Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:31-53|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian zoning

Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:49:01 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.

John Rawls, I know who he is, that's all.

Explain.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:51:58 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 2:49:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.

John Rawls, I know who he is, that's all.

Explain.

Explain to me what you think utilitarianism means.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 2:51:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:49:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.

John Rawls, I know who he is, that's all.

Explain.

Explain to me what you think utilitarianism means.*

*and what socialism means.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:55:13 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:51:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 12:53:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

You do realize that the notion of a government having a "duty" to anyone is a moral statement, and that the further assertion that its duty is to "the people" is just an implicit acceptance of utilitarianism, right?

No, it's whatever moral stance democracy dictates, whether it be communism or nationalistic fronts that all it is.

The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.

Democracy is so contradictory to libertarian theory it's not that surprising so may are anarchist. The states "duty" is whatever the electorate say, cody;

According to democratic theory, anyway.

faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

That isn't necessarily true.
...

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism.

Contradiction. If a government is authoritarian, it isn't minimal or non-interventionist, and vice-versa.
I can be minimal interventionist in regards to modern governments. I can't, as you said, be noninterventionist but I never meant for you take it verbatim like you did which is why I added "minimal interventionist".

A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

If a government does that, it isn't authoritarian.
Freedom not complete perfect freedom, as there would be a law. See Milton Friedman's limited government.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:01:19 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 2:52:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:51:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:49:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.

John Rawls, I know who he is, that's all.

Explain.

Explain to me what you think utilitarianism means.*

*and what socialism means.

utilitarianism - maintaining universal utility, happiness.
(Freedom is a means to happiness and doesn't result in happiness in itself)

socialism - various philosophies relating to collective economics via partial or complete state ownership of capital or industry.

I see where this is leading.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:02:47 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 2:55:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:51:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

That isn't necessarily true.
...

I'll show ya.

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism.

Contradiction. If a government is authoritarian, it isn't minimal or non-interventionist, and vice-versa.
I can be minimal interventionist in regards to modern governments. I can't, as you said, be noninterventionist but I never meant for you take it verbatim like you did which is why I added "minimal interventionist".

If you didn't mean it verbatim, why would you have said it that way, I wonder...?

Anyhow, modern governments aren't authoritarian (for the most part).

A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

If a government does that, it isn't authoritarian.
Freedom not complete perfect freedom, as there would be a law. See Milton Friedman's limited government.

No, you said complete perfect freedom.

government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

perfect freedom

perfect freedom
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:04:31 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:01:19 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:52:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:51:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:49:01 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:52:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.

He's never read Rawls, I guess.

John Rawls, I know who he is, that's all.

Explain.

Explain to me what you think utilitarianism means.*

*and what socialism means.

utilitarianism - maintaining universal utility, happiness.
(Freedom is a means to happiness and doesn't result in happiness in itself)

That doesn't explain what the philosophy of utility actually means.

socialism - various philosophies relating to collective economics via partial or complete state ownership of capital or industry.

"Various philosophies"? I don't think so. In the sense you mean it, what are you intending?

I see where this is leading.

Like a man on a plane which is about to plunge into the ocean.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:10:14 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:02:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:55:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:51:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

That isn't necessarily true.
...

I'll show ya.

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism.

Contradiction. If a government is authoritarian, it isn't minimal or non-interventionist, and vice-versa.
I can be minimal interventionist in regards to modern governments. I can't, as you said, be noninterventionist but I never meant for you take it verbatim like you did which is why I added "minimal interventionist".

If you didn't mean it verbatim, why would you have said it that way, I wonder...?
Same reason people call Eisenhower's reforms laissez faire(wut?) or Christian democracy, socialism. Ease of understanding though claims aren't verbatim. It's quite common.

Anyhow, modern governments aren't authoritarian (for the most part).

Well, that depends on definition.
A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

If a government does that, it isn't authoritarian.
Freedom not complete perfect freedom, as there would be a law. See Milton Friedman's limited government.

No, you said complete perfect freedom.

government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

perfect freedom

perfect freedom
derrp.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:23:25 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:06:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.
No, just no. What is this?

Take democracy. Reduce it to its principles. Take utility. Compare them. Get back to me.

Democracy is based on the premise of freedom, or freedom of choice, freedom to elect. That is all. It assumes that the public interest by majority is best for all. Utilitarianism is what's best subjectively and not the objective sense of majority role. Communism is utilitarian in it's support of collective happiness. Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, an ethic, democracy can have no such roots.

Democracy is only ever utilitarian if the ethic elected is seen as supporting utility.

This can also be seen in the Liberal movement where modern democracy has it's roots, screw Rawls.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:25:27 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:10:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:55:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:51:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

That isn't necessarily true.
...

I'll show ya.

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism.

Contradiction. If a government is authoritarian, it isn't minimal or non-interventionist, and vice-versa.
I can be minimal interventionist in regards to modern governments. I can't, as you said, be noninterventionist but I never meant for you take it verbatim like you did which is why I added "minimal interventionist".

If you didn't mean it verbatim, why would you have said it that way, I wonder...?
Same reason people call Eisenhower's reforms laissez faire(wut?) or Christian democracy, socialism. Ease of understanding though claims aren't verbatim. It's quite common.

Oh, appeal to common practice... How I dislike thee.

But, go ahead and explain your meaning.


Anyhow, modern governments aren't authoritarian (for the most part).

Well, that depends on definition.

Then define.

A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

If a government does that, it isn't authoritarian.
Freedom not complete perfect freedom, as there would be a law. See Milton Friedman's limited government.

No, you said complete perfect freedom.

government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

perfect freedom

perfect freedom
derrp.

That isn't a response.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:30:26 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:23:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:06:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.
No, just no. What is this?

Take democracy. Reduce it to its principles. Take utility. Compare them. Get back to me.

Democracy is based on the premise of freedom, or freedom of choice, freedom to elect. That is all. It assumes that the public interest by majority is best for all.

That. Right there.

Utilitarianism is what's best subjectively and not the objective sense of majority role.

Do you know what utilitarianism is? From what you describe, I highly doubt it.

Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications.

The system sounds rather utilitarian to me.

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, an ethic, democracy can have no such roots.

Democracy is utilitarian, whether someone intended it to be that way or not.

Democracy is only ever utilitarian if the ethic elected is seen as supporting utility.

I'm not talking about what gets elected. I'm talking about the system. The system is utilitarian.

This can also be seen in the Liberal movement where modern democracy has it's roots, screw Rawls.

Do you know what Rawls even says? Sounds like you don't.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:57:48 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:30:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:23:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:06:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.
No, just no. What is this?

Take democracy. Reduce it to its principles. Take utility. Compare them. Get back to me.

Democracy is based on the premise of freedom, or freedom of choice, freedom to elect. That is all. It assumes that the public interest by majority is best for all.

That. Right there.
That doesn't make it utilitarian, utilitarians case prioritize votes of one man over 50 men. Utilitarianism is ethical priority, democracy is statistical priority.

Utilitarianism is what's best subjectively and not the objective sense of majority role.

Do you know what utilitarianism is? From what you describe, I highly doubt it.
I defined it before.

Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications.

The system sounds rather utilitarian to me.
What you think it sounds like isn't necessarily what it is.

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, an ethic, democracy can have no such roots.

Democracy is utilitarian, whether someone intended it to be that way or not.
That's not even the point I was making. Statistical priority vs ethical priority.

Democracy is only ever utilitarian if the ethic elected is seen as supporting utility.

I'm not talking about what gets elected. I'm talking about the system. The system is utilitarian.
The system reflects on how the system's nature of which I used that example. Democracy the system isn't utilitarian unless it achieves utilitarian ends.

This can also be seen in the Liberal movement where modern democracy has it's roots, screw Rawls.

Do you know what Rawls even says? Sounds like you don't.
Google helps. From what I've seen he tried to mix the two forms of priority to make democracy sound better. Looks like it worked.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 6:25:34 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:57:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:30:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:23:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:06:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.
No, just no. What is this?

Take democracy. Reduce it to its principles. Take utility. Compare them. Get back to me.

Democracy is based on the premise of freedom, or freedom of choice, freedom to elect. That is all. It assumes that the public interest by majority is best for all.

That. Right there.
That doesn't make it utilitarian, utilitarians case prioritize votes of one man over 50 men. Utilitarianism is ethical priority, democracy is statistical priority.

I assume you mean "utilitarians can prioritize...". If that's the case, I still disagree. In a political sense, the votes of 50 will always outweigh the vote of the one. You're assuming that ethical priority and statistical priority are always necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that democracy, as a political system, is exactly the same as institutionalized utilitarianism (unless you look to preference utility, which is definitely close to democracy). What I'm saying is that utilitarianism, as an ethical system, and democracy, as a political system, both rest on a lot of the same fundamental assertions.

Utilitarianism is what's best subjectively and not the objective sense of majority role.

Do you know what utilitarianism is? From what you describe, I highly doubt it.
I defined it before.

Your definition was just "maximization of utility", which doesn't explain the actual meaning.

Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications.

The system sounds rather utilitarian to me.
What you think it sounds like isn't necessarily what it is.

What I say it is is what it is because it is what it is.

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, an ethic, democracy can have no such roots.

Democracy is utilitarian, whether someone intended it to be that way or not.
That's not even the point I was making. Statistical priority vs ethical priority.

Democracy is only ever utilitarian if the ethic elected is seen as supporting utility.

I'm not talking about what gets elected. I'm talking about the system. The system is utilitarian.
The system reflects on how the system's nature of which I used that example. Democracy the system isn't utilitarian unless it achieves utilitarian ends.

Fundamentals are basically the same.

This can also be seen in the Liberal movement where modern democracy has it's roots, screw Rawls.

Do you know what Rawls even says? Sounds like you don't.
Google helps. From what I've seen he tried to mix the two forms of priority to make democracy sound better. Looks like it worked.

Try actually reading A Theory of Justice (or the Law of Peoples).
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 10:09:50 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 6:25:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:57:48 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:30:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:23:25 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:06:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:02:56 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.
No, just no. What is this?

Take democracy. Reduce it to its principles. Take utility. Compare them. Get back to me.

Democracy is based on the premise of freedom, or freedom of choice, freedom to elect. That is all. It assumes that the public interest by majority is best for all.

That. Right there.
That doesn't make it utilitarian, utilitarians case prioritize votes of one man over 50 men. Utilitarianism is ethical priority, democracy is statistical priority.

I assume you mean "utilitarians can prioritize...". If that's the case, I still disagree. In a political sense, the votes of 50 will always outweigh the vote of the one. You're assuming that ethical priority and statistical priority are always necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that democracy, as a political system, is exactly the same as institutionalized utilitarianism (unless you look to preference utility, which is definitely close to democracy). What I'm saying is that utilitarianism, as an ethical system, and democracy, as a political system, both rest on a lot of the same fundamental assertions.
Utilitarianism has no institutionalized political system, it's like saying pacifism has a institutionalized political system, it doesn't.

Utilitarianism is what's best subjectively and not the objective sense of majority role.

Do you know what utilitarianism is? From what you describe, I highly doubt it.
I defined it before.

Your definition was just "maximization of utility", which doesn't explain the actual meaning.
Again; Utilitarianism is the MORAL belief that moral value is derived on how it benefits the populous.
It cannot have a universal institutionalized form that's why any political system can use the pretext of utilitarianism.

Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications.

The system sounds rather utilitarian to me.
What you think it sounds like isn't necessarily what it is.

What I say it is is what it is because it is what it is.
The claim: "Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications" sounds utilitarian?

No, why, it simply doesn't and logically does not follow. B.O.P to Cody.

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, an ethic, democracy can have no such roots.

Democracy is utilitarian, whether someone intended it to be that way or not.
That's not even the point I was making. Statistical priority vs ethical priority.

Democracy is only ever utilitarian if the ethic elected is seen as supporting utility.

I'm not talking about what gets elected. I'm talking about the system. The system is utilitarian.
The system reflects on how the system's nature of which I used that example. Democracy the system isn't utilitarian unless it achieves utilitarian ends.

Fundamentals are basically the same.
No there not.

This can also be seen in the Liberal movement where modern democracy has it's roots, screw Rawls.

Do you know what Rawls even says? Sounds like you don't.
Google helps. From what I've seen he tried to mix the two forms of priority to make democracy sound better. Looks like it worked.

Try actually reading A Theory of Justice (or the Law of Peoples).
Perhaps.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 10:33:54 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
Cody, say that

every man's moral worth was 0.5 and every woman's was 1.0 because of my utilitarian ethic(based on my subjective axioms) prioritizes the happiness of women over men. In this case the value utility is not longer equal per capita and no longer becomes a statistic preference. This is an example of cardinal utility.

In democracy every electorate's vote must have an equal value or it fails to be a democracy(this in itself crates fallacies -arrow's paradox- but that another topic). Every voters happiness must be valued at 1 if this is any different, which it can be like above, it's not democratic.

===

One could argue, like Jeremy Bentham, that utilitarianism defends the collective happiness in the form of welfare. However, the opposing argument, to coin Sibeian, "you can't make interpersonal comparisons of utility" is also held, one that John Rawls gives as a CRITIQUE of utilitarianism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 11:03:10 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 10:09:50 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 6:25:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I assume you mean "utilitarians can prioritize...". If that's the case, I still disagree. In a political sense, the votes of 50 will always outweigh the vote of the one. You're assuming that ethical priority and statistical priority are always necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that democracy, as a political system, is exactly the same as institutionalized utilitarianism (unless you look to preference utility, which is definitely close to democracy). What I'm saying is that utilitarianism, as an ethical system, and democracy, as a political system, both rest on a lot of the same fundamental assertions.
Utilitarianism has no institutionalized political system, it's like saying pacifism has a institutionalized political system, it doesn't.

Of course there isn't a single political system that fits utility. There are multiple systems fairly in line with utilitarianism, of which democracy is foremost. Also, if you think that pacifism has never been politically institutionalized, you've never experienced Buddhist culture.

Your definition was just "maximization of utility", which doesn't explain the actual meaning.
Again; Utilitarianism is the MORAL belief that moral value is derived on how it benefits the populous.

The part about "benefiting the populous" is actually contingent, rather than necessary. Additionally, the fact that utility is a moral theory doesn't mean that political applications don't exist. Where do you think political beliefs stem from?

It cannot have a universal institutionalized form that's why any political system can use the pretext of utilitarianism.

I never said that there was only a single, universally-institutionalized form of utility. You're misrepresenting my position.

What I say it is is what it is because it is what it is.
The claim: "Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications" sounds utilitarian?

No, why, it simply doesn't and logically does not follow. B.O.P to Cody.

Democracy is based on the foundation that government should do whatever is best for "the people", which means: the majority, which means: the greatest number of people. That's the brief explanation.

Fundamentals are basically the same.
No there not.

Sure they are. Maximizing happiness for a population. Democracy is the political application of that. It's just diluted here because we use indirect democracy.


Try actually reading A Theory of Justice (or the Law of Peoples).
Perhaps.

I honestly think you might try doing that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 11:06:42 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 10:33:54 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Cody, say that

every man's moral worth was 0.5 and every woman's was 1.0 because of my utilitarian ethic(based on my subjective axioms) prioritizes the happiness of women over men.

That doesn't really make any sense. Utilitarianism doesn't measure things that way.

In this case the value utility is not longer equal per capita and no longer becomes a statistic preference. This is an example of cardinal utility.

That honestly makes no sense whatsoever.

In democracy every electorate's vote must have an equal value or it fails to be a democracy(this in itself crates fallacies -arrow's paradox- but that another topic). Every voters happiness must be valued at 1 if this is any different, which it can be like above, it's not democratic.

In democracy, not everyone votes. The retarded, the vegetables, children... Similarly, utility assigns different moral value to different individuals based on their capacity for happiness and on their ability to have preferences and interests.

===

One could argue, like Jeremy Bentham, that utilitarianism defends the collective happiness in the form of welfare.

Act Utility doesn't necessarily result in collective happiness. See: Utility monster.

However, the opposing argument, to coin Sibeian, "you can't make interpersonal comparisons of utility" is also held, one that John Rawls gives as a CRITIQUE of utilitarianism.

I never claimed that Rawls was a utilitarian.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 11:16:36 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 11:03:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 10:09:50 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 6:25:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I assume you mean "utilitarians can prioritize...". If that's the case, I still disagree. In a political sense, the votes of 50 will always outweigh the vote of the one. You're assuming that ethical priority and statistical priority are always necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that democracy, as a political system, is exactly the same as institutionalized utilitarianism (unless you look to preference utility, which is definitely close to democracy). What I'm saying is that utilitarianism, as an ethical system, and democracy, as a political system, both rest on a lot of the same fundamental assertions.
Utilitarianism has no institutionalized political system, it's like saying pacifism has a institutionalized political system, it doesn't.

Of course there isn't a single political system that fits utility. There are multiple systems fairly in line with utilitarianism, of which democracy is foremost. Also, if you think that pacifism has never been politically institutionalized, you've never experienced Buddhist culture.
That was was point, to start with. Democracy foremost... I dunno.

Your putting words in my mouth, I mean there is not state which institutionalized pacifism as you say utilitarianism has.
-Buddhist culture is only theoretically pacifist, see laws/history of the only modern Buddhist state - Myanmar

Your definition was just "maximization of utility", which doesn't explain the actual meaning.
Again; Utilitarianism is the MORAL belief that moral value is derived on how it benefits the populous.

The part about "benefiting the populous" is actually contingent, rather than necessary. Additionally, the fact that utility is a moral theory doesn't mean that political applications don't exist. Where do you think political beliefs stem from?
They exist but democracy isn't utilitarian/
Now that we agree, end.

It cannot have a universal institutionalized form that's why any political system can use the pretext of utilitarianism.

I never said that there was only a single, universally-institutionalized form of utility. You're misrepresenting my position.
Is Democracy always utilitarian? That's the position in question.

What I say it is is what it is because it is what it is.
The claim: "Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications" sounds utilitarian?

No, why, it simply doesn't and logically does not follow. B.O.P to Cody.

Democracy is based on the foundation that government should do whatever is best for "the people", which means: the majority, which means: the greatest number of people. That's the brief explanation.
Utility is not per capita, just so you know; it still doesn't follow suite.

Fundamentals are basically the same.
No there not.

Sure they are. Maximizing happiness for a population. Democracy is the political application of that. It's just diluted here because we use indirect democracy.
Democracy can be the political application of that.
Do you disagree?

Try actually reading A Theory of Justice (or the Law of Peoples).
Perhaps.

I honestly think you might try doing that.
Maybe.

-
Cody, less pedantic, no! :P
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 11:30:35 PM
Posted: 9 years ago
At 10/19/2010 11:16:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 11:03:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 10:09:50 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 6:25:34 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I assume you mean "utilitarians can prioritize...". If that's the case, I still disagree. In a political sense, the votes of 50 will always outweigh the vote of the one. You're assuming that ethical priority and statistical priority are always necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that democracy, as a political system, is exactly the same as institutionalized utilitarianism (unless you look to preference utility, which is definitely close to democracy). What I'm saying is that utilitarianism, as an ethical system, and democracy, as a political system, both rest on a lot of the same fundamental assertions.
Utilitarianism has no institutionalized political system, it's like saying pacifism has a institutionalized political system, it doesn't.

Of course there isn't a single political system that fits utility. There are multiple systems fairly in line with utilitarianism, of which democracy is foremost. Also, if you think that pacifism has never been politically institutionalized, you've never experienced Buddhist culture.
That was was point, to start with. Democracy foremost... I dunno.

The converse is a dictatorship, which can also be utilitarian. :P

Your putting words in my mouth, I mean there is not state which institutionalized pacifism as you say utilitarianism has.

That's because any state trying to practice pacifism would be destroyed.

Your definition was just "maximization of utility", which doesn't explain the actual meaning.
Again; Utilitarianism is the MORAL belief that moral value is derived on how it benefits the populous.

The part about "benefiting the populous" is actually contingent, rather than necessary. Additionally, the fact that utility is a moral theory doesn't mean that political applications don't exist. Where do you think political beliefs stem from?
They exist but democracy isn't utilitarian/
Now that we agree, end.

I never said that democracy isn't utilitarian. Democracy is utilitarian, but not every political application of utility is democratic. Get it?


It cannot have a universal institutionalized form that's why any political system can use the pretext of utilitarianism.

I never said that there was only a single, universally-institutionalized form of utility. You're misrepresenting my position.
Is Democracy always utilitarian? That's the position in question.

As a system? Well, if democracy is practiced as a democracy, then yes.

What I say it is is what it is because it is what it is.
The claim: "Subjects in a democracy can vote whatever regardless of moral implications" sounds utilitarian?

No, why, it simply doesn't and logically does not follow. B.O.P to Cody.

Democracy is based on the foundation that government should do whatever is best for "the people", which means: the majority, which means: the greatest number of people. That's the brief explanation.
Utility is not per capita, just so you know; it still doesn't follow suite.

I never said that utility is per capita.

Fundamentals are basically the same.
No there not.

Sure they are. Maximizing happiness for a population. Democracy is the political application of that. It's just diluted here because we use indirect democracy.
Democracy can be the political application of that.
Do you disagree?

If democracy is legitimately democratic, then it's utilitarian.

Try actually reading A Theory of Justice (or the Law of Peoples).
Perhaps.

I honestly think you might try doing that.
Maybe.

-
Cody, less pedantic, no! :P

I really don't think I'm pedantic. It just bothers me that you don't understand the clear link between utility and democracy.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.