telling you how to practice it, simply what the goal of your actions should be.

Original crap: I'm not trying to strawman you so tell me if I'm accidentally doing that. Would you rather we go off of obscure values to decide our decisions? If so, please read this: In principle it's great, but utilitarianism itself says nothing about how it's put into practice. Maybe not following utilitarian "calculus" and instead opting for tradition or freedom is accidentally the utilitarian best possible option.

[Ladratia]

straight outa a futuristic dystopian movie.
also nice to see ya again, lassratia.

Nice to see you as well, uh, urgh... struggles to think of pun on Fort Viorlia

[East African Federation 2022RP]

In principle utilitarianism is great, but so is communism and all the other ideologies. It’s what can be put into practice that matters

I just wrote like a bunch of crap only to realize I could have said it in just one sentence:
You can't say utilitarianism is good in principle but bad in practice since it's not telling you how to practice it, simply what the goal of your actions should be.

Original crap: I'm not trying to strawman you so tell me if I'm accidentally doing that. Would you rather we go off of obscure values to decide our decisions? If so, please read this: In principle it's great, but utilitarianism itself says nothing about how it's put into practice. Maybe not following utilitarian "calculus" and instead opting for tradition or freedom is accidentally the utilitarian best possible option.

What’s the point of a philosophy if you cannot put it into practice or apply it?

[Ladratia]

I just wrote like a bunch of crap only to realize I could have said it in just one sentence:
You can't say utilitarianism is good in principle but bad in practice since it's not telling you how to practice it, simply what the goal of your actions should be.

Original crap: I'm not trying to strawman you so tell me if I'm accidentally doing that. Would you rather we go off of obscure values to decide our decisions? If so, please read this: In principle it's great, but utilitarianism itself says nothing about how it's put into practice. Maybe not following utilitarian "calculus" and instead opting for tradition or freedom is accidentally the utilitarian best possible option.

What’s the point of a philosophy if you cannot put it into practice or apply it?

There is no point, but this discussion is not on how to practice utilitarianism, though it can be practiced by simply talking with experts and weighing some pros and cons, but whether or not the philosophy itself is flawed in some way.

[Russian Kaiser]

For those who don't actively follow nerdy philosophical papers, utilitarianism is the idea that (for one reason or another) the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain are the ultimate goals for all logical beings to strive for. Wanted to see if I could start a discussion to try and convince others of its awesomeness and implications beyond obscure hypothetical scenarios, usually involving trains and homicide in some shape or form.

On paper this sounds amazing but in effect it will probably fail as bad as communism.

[Ladratia]

For those who don't actively follow nerdy philosophical papers, utilitarianism is the idea that (for one reason or another) the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain are the ultimate goals for all logical beings to strive for. Wanted to see if I could start a discussion to try and convince others of its awesomeness and implications beyond obscure hypothetical scenarios, usually involving trains and homicide in some shape or form.

On paper this sounds amazing but in effect it will probably fail as bad as communism.

Read my above messages. How can weighing pros and cons and debating lead to fail most of the time?

[East African Federation 2022RP]

What’s the point of a philosophy if you cannot put it into practice or apply it?

There is no point, but this discussion is not on how to practice utilitarianism, though it can be practiced by simply talking with experts and weighing some pros and cons, but whether or not the philosophy itself is flawed in some way.

I mean other than the lack of knowledge of what will make the most happiness and the lack of a measurement for happiness, not much.

[Russian Kaiser]

On paper this sounds amazing but in effect it will probably fail as bad as communism.

Read my above messages. How can weighing pros and cons and debating lead to fail most of the time?

oh, my bad

[Jurvoska]

All I gotta say is that if utilitarianism is the belief that all beings should focus on complete happiness, wouldn't happiness for one and another be conflicting each other? What I'm saying is if one thing for a person brings joy but it brings the opposite to another person, what then? Only one person would be happy. Or, is this a belief that a being should focus complete happiness for themselves? That would just bring alot more terrible things. Applying this belief to a criminal or any horrible person, they should do anything that makes them happy. You see what I'm saying? Feels like this way of thinking, all though good intentions, would bring more bad than good.

[East African Federation 2022RP]

There is no point, but this discussion is not on how to practice utilitarianism, though it can be practiced by simply talking with experts and weighing some pros and cons, but whether or not the philosophy itself is flawed in some way.

I mean other than the lack of knowledge of what will make the most happiness and the lack of a measurement for happiness, not much.

Also what Jurvoska said

[Ladratia]

There is no point, but this discussion is not on how to practice utilitarianism, though it can be practiced by simply talking with experts and weighing some pros and cons, but whether or not the philosophy itself is flawed in some way.

I mean other than the lack of knowledge of what will make the most happiness and the lack of a measurement for happiness, not much.

The answers to all questions aren't always clear and we don't need to have a measurement for general positive emotion to try to follow utilitarianism.