4 ms·
The question of how one actually resolves the utility calculation (once weighing bases are determined) is a question of applied ethics, not normative ethics. C
by 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 agoSure, but that still contradicts with the GP saying "just don't be stupid and calculate the utility properly".
- Veedrac 5y agoI 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 agoWhat 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 agoWell 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.