[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 16 KB, 317x450, 99068-004-A8011C46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7198394 No.7198394 [Reply] [Original]

What can be said against Utilitarianism? Are all actions indeed an act towards happiness?

Im finding it hard to find fault in this theory, unless by being an empiricist Mill is ignoring other factors (though I cannot seem to find any). He seems to have explained all human discourse in a simpe framework. Can his theory interlock and marry with others that seem to defy his?

>> No.7199068

He doesnt hold up to Kant in any way

>> No.7199134

>>7199068
How so? Duty from reason doesnt seem to sanction any sort of action, which is based on motives

>> No.7199144

that utility is impossible to measure in many utilitarian models

>> No.7199185

Actual Utilitarian thought process:

>What is the objective good?
>I know! It's the subjective good!

>> No.7199267

>>7199185
this is pretty good

>>7199144
this is better imo

The idea even that individuals have "states" of happiness that can be reduced to a number and objectively compared to each other is just silly. Utilitarianism is an admirable attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.

>> No.7199287

there isnt any reason on why maximizing utility is good

>> No.7199292

>>7199267
But wasnt Mill of the very position that Utility cannot be quanitified? He believed truely greater pleasures are measured in their quality not quantity.
Also, from what I can tell he claims happiness as the objective good only in the way of pure observation, in other words its simply a pattern that has yet to be broken by any known man.

>> No.7199295

>>7199287
What else then? Why do anything if not for happiness?

>> No.7199302

>claiming absolute knowledge
Already worthless
>>7199292
>thinking quality can be measured
>valuing empiricism
Liberals need to accept that not everything can be boiled down to oppression or observation.
>>7199295
>people do this thing so its good

>> No.7199306

>>7199292
"quantifiable" is a synonym for "measurable." It doesn't matter if we're talking about better experiences or more experiences. Nothing about utility can be measured reliably in any meaningful way.

>> No.7199323

>>7199306
So one thing is never better than the other? You do not enjoy any food for than another?
For example, is the quality of pleasure derived from studying Philosphy not a more consistent and slightly less fleeting one than eating chocolate icecream? While there is always time for both, do you not agree one will bring more happiness, and that one should perhaps skip on gorging on icecream all day in favor of studying Moral Theory?

Bentham and Epicurus may have argued to measure these utilities, but I find it appropriate that in a system based on subjective motive, we measure it with the same subjective standards.

>> No.7199327

>>7199302
Solipsism does not equate to an argument buddy.

>> No.7199331

>>7199062
Clearly not what he meant. While an individual can rate different experiences relative to others, but to do it on a societal scale is pretty much impossible.

>> No.7199332

>>7199323
>So one thing is never better than the other?
sure, but not on the basis of utility

>> No.7199340

>>7199327
>the self can be known

>> No.7199344

>>7199323
It's easy to construct situations where almost everyone will agree on relative utility. It's also easy to construct fictional situations where war is necessary, which is not a functional argument for war.

As soon as you have an issue where you'd actually need utilitarianism to decide which state is preferable, it stops being useful. Is Brave New World preferable to our current society? Well that depends on how we measure utility, and what goes into that measurement. Is a state of the earth with no one alive preferable to the current state, with so many suffering? Again, basically impossible, and ultimately you have to make a real argument instead of a utilitarian one.

You can also do the whole Utility Monster argument, which I find kind of silly because that's responding to (what I think is) over-abstraction with over-over-abstraction, but some people find that argument convincing.

>> No.7199348

>>7198394
Nietzsche is quite seriously the number one pillar against utilitarianism

>> No.7199349

>>7199331
Isnt the "general" or "societal" utility simply the ensurance of personal utility for all? This is why there exists a public sphere of "largely objective" utilities, in other words utilities that are agreed upon by all, but a larger personal sphere where by utility itself men are allowed to judge their own utility. By ensuring the freedom to personal utility aka happiness, we then thus promote most effectively the general utility. The laws of general utility simply ask of the public what they can agree can the lowest or highest values, often usually mitigating the pain of all but not enforcing any "objective" happiness.

Tl;dr: General utility is quite compatible with subjective valuing.

>> No.7199359

>>7199344
These could be answered by the simple notion that intellectual and virtuous pleasures exceed simple bodily ones in quality, and therefore both those hypothetical situations would not be preferable.

However, I will concede this notion is a very large logical assumption that needs more thought put into it; Mill proposed something without questioning its validity in any real sense.

>> No.7199932

>>7198394
The incommensurability of internal states.

>> No.7200003
File: 12 KB, 200x227, aldous huxley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7200003

>>7198394
Huxley awarded him the "best philosophy by practical result" award. He said that only really good reforms came from Mill's ideas, and that there were many such reforms.

>> No.7200014

>>7200003
>Huxley

>> No.7200016

>>7200003
that seems really hard to believe given that he wrote an entire novel satirizing utilitarianism but I'm interested in source if you've got it

>> No.7200025

>>7200016
From Speaking Personally...
Track: Victorian Social Values

spotify:track:4YbtpkE28rIFljx4ndonbm

I goofed though. He praises Bentham, who was Mill's teacher, not Mill himself, but Bentham still held to the "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

>> No.7200027

>>7198394
>What can be said against Utilitarianism?
It's disgusting when taken to the logical conclusion because the human mind desires suffering and requires some small amount of it in order to develop correctly.

>> No.7200040

>>7199295
what value is happiness in the face of accruement of capital?

>> No.7200108

>>7200027
>human mind desires suffering
Haha what the fuck.

>> No.7200606

>>7200108
>I want to climb this mountain
>oh man it's a long climb
>I want to suffer though because it's worth it

>> No.7200770

>>7200606
Suffering is a consequence here, not something desired. Even then you can take measures to minimize your suffering in order to climb the mountain.

>> No.7201018

>>7200770
>has never met people who enjoy working out

It's not that people enjoy suffering directly you buffoonish troglodyte. It's that the distinction between happiness, suffering is never clear. People don't truly know what they desire. The problem with utilitarianism is it presupposes these things.

Read some Nietzsche faggot, he himself said he was pretty much a response to Mill

>> No.7201029

>>7200770
https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_nietzsche_studies/summary/v029/29.1anomaly.html

>> No.7201030

>>7198394
>Im finding it hard to find fault in this theory
topkek

>> No.7201031

>>7201018
>>has never met people who enjoy working out
I actually never have. The guys who go to the gym seem mentally defective tbh

>> No.7201032

As others have pointed out, it's the ultimate autistic philosophy.

It literally tries to quantify the value of happiness and human life (both of which are incredibly subjective, vague ideas in the first place). It then uses this measurement to advocate for some seriously twisted shit (a true utilitarian doesn't believe in justice in any real sense of the word; if convicting an innocent person will increase the sum total of happiness, the utilitarian will do it without a second's hesitation).

>> No.7201041

>>7198394
You should play Socrates Jones - Pro philosopher. Besides the stupid name, its actually pretty good

>> No.7201155

>>7201031
>mentally defective

HAHAHAHAHA, "the only people who are right/good/whatever are the ones that fit my understanding of how people work"

"People aren't motivated by happiness, only [this anon] is."

Just read Nietzsche, Freud or whoever and be quiet

>> No.7201234

>>7201041
seconding this. I enjoyed the game so much when someone posted it here a year ago or so I ended up playing the whole series it's a clone of (Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney) and I usually hate video games

http://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher

>> No.7201271

Holy shit I thought lit was meant to be smart,

There isn't much to find that is wrong with utilitarianism, as long as you refine it -- it has moved on wrong the idea that we must simply seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, there are a lot better formulas out there --

You might propose seeking to maximise meaningfulness, preferences, important, peak experiences, or any combination of the above.

Likewise I am not sure that it being 'unquantifiable' is really that workable an objection. It is a practial concern, of course, but so what? That isn't to dispute it's philosophical rightness. Nobody objects to Kant's ethical beliefs because it would be impossible for one human to implement.

>> No.7201295

>>7201018
>working out
>masochistic
Found the neckbearded virgin.

>> No.7201464

>>7201271
Okay, I have a really good ethical system: always do the right thing. If you want me to elaborate further that's a practical concern, you do not dispute my rightness.

>> No.7203076

>>7201464
Your pseudo-intellectual,, grammatically fucked, and meaningless post just made me physically upset. I think I have a tumor now.

>> No.7203085

>>7203076
Come the fuck on, philosophical rightness is totally meaningless if it can't be applied. The idea that "practical concerns" are of secondary importance is ridiculous. Practical concerns is all there are.

>> No.7203111

>>7203085
I wasn't even the one talking to you before, I just wanted to let you know that the way you speak is retarded. What the fuck is "philosophical rightness"? are you 12? and I won't even address your argument, philosophy is literally the study/love of knowledge. You have somehow misconstrued the simple ideas of empiricism/utilitarianism down to a level of stupidity and meaninglessness I didn't think was even possible

>> No.7203119

>>7203085
Practically speaking, everything that immediately concerns us is, by its very nature, inherently practical.

To that end, philosophy wouldn't even be a priority until after the fact that you were no longer concerned.

Your post is ridiculous.

>> No.7203126

>>7203111
I'm not the one who said "philosophical rightness" in the first place dummy, that was >>7201271, the guy I was responding to.

Your reading comprehension is really bad but I'm sorry you think the way I speak is retarded. It is, due to my severe congenital defects, but I don't know how you figured that out from my writing.

>> No.7203148

Aristotle's virtue ethics starts with the notion that every man seeks happiness and that happiness is the foundation of ethics. The difference between Aristotle and Mill is that Aristotle was smart enough to realise that a man can most affect his happiness by focusing on his cultivating his own virtues and purging his own vices, whereas Mill, in the era of Anglo rationalism, focused on happiness as a kind of abstract mathematical formula like Newton's physics or Adam Smith's economics.

>> No.7203149

>>7203119
>until after the fact that you were no longer concerned
>>7203126
>Your reading comprehension is really bad but I'm sorry you think the way I speak is retarded

This is a literature board and you two are illiterate.

>> No.7203164

>>7198394
Doesnt make much sense unless you have a prexisting system of values.

>> No.7203168

>>7203148

Pessoa


>A sensitive and honest-minded man, if he’s concerned about evil and injustice in the world, will naturally begin his campaign against them by eliminating them at their nearest source: his own person. This task will take his entire life.

This is the problem with modern ethics in general. Most people think that the evil is in our institutions, when really the evil begins with ourselves. Instead of examining themselves, people will go out and want to "change the world" and "reform society" or start a "revolution". This is hypocrisy. People that aren't clean themselves and who want to clean others.

>> No.7203176

It's ridiculous for a man to talk about the greatest happiness of the greatest number when he doesn't even know how to make himself happy.

>> No.7203209

There's no contradictions within the until. system, so it is workable; the question is, would the world be better off with that system implemented?

A team of horses has males obsessed with sex and status, dominating other horses for their own horsego, dying before mares from stress and conflict. This bio-predatory, mostly unconscious, mindset is what guides almost every nation and the individuals that compose it. Is the current system better than the util. system, in practice?