is there a question a utilitarian cannot answer?

[hypermegachi]

i will give a quick example of a scenario that a deontologist is unable to answer without contradicting them self.

train is coming, there is 1 person on one side, there is 4 people on the other side. you have the option to divert it. what do you do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
as an deontologist, you cannot do anything. basically, a deontologist must act according to a maxim that can be universalized. and in this case, the universal law is to never kill anyone. there is no cost/benefit analysis.

thus, a deontologist would be reduced to saying that this would be an unfortunate event and let the natural course of nature take effect.

is there such a question whereby a utilitarian would be unable to answer without contradiction? it must be such that it doesn't rely on defining or measuring utility.

[LooseCaller]

what if the universal maxim was, say, when confronted with situations where casualties are inevitable, always choose the route where the fewest people die?

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
what if the universal maxim was, say, when confronted with situations where casualties are inevitable, always choose the route where the fewest people die?

[/ QUOTE ]
except that deontology is not situation ethics...

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what if the universal maxim was, say, when confronted with situations where casualties are inevitable, always choose the route where the fewest people die?

[/ QUOTE ]
except that deontology is not situation ethics...

[/ QUOTE ]Modern day deontolgists include Thomas Nagel and Frances Kamm. Of the contemporary deontological theories, Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm has garnered the most recent attention, and is an effort to derive a deontological constraint which coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This Principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case judgments, many of which involve deontological intutions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of 5 others. Yet we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would kill 5 innocent and immobile people onto a side track where 1 innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends-such as in the organ harvesting case. (source wiki obviously)

[chillrob]

Regarding the examples of killing for organ harvesting and diverting a train, I agree that the organ harvesting "feels wrong" in a way that the train diversion does not, but I have a hard time coming up with any logical reason they should not be the same. Can you (or anyone) explain why one is right and the other wrong?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
thus, a deontologist would be reduced to saying that this would be an unfortunate event and let the natural course of nature take effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where deontologists screw up. There is no 'natural course' to invoke.
It's easier to see if we have the deon on the tracks in front of the train ( a good spot for them anyway). He can jump left and seriously injure 5 people, jump right and kill 5 people or stand still and be be killed himself.
What's the natural course?
There isn't one, because standing still is an action/choice, just like all others and just like in the original scenario.

luckyme

[tomdemaine]

I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her?

[/ QUOTE ]

These type of questions are so, so easy for utilitarians, although I agree they are often uncomfortable with them for some reason.

On one side of the equation, you have the happiness that the dad gets from raping her. On the other side, you have her suffering, PLUS the suffering of everyone else in society who now has to live in a society where their father may potentially rape them with no consequence. The utilitarian locks up the father, no sweat.

A much tougher question is something more like "Everyone in the world thinks rape is just fine, they rape each other all the time, except this one woman. She doesn't like rape at all. Is it ok to rape her?"

Its a better question, but not necessarily a fatal blow to any utilitarian worth his salt. Two ways to go about it, off the top of my head:

1) We pretty much have that type of society now, we just switch the "everyone loves rape" with "everyone hates rape" and do the same with the small minority. And whats the result? Majority rule.

2) Even though everyone may like rape, they may also have some other, overriding concern that would cause them suffering to find out that someone who didn't mind rape was raped. If this makes them 'suffer' enough, then raping her is obviously -EV.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her?

[/ QUOTE ]

These type of questions are so, so easy for utilitarians, although I agree they are often uncomfortable with them for some reason.

On one side of the equation, you have the happiness that the dad gets from raping her. On the other side, you have her suffering, PLUS the suffering of everyone else in society who now has to live in a society where their father may potentially rape them with no consequence. The utilitarian locks up the father, no sweat.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fathers happiness is more than all of this put together.

[ QUOTE ]
A much tougher question is something more like "Everyone in the world thinks rape is just fine, they rape each other all the time, except this one woman. She doesn't like rape at all. Is it ok to rape her?"

Its a better question, but not necessarily a fatal blow to any utilitarian worth his salt. Two ways to go about it, off the top of my head:

1) We pretty much have that type of society now, we just switch the "everyone loves rape" with "everyone hates rape" and do the same with the small minority. And whats the result? Majority rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Majority rule being a bad idea doesn't make utilitarianism a good idea.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Even though everyone may like rape, they may also have some other, overriding concern that would cause them suffering to find out that someone who didn't mind rape was raped. If this makes them 'suffer' enough, then raping her is obviously -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they don't?

6 people on and island 5 guys who love gang rape and have no psychological problems with it and one woman. it's not just ok for them to rape it is immoral for them not to.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her?

[/ QUOTE ]

These type of questions are so, so easy for utilitarians, although I agree they are often uncomfortable with them for some reason.

On one side of the equation, you have the happiness that the dad gets from raping her. On the other side, you have her suffering, PLUS the suffering of everyone else in society who now has to live in a society where their father may potentially rape them with no consequence. The utilitarian locks up the father, no sweat.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fathers happiness is more than all of this put together.

[ QUOTE ]
A much tougher question is something more like "Everyone in the world thinks rape is just fine, they rape each other all the time, except this one woman. She doesn't like rape at all. Is it ok to rape her?"

Its a better question, but not necessarily a fatal blow to any utilitarian worth his salt. Two ways to go about it, off the top of my head:

1) We pretty much have that type of society now, we just switch the "everyone loves rape" with "everyone hates rape" and do the same with the small minority. And whats the result? Majority rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Majority rule being a bad idea doesn't make utilitarianism a good idea.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Even though everyone may like rape, they may also have some other, overriding concern that would cause them suffering to find out that someone who didn't mind rape was raped. If this makes them 'suffer' enough, then raping her is obviously -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if they don't?

6 people on and island 5 guys who love gang rape and have no psychological problems with it and one woman. it's not just ok for them to rape it is immoral for them not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I think the utilitarian can just say "Fine, if his happiness really is more than all of that put together, then its fine. But then again, if that were true, you wouldn't be using rape in your hypothetical, would you? Since the prerequisite is that none of us thinks rape is that big of a deal. So either your hypothetical is BS or I can safely say 'rape is fine' without fear of repercussions."

[vhawk01]

For the record, I am not a utilitarian.

[tomdemaine]

It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I am not a utilitarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll add it to your user notes /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the likelihood of the hypothetical that bothers me. Trust me, I love analogies and convoluted hypotheticals, and am no fan of the lame "What a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical" copout. Its just that you don't seem to be considering all of the implications of the stipulations. If the world is such a place where no one really cares that much about rape, than the goal you are going after is no victory after all. I mean, who cares if the utilitarian is forced to say rape would be ok in this scenario, since everyone is fine with rape anyhow? Think about why you used rape in the first place: the prior assumption that we all know rape is horrible.

I guess a good, challenging problem for the utilitarian is the hypothetical unique person who gets ~infinite happiness from raping someone, whereas no one else in the world is capable of anything near infinite suffering. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this would be.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the likelihood of the hypothetical that bothers me. Trust me, I love analogies and convoluted hypotheticals, and am no fan of the lame "What a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical" copout. Its just that you don't seem to be considering all of the implications of the stipulations. If the world is such a place where no one really cares that much about rape, than the goal you are going after is no victory after all. I mean, who cares if the utilitarian is forced to say rape would be ok in this scenario, since everyone is fine with rape anyhow? Think about why you used rape in the first place: the prior assumption that we all know rape is horrible.

I guess a good, challenging problem for the utilitarian is the hypothetical unique person who gets ~infinite happiness from raping someone, whereas no one else in the world is capable of anything near infinite suffering. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also the problem of how you quantify someones happiness in a way to compare it to others. It's pretty much impossible and there is a huge incentive for false reporting.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the likelihood of the hypothetical that bothers me. Trust me, I love analogies and convoluted hypotheticals, and am no fan of the lame "What a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical" copout. Its just that you don't seem to be considering all of the implications of the stipulations. If the world is such a place where no one really cares that much about rape, than the goal you are going after is no victory after all. I mean, who cares if the utilitarian is forced to say rape would be ok in this scenario, since everyone is fine with rape anyhow? Think about why you used rape in the first place: the prior assumption that we all know rape is horrible.

I guess a good, challenging problem for the utilitarian is the hypothetical unique person who gets ~infinite happiness from raping someone, whereas no one else in the world is capable of anything near infinite suffering. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also the problem of how you quantify someones happiness in a way to compare it to others. It's pretty much impossible and there is a huge incentive for false reporting.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are adding up to reasons why I'm not a utilitarian. But mostly its because utilitarians are almost always right and almost always in an entirely trivial way.

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
All of these are adding up to reasons why I'm not a utilitarian. But mostly its because utilitarians are almost always right and almost always in an entirely trivial way.

[/ QUOTE ]
currently, i'm not utilitarian either. but as an intellectual i need to be able to reject the idea with more than just being unable to define or measure utility.

my roommate is utilitarian, and i threw a question at him where in the past we would burn women at the stake because of witchcraft. in the community, that brought upon the greater good. he defended with at the time, that is the community's best definition of utility, and as such, it is the morally right thing to kill witches because it brought more utility.

i don't particularly like how he can defend utilitarianism like that.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of these are adding up to reasons why I'm not a utilitarian. But mostly its because utilitarians are almost always right and almost always in an entirely trivial way.

[/ QUOTE ]
currently, i'm not utilitarian either. but as an intellectual i need to be able to reject the idea with more than just being unable to define or measure utility.

my roommate is utilitarian, and i threw a question at him where in the past we would burn women at the stake because of witchcraft. in the community, that brought upon the greater good. he defended with at the time, that is the community's best definition of utility, and as such, it is the morally right thing to kill witches because it brought more utility.

i don't particularly like how he can defend utilitarianism like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I meant in my last sentence. He is right but in a trivial way. His explanation is pretty much just a tautology, since his only measure of "what was in the best net good" is "what they did." Its a lot like how we talk about people making 'irrational' decisions. Its almost tautological to call any decision that any person makes as rational. But it isn't very useful.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a utilitarian and it is quite easy for me to answer this question. The answer is NO he is not obligated to rape his daugher. The answer to the second question is NO as well. That was very easy.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what if the universal maxim was, say, when confronted with situations where casualties are inevitable, always choose the route where the fewest people die?

[/ QUOTE ]
except that deontology is not situation ethics...

[/ QUOTE ]Modern day deontolgists include Thomas Nagel and Frances Kamm. Of the contemporary deontological theories, Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm has garnered the most recent attention, and is an effort to derive a deontological constraint which coheres with our considered case judgments while also relying heavily on Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Principle states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself. This Principle is meant to address what Kamm feels are most people's considered case judgments, many of which involve deontological intutions. For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of 5 others. Yet we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would kill 5 innocent and immobile people onto a side track where 1 innocent and immobile person will be killed. Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends-such as in the organ harvesting case. (source wiki obviously)

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounds like a rule utilitarian to me.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the examples of killing for organ harvesting and diverting a train, I agree that the organ harvesting "feels wrong" in a way that the train diversion does not, but I have a hard time coming up with any logical reason they should not be the same. Can you (or anyone) explain why one is right and the other wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like it is a matter of opinion to me.

As an aside: At present the former case will put you in jail for murder and the latter case will not.

In the former one must take extraordinary means to change the circumstances and there is no guarantee of success. All 5 may die from there illnesses prior to the operations after you kill the subject or some may die prior. Or shortly after the operation complications that are a direct result of the operations may cause premature death in one or more of the 5.

In the train scenario the intervention is cursory and 4 lives are saved. There is no further risk of screwup from the intervention once the train kills either the one or the 5. There is much less of an unknown factor here. The train passes in an instant and that is it. With the surgeries there is more left up to chance where all may die anyway due to the complex nature of the interventions.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the likelihood of the hypothetical that bothers me. Trust me, I love analogies and convoluted hypotheticals, and am no fan of the lame "What a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical" copout. Its just that you don't seem to be considering all of the implications of the stipulations. If the world is such a place where no one really cares that much about rape, than the goal you are going after is no victory after all. I mean, who cares if the utilitarian is forced to say rape would be ok in this scenario, since everyone is fine with rape anyhow? Think about why you used rape in the first place: the prior assumption that we all know rape is horrible.

I guess a good, challenging problem for the utilitarian is the hypothetical unique person who gets ~infinite happiness from raping someone, whereas no one else in the world is capable of anything near infinite suffering. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also the problem of how you quantify someones happiness in a way to compare it to others. It's pretty much impossible and there is a huge incentive for false reporting.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are adding up to reasons why I'm not a utilitarian. But mostly its because utilitarians are almost always right and almost always in an entirely trivial way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to test this theory. I am a utilitarian. Have at me.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

my roommate is utilitarian, and i threw a question at him where in the past we would burn women at the stake because of witchcraft. in the community, that brought upon the greater good. he defended with at the time, that is the community's best definition of utility, and as such, it is the morally right thing to kill witches because it brought more utility.

i don't particularly like how he can defend utilitarianism like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the much stronger defense of utilitarianism is that burning the witch is in fact immoral based on utilitarian principles. Same thing with the rape example posted earlier.

to me it just seems like those conclusions just represent mistakes in hedonic calculus. particularly the rape scenario. it just so silly it doesn't even relate to reality. being raped by your father will have negative effects for the remainder of her life. the disutility (that a word?) of that event will impact that individual everyday. There is no way the father can have a 'perpetual orgasm' for years that results in a net gain of utility.

most 'for the greater good' arguments are similar. naive people often bring up slavery as a counter example to utilitarianism. however, slavery ISN'T good for an economy (just ask an economist), and it certainly isn't good for the enslaved, there is almost no way to perform a hedonic calculation where slavery results in utility maximization. in a realistic setting that is.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the likelihood of the hypothetical that bothers me. Trust me, I love analogies and convoluted hypotheticals, and am no fan of the lame "What a ridiculous/impossible hypothetical" copout. Its just that you don't seem to be considering all of the implications of the stipulations. If the world is such a place where no one really cares that much about rape, than the goal you are going after is no victory after all. I mean, who cares if the utilitarian is forced to say rape would be ok in this scenario, since everyone is fine with rape anyhow? Think about why you used rape in the first place: the prior assumption that we all know rape is horrible.

I guess a good, challenging problem for the utilitarian is the hypothetical unique person who gets ~infinite happiness from raping someone, whereas no one else in the world is capable of anything near infinite suffering. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also the problem of how you quantify someones happiness in a way to compare it to others. It's pretty much impossible and there is a huge incentive for false reporting.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are adding up to reasons why I'm not a utilitarian. But mostly its because utilitarians are almost always right and almost always in an entirely trivial way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to test this theory. I am a utilitarian. Have at me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you measure happiness or utility? I'm interested in how you'd discern between two actions that people happened to choose. Which of the two actions had the greatest utility? The general answer is that the fact that they chose it demonstrates it had the greater utility. This seems trivial. Is it possible for me to get infinite utility out of something?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you measure happiness or utility? I'm interested in how you'd discern between two actions that people happened to choose. Which of the two actions had the greatest utility? The general answer is that the fact that they chose it demonstrates it had the greater utility. This seems trivial. Is it possible for me to get infinite utility out of something?

[/ QUOTE ]

you measure it based on an action's intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. http://www.moralphilosophy.info/hedoniccalculus.html i think mill added a few criteria to bentham's original calculus, but i am not sure. EDIT: according to the link, extent is the criterion that was added by mill.

obviously it isn't possible to achieve infinite utility. i think its analogous to the reason why Bill Gates can never be infinitely wealthy.

policy makers perform hedonic calculus by cost benefit analysis. Businesses try to maximize shareholder value in an effort to reach the same utilitarian ends.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you measure happiness or utility? I'm interested in how you'd discern between two actions that people happened to choose. Which of the two actions had the greatest utility? The general answer is that the fact that they chose it demonstrates it had the greater utility. This seems trivial. Is it possible for me to get infinite utility out of something?

[/ QUOTE ]

you measure it based on an action's intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. http://www.moralphilosophy.info/hedoniccalculus.html i think mill added a few criteria to bentham's original calculus, but i am not sure. EDIT: according to the link, extent is the criterion that was added by mill.

obviously it isn't possible to achieve infinite utility. i think its analogous to the reason why Bill Gates can never be infinitely wealthy.

policy makers perform hedonic calculus by cost benefit analysis. Businesses try to maximize shareholder value in an effort to reach the same utilitarian ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is awesome that this really exists. Thanks for the link.

[hypermegachi]

here's a humorous attempt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

[ QUOTE ]
The utility monster is a thought experiment in the study of ethics. It was created by philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of utilitarianism.

In the thought experiment, the idea of a monster is proposed, who can turn resources into his own utility far more effectively than anyone else. If one unit of resource brings me one unit of pleasure, one unit of resource brings the utility monster 100 units of pleasure.

If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, It follows from utilitarianism, that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the doctrine utilitarianism.

This thought experiment attempts to show that utilitarianism is not actually egalitarian, even though it appears to be at first glance.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


my roommate is utilitarian, and i threw a question at him where in the past we would burn women at the stake because of witchcraft. in the community, that brought upon the greater good. he defended with at the time, that is the community's best definition of utility, and as such, it is the morally right thing to kill witches because it brought more utility.

i don't particularly like how he can defend utilitarianism like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would not be a defense, that would be damning.

[the_scalp]

The way a thinking deontologist would probably respond to the OP's post is that the actor should divert the train such that it saves the four (not intending, but forseeing and regretting, the certain likelihood of the one's death).

Hard case makes for bad law.

It's clear that Kant (the father of modern deontology) thought deontology often required you to make utilitarian calculations -- he simply avoided lending moral weight to utilitarian calculations beyond their usefulness to helping us make decisions in the interest of fulfilling the categorical imperative.

[the_scalp]

Pure utilitarianism fails becasue people aren't likely to actually be in the habit of considering questions like: "would I best increase general utility by cupping my make-out parnter's left breast?".

What Utilitarianism should would have us do in the face of this difficulty is to come up with "sets of rules" for a sort of shorthand utilitarianism. (i.e. "Always act for (sexual) pleasure provided no unfortunate consequences (rape, unwanted child, misunderstandings, reduced chance of further sexual play) are likely).

This leads us into the intellectual and cultural wasteland that is modernism at it's crassest (think BBV all grown up). What we end up with is a modern set of 'virtues' (individualism, consumption, living-for-the-moment) replacing virtues that, until a bunch of egotistical jerks in the 17th century came along, were almost universally recognized (if not perfectly practiced): valor, purity, honesty, truth-telling, justice, peace-making, etc.

Utilitarians might say: "buh, buh, buh: my system takes into account the long-term ramifications of my individual decisions -- so your critique of utilitarianism as boiling down to individualism is moot." My response is twofold:

1) Your definition of general utility, unless it's based in some deeper system of morality (not utilitarianism) is quite likely not the same as your neighbor's definition of general utility.

2) Your system does not _really_ take into account true long term ramificaitons of your actions -- first, you can't see them all, second, you're a human, not a computer.

Humans have acknolwedged the good life for centuries, no need to reinvent the wheel. Here's some starting guidelines:

1) Don't suck!
2) Be nice.

Do this for a few years and you'll know the right thing to do with the train barreling down teh track . . .

[almostbusto]

-the_scalp

my understanding is that most (if not then many) utilitarians do not intend people to ask what is best for the general welfare but rather to ask what is best for the individual.


you know the whole argument, market forces maximize efficiency and general welfare through the pursuit of self-interested motives. the invisible hand and all...

[the_scalp]

There are certainly different utilitarinisms, but what you're describing doesn't sound like much that I've heard of before. I think that many firm utilitarians do end up acting in the manner you described (hedonistically) and calling it utilitarianism by providing tortured justifications for how their self-serving behavior ends up serving humanity as a whole.

I'm not sure I see why any thinking person would actually believe that a bunch of self-interested agents acting with no regard for the good of the whole would miraculously formulate societal orders where the greatest good was served. This kind of utilitarianism would have no response to the "two child rapers and a child" on an island types of arguments.

I'm suspicious of pure capitalism for many of the same kinds of reasons, actually. But I certainly think you're correct in noting a connection between unnuanced capitalism and the adolescant belief that utter egoism/hedonism is the best way to advance general utility.