Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Strong Utilitarian

Weak Utilitarian

Indifferent/Don't Know

Oppose Utilitarianism

[Eagle_eye]

Utilitarianism is, in my experience of discussing in it, a fairly controversial topic, so I'm probably just inviting a flame war, but I'd like to know the overall stance of B12ers on it. For those who don't know, utilitarianism is an ethical system where the only good is pleasure, and the only evil pain/suffering, and the morality of all actions derives from that. For example, vandalism is wrong because the minor pleasure you get from performing the action is less than the (also minor,but less so) suffering of those who have to clean it up and those who's property is damaged by it. (Or at least, that's my interpretation) Expanding on that further, it states that pleasure and pain are worth the same amount no matter who the individual is experiencing them, and that there is some direct comparison of the two quantities that can be made.
     To explain the poll choices, strong utilitarian means you endorse the whole system, whereas weak utilitarian means that you believe that maximizing benefit while minimizing harm is a good, but incomplete basis for an ethical system. The other two should be obvious.
    Personally, I would consider myself a weak utilitarian, as, in any given case, if there's a choice between causing pleasure or pain, the pleasure is obviously the superior moral choice, but I believe there is some intrinsic value to knowledge. I can't really explain the latter point, except that I feel morally repulsed by those who are willfully ignorant, though in utilitarian theory they are performing at worst only a minor act of harm( as such individuals would likely not have significant potential in any case).
     

[Girlinhat]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my manservant fanning me with this palm frand.  You see, I get so hot as I lay back on my lounging couch and have maidens drop grapes the size of strawberries into my mouth.  Oh, Shh-shh, the lion match is about to begin!

[Pnx]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my manservant fanning me with this palm frand.  You see, I get so hot as I lay back on my lounging couch and have maidens drop grapes the size of strawberries into my mouth.  Oh, Shh-shh, the lion match is about to begin!

Lion match!? That's so passé. What you really want to watch are these gorilla jousts.

[Flying Dice]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my manservant fanning me with this palm frand.  You see, I get so hot as I lay back on my lounging couch and have maidens drop grapes the size of strawberries into my mouth.  Oh, Shh-shh, the lion match is about to begin!

Lion match!? That's so passé. What you really want to watch are these gorilla jousts.

As in, two knights ride gorillas, or two gorilla ride horses?

And forget that anyways, toddler deathmatches are where it's at.

[Max White]

As in, two knights ride gorillas, or two gorilla ride horses?

What about two gorillas riding two gorillas?

[PsyberianHusky]

I disagree with the fundamental axiom of "The only good is pleasure", because I think it has the ability to take a very complex situation and rationalize it in black and white. That being said unless there are implications I don't understand about the paradigm I would consider myself to be a weak-utilitarian because I enjoy my own happiness, but I hate the idea that it should come from the suffering of others, as it tends to do in the first world.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my manservant fanning me with this palm frand.  You see, I get so hot as I lay back on my lounging couch and have maidens drop grapes the size of strawberries into my mouth.  Oh, Shh-shh, the lion match is about to begin!

Oh Maximilian, you always get over-exited about the lion fights! They're just big cats! I say, once the shark deathmatches begin, then we shall have true entertainment!

Servants! More wine!

[Girlinhat]

"The wants of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

I've had a story brewing in the back of my mind based on this idea, but I fear that it's entirely too erotic to attempt to spread around.

[dragonshardz]

Hm. I thought this was a thread about the architectural style and design philosophy, not the actual philosophy. Hell, I didn't even know such a philosophy existed.

BTW: Utililtarianism, as an architectural concept or design style, is only including the functional bits. No fanciness, no real color, just what it needs to be able to work.

[Max White]

Oh Maximilian, you always get over-exited about the lion fights! They're just big cats! I say, once the shark deathmatches begin, then we shall have true entertainment!

Servants! More wine!

Oh you and your silly Fish MSH. I shall not be content until the giant eagles strapped to fireworks aerial dogfight begins!

And bring a platter of cheeses!

[penguinofhonor]

Strong, strong utilitarian. Maximize good while minimizing evil.

Mostly meaning that you cannot get pleasure from the suffering of others as it doesn't minimize evil. I state that because most people don't seem to get it.

[Max White]

Mostly meaning that you cannot get pleasure from the suffering of others as it doesn't minimize evil. I state that because most people don't seem to get it.

I think when most people hear 'Only doing things for maximum pleasure' they think of their own pleasure, and see how it could cause massive suffering to others, and think that it must be bad.
1. No. The point of utilitarianism is that because of the suffering of others, you do not do it. It brings more suffering than happyness to society as a single entity.
2. If your worried about the suffering of others, then such actions would not bring you pleasure, and you have a very shallow view of yourself.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And what would you do with someone who has a sacrifice complex? A person who wishes to suffer altruistically, so that others may be happy?

[Max White]

If it makes them happy to make such sacrifices, then I'm all for it!

[Bauglir]

I tend to define good a bit differently than most, but other than that I'm cool with utilitarianism if I'm approaching problems logically (which I try to do when there's significant involvement of others). Since I don't consider myself qualified to judge what's good or evil for others except in the most extreme cases (see how I covered my ass there?), as a general rule I define Good as maximizing the available freedom of choice of actors in a system, so that everyone else can pick what they define as Good.

There's some caveats (meaningless choices don't get much weight because they tend to lead to paralysis through indecision, for instance), and it's important to keep in mind that this leads to often counterintuitive choices (for example, I'm a fan of a lot of publicly funded services because many increase the net freedom of the population, even while imposing an otherwise undesirable tax burden on some people). But other'n that, it's served me well.

So I voted Weak Utilitarian, since many of the principles apply but I have a different value system.