5 ms·

I used to be a utilitarian 15-20 years ago after reading the work of Peter Singer and many others. These days, I have to admit its application has been almost w

I used to be a utilitarian 15-20 years ago after reading the work of Peter Singer and many others. These days, I have to admit its application has been almost without exception backwards if not reprehensible. It seems to lead inevitably either to (obviously repugnant and utility-destroying) communism or a strangely twisted and fruitless hyper-rationality (think contemporary Effective Altruism). In the end, and perhaps in service of my original utilitarian impulses, I feel that entirely abandoning utilitarianism is the right path. This is sometimes referred to as `esoteric utilitarianism`, something that Sidgwick wrote about — suggesting that even teaching people about utilitarianism (himself being a utilitarian) might be immoral. Virtue ethics has been particularly appealing!

yannyu 2y ago
Utilitarian analysis inevitably is coopted by those in power to frame "good" as what the powerful want. For example, some say it's more important to keep people's stock-invested retirement accounts solvent by increasing stock prices rather than take corporate profits and pay people who can't even afford groceries or rent, let alone invest in a retirement account.
etblg 2y ago
> It seems to lead inevitably either to (obviously repugnant and utility-destroying) communism Why is that obvious, why is that inevitable, and how is this inevitable communism utility-destroying?
jhanschoo 2y ago
How can the version of communism one arrives at through a utility-maximizing manner reasoning itself be "utility-destroying"? Surely whatever principles one derives out of of it has more utility than all other alternatives. Unless you are being facetious in your characterization.
yboris 2y ago
I'm baffled by your claim about Effective Altruism (EA): "fruitless hyper-rationality (think contemporary Effective Altruism)." Fruitless? You mean the (movement of) people who have contributed billions of dollars to some of the most cost-effective charities on the planet; many of who give at least 10% of their income to such charities ... fruitless? How did you form your opinions about EA?

yannyu 2y ago

Utilitarian analysis inevitably is coopted by those in power to frame "good" as what the powerful want. For example, some say it's more important to keep people's stock-invested retirement accounts solvent by increasing stock prices rather than take corporate profits and pay people who can't even afford groceries or rent, let alone invest in a retirement account.

etblg 2y ago

> It seems to lead inevitably either to (obviously repugnant and utility-destroying) communism Why is that obvious, why is that inevitable, and how is this inevitable communism utility-destroying?

jhanschoo 2y ago

How can the version of communism one arrives at through a utility-maximizing manner reasoning itself be "utility-destroying"? Surely whatever principles one derives out of of it has more utility than all other alternatives. Unless you are being facetious in your characterization.

yboris 2y ago

I'm baffled by your claim about Effective Altruism (EA): "fruitless hyper-rationality (think contemporary Effective Altruism)." Fruitless? You mean the (movement of) people who have contributed billions of dollars to some of the most cost-effective charities on the planet; many of who give at least 10% of their income to such charities ... fruitless? How did you form your opinions about EA?