3 ms·

Utilitarianism does not prescribe a specific utility function. Happiness is only used as a toy example that quickly breaks down if scrutinized (otherwise everyo

Utilitarianism does not prescribe a specific utility function. Happiness is only used as a toy example that quickly breaks down if scrutinized (otherwise everyone would be getting free morphine injections). Utility functions can and do vary between specimens. For one children can become rhetoric utility monsters (think of the children) and human lives can also become a utility monster (people often balk at putting price tags on lives saved). And consider how many animals we sacrifice in the name of human pleasure.

lemagedurage 6y ago
I think happiness would become too hard to define here, rather than breaking down. I don't believe free morphine injections would provide a lot of long term happiness, additionally it wouldn't be a sustainable way to live economically, leading to poverty-induced unhappiness. Children do deserve more happiness, because they're more vulnerable and have a longer lifespan, investing in children makes sense for humanity, additionally a parent's well-being is often connected to their childrens' well being. Still, a child's logical utility demand is not _that_ much more to call them a monster, it's within limits. Utilitarianism's problem is that it's hard to quantify, the logical basis seems pretty solid to me.
- the8472 6y ago
  > Children do deserve more happiness, because they're more vulnerable That does not sound like a utilitarian argument. Are you saying that more happiness should be allocated to children and that vulnerability entitles one to more happiness? Conversely, does that mean non-vulnerable people require less happiness? > Still, a child's logical utility demand is not _that_ much more to call them a monster, it's within limits. Well, logical demand is not the concern here but irrational "think of the children" thought-terminating cliches used to justify policy changes at the expense of others. The children are held up as purported utility monsters. I.e. they are rhetorically treated as if they were true utility monsters.

lemagedurage 6y ago

I think happiness would become too hard to define here, rather than breaking down. I don't believe free morphine injections would provide a lot of long term happiness, additionally it wouldn't be a sustainable way to live economically, leading to poverty-induced unhappiness. Children do deserve more happiness, because they're more vulnerable and have a longer lifespan, investing in children makes sense for humanity, additionally a parent's well-being is often connected to their childrens' well being. Still, a child's logical utility demand is not _that_ much more to call them a monster, it's within limits. Utilitarianism's problem is that it's hard to quantify, the logical basis seems pretty solid to me.

the8472 6y ago
> Children do deserve more happiness, because they're more vulnerable That does not sound like a utilitarian argument. Are you saying that more happiness should be allocated to children and that vulnerability entitles one to more happiness? Conversely, does that mean non-vulnerable people require less happiness? > Still, a child's logical utility demand is not _that_ much more to call them a monster, it's within limits. Well, logical demand is not the concern here but irrational "think of the children" thought-terminating cliches used to justify policy changes at the expense of others. The children are held up as purported utility monsters. I.e. they are rhetorically treated as if they were true utility monsters.