[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 38 KB, 300x375, question.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3643075 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/, what is fundamentally wrong with Utilitarianism?

>> No.3643092

nothing, it just dispenses with a lot of the shit religionfags think is 'essential'

>> No.3643099

As a description of a criterion for determining "goodness" it cannot be right or wrong. It does not fit intuitive notions of goodness well because of the kind of atrocities it permits for the greater good. Additionally, its practical application requires a level of understanding which we do not have. It is also broadly silent on how one measures happiness in order to maximize it.

>> No.3643100

>>3643075

51 rapists telling 49 women rape is now fine.

>> No.3643114

it's still a subjective point of view. anyone can define what's "useful" according to their own opinions, like theists that thinking church and religion should be a state mandate or luddites thinking all technology should be destroyed since they believe those actions to maximize the overall "good" of society.

>> No.3643160

>>3643100

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand utilitarianism.

>>3643114

every moral view is subjective.

>> No.3643188

>>3643160

Overall good is determined by the majority.

>> No.3643193

>>3643160
I don't see how >>3643100 is misunderstanding utilitarianism

>> No.3643212

>Overall good is determined by the majority.

Therefore something like gang rape is good because its:
several (happy) rapists vs. one (unhappy) victim?

>> No.3643219

>>3643188
It fascinates me that you can be so wrong about so many things so easily corrected by simply reading.

>> No.3643224

>>3643188

>implying average wellbeing of the women lost is not greater than average wellbeing of the men gained
>implying prevention of suffering does not take priority over achieving wellbeing

>> No.3643231

>>3643212
No because the fear of gang rapes has a almost general negative impact on other people utilities.

>> No.3643232

>>3643188

LOL dear god it would be hard for you to be more wrong.

>> No.3643281

it implies that sacrifice is necessary.

sklavvenmorals if you ask me.

>> No.3643307

>>3643224

The majority is not forced to take in the well-being on the non-majority. The well being of the majority always out ranks the minority.

>> No.3643321

>>3643307

You seem to have missed something here.

49% of the population being rape victims isn't exactly maximizing good.

>> No.3643354

>>3643307
> Liberty post
> more failure
Why am I not surprised? OK, Liberty. Please find me a place where utilitarianism is defined in terms of majority rule.

>> No.3643361

Nothing. The problem is usually with the entities people apply the utilitarian philosophy to, which others don't like.

>> No.3644999

>>3643321

Good is subjective. This is why the majority decides in utilitarianism. There are no starting boundaries for utilitarianism.

>> No.3645017

Well, you could try reading Kant's Groundwork. That offer's some criticism against Utilitarianism.

>> No.3645071

Mostly, it has implications that do not line up with common sense, practicality, or our ideas of human rights.

People hold those over the theoretical groundwork of utilitarianism.

>> No.3645077

>>3645071
Mill argued that things like common sense and practicality were necessary for utilitarianism to work, and also argued that human rights provide the most good for the most people, and therefore would be supported by utilitarianism.

>> No.3645091

>>3643361
Yeah, Evolution would speed up if we could selectively rape the wimmin folk.

>> No.3645100

>>3645077
So at least you concede that utilitarianism is impractical.

>> No.3645108

>>3643075
as a socio-political system; you can't get laid (metaphorically of course)

as a lifestyle; you can't get laid

>> No.3645111

It doesn't consider the wellbeing of future/unborn people. I consider it unethical to give aid to africa because you are allowing a population to grow that can't support itself thus creating more human suffering. Wouldn't the utilitarian position be that the best thing you can do is provide for everyone in africa to maximize the wellbeing of this generation, without considering the next one.

>> No.3645119

Utilitarianism is the idea that what is best is what results in the most utility among people yeah? Utility being synonymous with happiness and goodness etc. This being different from hedonism in that is applies to the utility derived from all people, while hedonism says that what is good is just what I personally desire pleasure from.

I dont think there is anything wrong with the idea that what results in the most utility among people should be done. The problem I feel, is that:

1. People who use this kind of reasoning often over simplify reality and fail to consider what really "maximizes utility." Sometimes they ignore metaphysically good things, like human rights.

2. There is no measurable utility. To simplify life, people, and behavior to just measurable amount of good and bad is an injustice.

>> No.3645122

>>3645100
Not at all. I'm saying that utilitarianism is practical. Read Mill's Utilitarianism. He deals with the objections which are being raised in this thread.

>> No.3645124

>>3645119

Oh, and that was me by the way. I have no idea why. But my name field is auto filling with "Pinkie Pie."

I swear I have never used the name pinkie pie before.

>> No.3645135

>>3645124
Ponyfags are fucking around with jsMath.

>> No.3645140

>>3645122
Right now. Right the fuck now. What are you doing to advance the happiness of others? Why the fuck did you buy a computer when people are starving?

Utilitarianism demands, essentially, communism.

>> No.3645150

>>3645140
Like I said, read Mill's Utilitarianism. He deals with the objections being raised in this thread.

Bear in mind that Mill was both a strong supporter of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism.

>> No.3645196

>>3645150
I'm not going to read the book. Quick summary of why how he deals with it, go.

>> No.3645207

>>3645196
Ok it goes something like this:
If you don't care enough to read something, you'll be ignorant and laughed at by everyone.

Seriously though, it is about 100 pages. You could read it over a weekend without trouble. Either stop being lazy, or stop trying to object to things you don't even understand.