6 ms·

> Utilitarianism is just as subject to countering every argument for it with "yeah, but why?" I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. > It boils down to th

> Utilitarianism is just as subject to countering every argument for it with "yeah, but why?" I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. > It boils down to the is-ought problem. If you remove the objective will of god, what is left is the subjective will of individual human beings. I struggle to see how utilitarianism would follow from the latter. Well, utilitarianism would suggest that good derives from pleasure and bad derives from suffering. Thus, a good action is one that increases pleasure or reduces suffering. Pleasure and suffering are subjective, so the idea is that the ideal is to fulfil people's preferences. The will of god, on the other hand, is not objective either - different religions have different interpretations, many religions don't have a will of god, and atheists don't believe any of them anyway. > What in the world does that have to do with being a moral philosopher? Racism is broadly considered immoral. I just find it a funny irony, not a critical takedown of Kant's moral philosophy.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. Let me show you. > Well, utilitarianism would suggest that good derives from pleasure and bad derives from suffering. Why does good derive from pleasure?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Because pleasure is the word we use to describe positive feelings, ie feelings that people intrinsically want. Suffering is its inverse, something people intrinsically don't want. A utilitarian identifies the good with giving people what they want. You can define 'good' in other ways if you don't agree that giving people what they want is good, but then I think you'd have to justify a superior definition. I realise what you mean now though; just asking "yeah but why" can be used to constantly question anything because it assumes that axioms can be questioned - any model must be grounded in axioms that cannot themselves be justified within that model. We could get into social constructivism if you really want, but that's an area in which I'm quite well-versed; "yeah but why"-ability is not a sign of weakness of a model. The point of utilitarianism is to align the model of morality with things that people want.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    But why is it good when people get what they want?
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      after realising where you are going with this I addressed your tactic in an edit to the comment above.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        My point is that the only real argument for or against utilitarianism is whether you think it sounds correct. "I want the world to be like this" is where the whys ultimately end. If the killer argument against Kant was his reliance on God, this is not much of an upgrade.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        The actual place where the 'whys' end is the axiomatic foundations of the model. The axioms for the categorical imperative are self-referential in the abstract (universal rules are good because they are good), whereas the axioms for utilitarianism are rooted in maximising subjective human experience. One is fundamentally materialist, the other idealist. You are right in that you can't argue on those grounds because the two sides value different things, in the same way that religious versus material justifications for actions cannot be reconciled. That does not mean that they have equal merit.
        marginalia_nu 5y ago
        That these axioms are just statements held as true, with no actual motivation why. Because of that, it's really hard to argue in favor of one system of ethics over the other on any more solid ground than "this sounds true", or appealing to the consequences if it was true. "True" even starts to lose meaning in this context as these statements don't correspond to anything in the external world, they are entirely fabricated from ideas. They can be self-consistent, others can share the ideas, but that's about as good as things get.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry. Let me show you. > Well, utilitarianism would suggest that good derives from pleasure and bad derives from suffering. Why does good derive from pleasure?

beaconstudios 5y ago
Because pleasure is the word we use to describe positive feelings, ie feelings that people intrinsically want. Suffering is its inverse, something people intrinsically don't want. A utilitarian identifies the good with giving people what they want. You can define 'good' in other ways if you don't agree that giving people what they want is good, but then I think you'd have to justify a superior definition. I realise what you mean now though; just asking "yeah but why" can be used to constantly question anything because it assumes that axioms can be questioned - any model must be grounded in axioms that cannot themselves be justified within that model. We could get into social constructivism if you really want, but that's an area in which I'm quite well-versed; "yeah but why"-ability is not a sign of weakness of a model. The point of utilitarianism is to align the model of morality with things that people want.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  But why is it good when people get what they want?
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    after realising where you are going with this I addressed your tactic in an edit to the comment above.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      My point is that the only real argument for or against utilitarianism is whether you think it sounds correct. "I want the world to be like this" is where the whys ultimately end. If the killer argument against Kant was his reliance on God, this is not much of an upgrade.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        The actual place where the 'whys' end is the axiomatic foundations of the model. The axioms for the categorical imperative are self-referential in the abstract (universal rules are good because they are good), whereas the axioms for utilitarianism are rooted in maximising subjective human experience. One is fundamentally materialist, the other idealist. You are right in that you can't argue on those grounds because the two sides value different things, in the same way that religious versus material justifications for actions cannot be reconciled. That does not mean that they have equal merit.
        marginalia_nu 5y ago
        That these axioms are just statements held as true, with no actual motivation why. Because of that, it's really hard to argue in favor of one system of ethics over the other on any more solid ground than "this sounds true", or appealing to the consequences if it was true. "True" even starts to lose meaning in this context as these statements don't correspond to anything in the external world, they are entirely fabricated from ideas. They can be self-consistent, others can share the ideas, but that's about as good as things get.