Utilitarianism, or something more?

[nehlybel]

I took an ethics course last semester, and we discussed many different stances on moral reasoning. For those who don't know, the philosophical theory of utilitarianism, boiled down to its most concrete ideals, follows the belief that the moral right lies within the act that will create the most good for the greatest number of people. Logically, this argument is flawless, and yet many people still have issues with it. So, what does explosm think? Is it a reasonable method of moral reasoning, or should there be something more?

[The_Solipsist]

There's always a middle ground, and the idea itself can be argued many ways.

Is it better for the whole if a lot oppose are controversial idea and have it shot down, or is it better if they accept it and advance in terms of understanding and tolerance. Case in point, gay rights.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there is almost never a way to maintain this philosophy.

[Android]

The problem with utilitarianism is that people can be used as a means to an end. It all seems great on paper until you think that if you were a member of say this forum and we all agreed you should be permabanned, even though you didn't do anything wrong, that could be justified by the theory of utilitarianism. Essentially your being banned was providing the greatest good to the greatest number.

Anyway, those "many people" you referred to are those who follow Kant.

Essentially Kantians believe that people cannot be used as a means to an end because they are an end in themselves or special. Some attribute this to something innate about the species. Because people are not objects, or livestock, they should be treated with some degree of dignity and not used. Others believe this "specialness" can be attributed to god or whatever high power there is. You see if humanity was made in god's image then we are poor reflections of god and we would thus be doing god and our creation a disservice by using people as a means to an end.

And Solo, this mode of thinking is used all the time.

[Tweek]

Putting the majority ahead of the minority in any situation is shit.

[Metalhead636]

The most good for the most people may not be fair.

[Casalen]

That's not the only interpretation of utilitarianism.

Some say the most good is ideal. That means amount of good times number of people. Which seems pretty fair to me. Not perfect and not something I wholeheartedly subscribe to, but there aren't any fundamental issues I see.

And the study of ethics is more than deciding what's right and wrong. It's deciding where those ideas come from in the first place. The utilitarian theory is one idea that works great a lot of times, but everything has exceptions. Kant says you can't do things that can't be done by everyone, so you can't lie. But he ignores that there could be situations outside of the general. He probably wouldn't think lying to a killer looking for your friend is okay, though I'd be willing to bet he'd lie in the same situation, regardless of what his books say. My point is that there is no absolute in these kinds of things, and every theory should be taken as a consideration.

[timbot]

I took an ethics course last semester, and we discussed many different stances on moral reasoning. For those who don't know, the philosophical theory of utilitarianism, boiled down to its most concrete ideals, follows the belief that the moral right lies within the act that will create the most good for the greatest number of people. Logically, this argument is flawless, and yet many people still have issues with it. So, what does explosm think? Is it a reasonable method of moral reasoning, or should there be something more?

That bolded line really through me off. I've not done a huge amount of philosophy study, but I've taken my share of philosophy, sociology, ethics classes through high school and college and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Where do you even get this idea that it's flawless? There are all kinds of flaws. As has already been mentioned, it leads to individuals being tossed aside for "the group." Even if you say that society is more important than the individual--which I also think is ridiculous, but won't go into--there are other problems. How do you decide what is the greatest good? How does one go about figuring out how many people will actually be affected by any single decision? How do you measure "goodness?" It is not something that can be quantified. Yet, if we did the problems still aren't gone. Which is better: a deed that causes 200 good for me alone, or a deed that creates 15 good for 10 people. The first creates more "good," but the second is good for more people.
I think it's a pretty terrible way to approach life.

[hollywood_maggot]

Besides the fact that it's a ridiculously easy philosophy to abuse.

[nehlybel]

That bolded line really through me off. I've not done a huge amount of philosophy study, but I've taken my share of philosophy, sociology, ethics classes through high school and college and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Where do you even get this idea that it's flawless? There are all kinds of flaws. As has already been mentioned, it leads to individuals being tossed aside for "the group." Even if you say that society is more important than the individual--which I also think is ridiculous, but won't go into--there are other problems. How do you decide what is the greatest good? How does one go about figuring out how many people will actually be affected by any single decision? How do you measure "goodness?" It is not something that can be quantified. Yet, if we did the problems still aren't gone. Which is better: a deed that causes 200 good for me alone, or a deed that creates 15 good for 10 people. The first creates more "good," but the second is good for more people.
I think it's a pretty terrible way to approach life.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuard Mill both proposed ways to quantify "goodness"... I wasn't trying to say I swayed one way or another, I just wanted people's opinions. As for the perfection of the theory, moral philosophy is really hard to prove/disprove, but assuming you accept the premises as true (namely that goodness is quantifiable, that the good of the many outweight the good of the individual, and that people can objectively attribute values for this system) you must accept the theory. Everyone here who has disputed it have done so by simply negating one of these premises. However, if you read some of Bentham or Mill, the conclusions follow perfectly from these premises. However, I think I agree with you. I don't like it any more than the majority of you do.

[BKS]

In theory, "for the greater good" is how we've been living our lives. We do things for the greater goods of ourselves, and then comes others. But think, would you do something for the greater good of the majority, even if YOU weren't part of it? If the death of your race or your family meant that everyone else would be happy, in theory, you should die.

But morally and ethically, this isn't the right approach.