4 ms·

> Most ‘don't be utilitarian’ arguments are really ‘don't be a stupid utilitarian’ Someone being a "stupid utilitarian" a subjective judgement. > then you are

> Most ‘don't be utilitarian’ arguments are really ‘don't be a stupid utilitarian’ Someone being a "stupid utilitarian" a subjective judgement. > then you are NOT actually summing up all the resulting negative utility in your so-called-utilitarian calculations Well that's the trick isn't it. What's the correct calculation? There is no objective answer to this. You can change the calculation to suit your opinion.

lanternfish 5y ago
The question of how one actually resolves the utility calculation (once weighing bases are determined) is a question of applied ethics, not normative ethics. Consider: it could be entirely consistent for a Utilitarian to make the utility justified decision that utility calculus is outside of their capability, and a Deontological framework would serve as their best in-situ heuristic. They would still be a Utilitarian, even thought their black-box criteria resembles a deontology.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  Sure, but that still contradicts with the GP saying "just don't be stupid and calculate the utility properly".
  - Veedrac 5y ago
    I don't see the contradiction. There is, after all, no one true utilitarianism. What you're not allowed to do is say, as the article did, that X has the highest utility when strawmanning a utilitarian, only to turn around and say X sucks once the strawman is over.
- edflsafoiewq 5y ago
  What exactly is the point of utilitarianism then? What can you say about utilitarianism itself? Under this scheme, it seems to possess no qualities.
  - lanternfish 5y ago
    Well that depends on what you want to do - if you're trying to interpret an applied conundrum, it provides a framework for accepting or rejecting justifications towards that question. It doesn't necessarily prescribe a solution, but provides a metric for evaluation of a solution's justification. Alternatively, on a normative level, you can still debate the merits of the framework when compared to other systems (deontological - virtue - care - etc.) by beginning with meta-ethical axioms and resolving them to normative positions. Consider an ontological framework which doesn't recognize free will of others - this could dramatically inform a delimma between a utilitarian system and an egoist one.
Veedrac 5y ago
Throwing out utilitarianism in ethics because you can't exactly calculate which actions precisely correspond to the brightest futures is a lot like throwing out mathematical modelling in engineering because you can't exactly calculate which arrangements of atoms precisely correspond to the most optimal bridges. I'd be more open to questions about how a rational person might figure out what the best things to do are in the face of uncertainty, if the article's examples didn't include things like should we torture Jewish people for the enjoyment of Nazis? The right intervention to that is much more baseline, of actually stopping to think about what one is saying.

lanternfish 5y ago

The question of how one actually resolves the utility calculation (once weighing bases are determined) is a question of applied ethics, not normative ethics. Consider: it could be entirely consistent for a Utilitarian to make the utility justified decision that utility calculus is outside of their capability, and a Deontological framework would serve as their best in-situ heuristic. They would still be a Utilitarian, even thought their black-box criteria resembles a deontology.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
Sure, but that still contradicts with the GP saying "just don't be stupid and calculate the utility properly".
- Veedrac 5y ago
  I don't see the contradiction. There is, after all, no one true utilitarianism. What you're not allowed to do is say, as the article did, that X has the highest utility when strawmanning a utilitarian, only to turn around and say X sucks once the strawman is over.
edflsafoiewq 5y ago
What exactly is the point of utilitarianism then? What can you say about utilitarianism itself? Under this scheme, it seems to possess no qualities.
- lanternfish 5y ago
  Well that depends on what you want to do - if you're trying to interpret an applied conundrum, it provides a framework for accepting or rejecting justifications towards that question. It doesn't necessarily prescribe a solution, but provides a metric for evaluation of a solution's justification. Alternatively, on a normative level, you can still debate the merits of the framework when compared to other systems (deontological - virtue - care - etc.) by beginning with meta-ethical axioms and resolving them to normative positions. Consider an ontological framework which doesn't recognize free will of others - this could dramatically inform a delimma between a utilitarian system and an egoist one.

Veedrac 5y ago

Throwing out utilitarianism in ethics because you can't exactly calculate which actions precisely correspond to the brightest futures is a lot like throwing out mathematical modelling in engineering because you can't exactly calculate which arrangements of atoms precisely correspond to the most optimal bridges. I'd be more open to questions about how a rational person might figure out what the best things to do are in the face of uncertainty, if the article's examples didn't include things like should we torture Jewish people for the enjoyment of Nazis? The right intervention to that is much more baseline, of actually stopping to think about what one is saying.