Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your Objection to Utilitarianism

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 11:23:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. Ultimately the ends justify the means.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 3:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 11:23:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. Ultimately the ends justify the means.

Is that an objection or a statement. Are you saying that the ends do not justify the means?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 3:47:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 3:46:19 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:23:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. Ultimately the ends justify the means.

Is that an objection or a statement. Are you saying that the ends do not justify the means?

Yes, I thought that was implicit in my statement.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 3:48:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 3:47:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 3:46:19 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:23:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. Ultimately the ends justify the means.

Is that an objection or a statement. Are you saying that the ends do not justify the means?

Yes, I thought that was implicit in my statement.

I think it is, however not the reason why you think ends should not justify the means...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 3:49:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 3:47:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 3:46:19 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:23:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. Ultimately the ends justify the means.

Is that an objection or a statement. Are you saying that the ends do not justify the means?

Yes, I thought that was implicit in my statement.

Sorry, I am not meaning to be nit picky... just want to here the objection to that ideal.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
O: Utilitarianism commits the naturalistic fallacy. It moves from the premise:

'Pleasure/happiness is desirable'

to the conclusion -

'We (morally) ought to increase pleasure/happiness'

This is a fallacious jump from a descriptive 'is' statement to a prescriptive 'ought' statement.

In other words, why does the fact that we desire pleasure entail that pleasure has moral worth? We desire many things, but that does not ascribe them moral value.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are no higher pleasures and lower pleasures. There are just pleasures. In other words, pursuits of the mind should not be considered any more valuable than participating in a party. From a psychological standpoint, pleasure is simply dopamine flowing through the brain. Lower pleasures, as defined by Mill, simply elicit more dopamine that painting a picture or reading a book.
In conclusion, when determining utility, all pleasures/pains should be counted as equal (especially considering that not everyone responds to the same pleasures).
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 5:52:48 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
There are no higher pleasures and lower pleasures. There are just pleasures. In other words, pursuits of the mind should not be considered any more valuable than participating in a party. From a psychological standpoint, pleasure is simply dopamine flowing through the brain. Lower pleasures, as defined by Mill, simply elicit more dopamine that painting a picture or reading a book.
In conclusion, when determining utility, all pleasures/pains should be counted as equal (especially considering that not everyone responds to the same pleasures).

I do fundamentally support utilitarianism. However, i think that Mill was too concerned with making his deeds appear better that he neglected the psyche of most people.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 6:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

O. There is no moral consequence of murder. As long as it maximally benefits the whole, one can remove a member of society, for example, executing a criminally insane rapist.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:14:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objection: Utilitarianism is naive. It ignores the politicization of people's declared utility preferences because people anticipate the consequences of utilitarian judgment. People can and will lie to get what they want out of a utilitarian.

Objection #2: Utilitarianism is nice on a personal level where people are figuring out how to rationally maximize pleasure and minimize pain on their own. On a social level though, utilitarianism manipulates this "figuring" ability. It is willing to sacrifice and/or elevate the very figuring ability in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

(Put simply, utilitarianism is inferior to deontology. It's a nice start, but a mature philosopher will grow up and move on.)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 11:34:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Premiss One: Any moral system that denies the prerequisites of morality (which are the individual's life and freedom to live it) is illogical.
Premiss Two: Utilitarianism denies the prerequisites of morality.
Conclusiom: Utilitarianism is illogical.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:45:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 11:34:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Premiss One: Any moral system that denies the prerequisites of morality (which are the individual's life and freedom to live it) is illogical.
Premiss Two: Utilitarianism denies the prerequisites of morality.
Conclusiom: Utilitarianism is illogical.

Is utilitarianism actually incompatible with Objectivism? Objectivism just asserts that the "good" to be maximized by a utilitarian calculus utterly depends on whose perspective we're considering - that the standard of good for one person is not the same as the standard of good for another person - and that pleasure is not, in fact, desirable if one must violate someone's rights in the course of attaining it. Objectivism just differs in its interpretation of "utility".
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:02:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:45:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:34:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Premiss One: Any moral system that denies the prerequisites of morality (which are the individual's life and freedom to live it) is illogical.
Premiss Two: Utilitarianism denies the prerequisites of morality.
Conclusiom: Utilitarianism is illogical.

Is utilitarianism actually incompatible with Objectivism? Objectivism just asserts that the "good" to be maximized by a utilitarian calculus utterly depends on whose perspective we're considering - that the standard of good for one person is not the same as the standard of good for another person - and that pleasure is not, in fact, desirable if one must violate someone's rights in the course of attaining it. Objectivism just differs in its interpretation of "utility".

It's kind of possible to reconcile the two, but it requires a great deal of mental gymnastics. You could make an equation like as follows:

An action should be done if:

benefit to society- x > cost to society

Where "x" is an infinite value if rights are violated and is 0 otherwise, and where "benefit to society" is effectively equivalent, through some complicated defining, to "benefit to the individual making the choice" and likewise for the cost.

The thing is that even if you can technically do this, you're not really calculating "benefit to society" or "overall utility" anymore - you're just calculating "utility for the actor", which is most definitely not what anyone means when they talk about utilitarian calculus.

If you want to go even further, I would argue that utilitarianism, egoism, deontology, etc. are all virtue ethics and that the only difference between them is what they each define to be virtuous. Even if the fundamental groundwork is the same (they're all for the advancement of "the good"), the values/means within them are their distinguishing characteristics, so you can't really "reconcile" one with another without changing one to be completely different than it was.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 3:03:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:45:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:34:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Premiss One: Any moral system that denies the prerequisites of morality (which are the individual's life and freedom to live it) is illogical.
Premiss Two: Utilitarianism denies the prerequisites of morality.
Conclusiom: Utilitarianism is illogical.

Is utilitarianism actually incompatible with Objectivism? Objectivism just asserts that the "good" to be maximized by a utilitarian calculus utterly depends on whose perspective we're considering - that the standard of good for one person is not the same as the standard of good for another person - and that pleasure is not, in fact, desirable if one must violate someone's rights in the course of attaining it. Objectivism just differs in its interpretation of "utility".

There are at least 3 interpretations of "utility" I can think of right now, all denoting different forms of utilitarianism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 9:01:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
O. Utilitarianism fails to take into account rights.

The story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" details Omelas, a utopia that exists because of the suffering of a child. The ones who walk away believe the boy has a right to not suffer, even if that means Omelas is no longer a utopia.

Another example is organ harvesting. The person that is having organs harvested has a right to choose not to.

One more example is from the first Witcher video game. A witch is blamed for a wolf spirit that haunts the town. The town forms a mob to kill the witch, yet it's evident that the wolf spirit is caused by the corruption of the inhabitants of the town. You may side with the witch and kill the mob, or try to maximize unity and let the mob kill the witch. But it seems the witch has a right to live, since she's done nothing wrong.

It doesn't seem like a good moral theory if it doesn't take rights into account.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 9:05:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know it's breaking the one objection per person rule, but you should also check out the utility monster objection.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://existentialcomics.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 10:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts! I will hopefully be able to respond this weekend. Herewith I close the objection round and I will post a link to the response thread when it is done.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:35:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 9:01:48 AM, n7 wrote:
O. Utilitarianism fails to take into account rights.

The story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" details Omelas, a utopia that exists because of the suffering of a child. The ones who walk away believe the boy has a right to not suffer, even if that means Omelas is no longer a utopia.

Another example is organ harvesting. The person that is having organs harvested has a right to choose not to.

One more example is from the first Witcher video game. A witch is blamed for a wolf spirit that haunts the town. The town forms a mob to kill the witch, yet it's evident that the wolf spirit is caused by the corruption of the inhabitants of the town. You may side with the witch and kill the mob, or try to maximize unity and let the mob kill the witch. But it seems the witch has a right to live, since she's done nothing wrong.

It doesn't seem like a good moral theory if it doesn't take rights into account.

I'd agree that it is difficult to reconcile utilitarianism with the idea of rights. However, I think it's possible to make at least some provision for them. For instance, we could say that, although it is morally permissible to harvest someone's organs in order to save many lives in a vacuum, it is not morally permissible to structure society in such a way that does not punish those who do, because in the long run allowing individuals to make such judgments, and making people scared to go the doctor for fear of being harvested, would lead to a society with more suffering overall.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:49:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:35:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 9:01:48 AM, n7 wrote:
O. Utilitarianism fails to take into account rights.

The story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" details Omelas, a utopia that exists because of the suffering of a child. The ones who walk away believe the boy has a right to not suffer, even if that means Omelas is no longer a utopia.

Another example is organ harvesting. The person that is having organs harvested has a right to choose not to.

One more example is from the first Witcher video game. A witch is blamed for a wolf spirit that haunts the town. The town forms a mob to kill the witch, yet it's evident that the wolf spirit is caused by the corruption of the inhabitants of the town. You may side with the witch and kill the mob, or try to maximize unity and let the mob kill the witch. But it seems the witch has a right to live, since she's done nothing wrong.

It doesn't seem like a good moral theory if it doesn't take rights into account.

I'd agree that it is difficult to reconcile utilitarianism with the idea of rights. However, I think it's possible to make at least some provision for them. For instance, we could say that, although it is morally permissible to harvest someone's organs in order to save many lives in a vacuum, it is not morally permissible to structure society in such a way that does not punish those who do, because in the long run allowing individuals to make such judgments, and making people scared to go the doctor for fear of being harvested, would lead to a society with more suffering overall.

Rule Utilitarianism just collapses into Act. It's not any different in its results. If you believe in the absolute inviolability of rights, then you can't support a system that allows for exceptions to be made "for the greater good", like Utilitarianism.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 1:51:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

A moral standard that cannot be applied is useless. A moral system that can only be vaguely applied (thinking in Utilitarian terms rather than actually following util to a T) allows contradictions.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:51:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

A moral standard that cannot be applied is useless. A moral system that can only be vaguely applied (thinking in Utilitarian terms rather than actually following util to a T) allows contradictions.

It can be applied.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

How so? Moral standards only work if they are applicable to the decisions we make. The whole point of moral standards is that they determine the morality of a specific action. I can define "An action is moral if it satisfies Roger B. Taney's ghost" as a moral standard, but it's never applicable, making it a terrible moral standard.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:27:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:24:49 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

How so? Moral standards only work if they are applicable to the decisions we make. The whole point of moral standards is that they determine the morality of a specific action. I can define "An action is moral if it satisfies Roger B. Taney's ghost" as a moral standard, but it's never applicable, making it a terrible moral standard.

In this usage, standard simply means "ultimate goal". The ultimate goal, according to utilitarianism, is to maximize utility. What that means, and how to achieve it, is another matter entirely.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:27:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:24:49 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

How so? Moral standards only work if they are applicable to the decisions we make. The whole point of moral standards is that they determine the morality of a specific action. I can define "An action is moral if it satisfies Roger B. Taney's ghost" as a moral standard, but it's never applicable, making it a terrible moral standard.

In this usage, standard simply means "ultimate goal". The ultimate goal, according to utilitarianism, is to maximize utility. What that means, and how to achieve it, is another matter entirely.

The whole point of having an ultimate goal is that you can measure how your actions contribute to it. If that's impossible, you need to get a better goal. Or just abandon morality entirely.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2015 2:40:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/14/2015 2:27:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 2:24:49 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/14/2015 1:21:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/14/2015 12:51:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 9:10:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2015 4:38:16 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 5/13/2015 11:04:52 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Hello people of DDO!
Recently I started working out my own version of utilitarianism following the works of B. Gesang. I hope this version can counter some of the typical arguments against utilitarianism (U) and to test it I want to see how it would answer to several scenarios.

Outline
1. please post your number one objection (O) to U in this thread.
2. I will collect the first 10-15 and start a separate thread where I will give my answer to them.
3. I will only count one O per person.
4. I will not engage in religious debates.
5. If some Os are similar to each other I will answer them collectively and count them as one.
6. If someone reveals a major error in my thinking I will scrap this theory.

Thanks to all who participate and help me improve this project!

Objection: Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, which means that we must consider infinitely many possible effects of every action, making it impossible to use.

We only have to do that if we want to be certain that a given course of action is the best available to us. But we don't need to do that in order to think in utilitarian terms.

Ah, but the whole purpose of having a system of morality to began with is that we can use it to weigh the morality of two choices.

The point is that utilitarianism, although difficult to apply, can always serve as a moral standard.

How so? Moral standards only work if they are applicable to the decisions we make. The whole point of moral standards is that they determine the morality of a specific action. I can define "An action is moral if it satisfies Roger B. Taney's ghost" as a moral standard, but it's never applicable, making it a terrible moral standard.

In this usage, standard simply means "ultimate goal". The ultimate goal, according to utilitarianism, is to maximize utility. What that means, and how to achieve it, is another matter entirely.

If you can't ever define what "utility" is, then the standard is inapplicable...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz