Consequentialism/Utilitarianism

[Nwoye]

hey my first OP on revleft. it took me 100 posts. anyway...

It seems that most members that I've discussed philosophy with on RevLeft have been either Moral/Ethical relativists (yuck) or Utilitarians/Consequenitalists. As to the latter - which seems to be ever so popular in leftist philosophy, and in more liberal/statist philosophies, particularly in justifications for redistributive taxation - I feel there are some areas which are clearly lacking. Just so we have a concise definition, Utilitarianism is the beleif that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall utility, or by the amount of happiness it brings about or pain it prevents.

First off, it suffers the obvious problem of the inability to aggregate happiness or utility, and measuring it over the short or long term. We could hold that it's ethical to kill one man to save one thousand, because that results in more happiness, but is it ethical to kill one man to save two men? or to save one man? How do we determine whether that act of killing one man to save another actually brings about more happiness or utility, or whether it prevents more pain, than would occur if it was not done? We can't. Also, what if that one man that we chose to kill in order to save a thousand, turned out to know the cure for cancer? or something of that nature. Obviously, the act of killing him has now decreased utility, meaning the act is now immoral. But how could we have possibly known this? We couldn't. Which brings me to my next point.

Consequences are nearly impossible to predict. To use that example above, an moral act (according to utilitarianism) just became immoral, because of a condition we had no ability to predict. So how could we have accounted for this? In another example, suppose I bake my friend a birthday cake, but it turns out they are allergic to eggs, and end up having to be taken to the hospital. Obvisouly, I had good intentions, and acting off of those inentions and a reasonable expectation of the consequences, I decided to go through with the action. However, the act of baking the cake caused a decrease in happiness or utility, and it therefore was immoral. But how could I have predicted this? I couldn't have. And there is the problem. When I am formulating a normative ethical philosophy (what I ought to do), if I intend to formulate it utilitarian principles, I must perfect knowledge of the outcome of my actions - which is completely impossible. Since I can't have that information, I can't know what is ethical, and therefore what I ought to do. So in this sense, utilitarianism isn't very helpful as a normative ethical philosophy is it?

Thirdly, causality is often impossible or extremely difficult to determine. For example, there is no conclusive answer as to whether or not dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki ended the war, or whether it saved lives in the long run, or whether it was conducive to overall utility or happiness. So how are we supposed to judge it using utilitarianism? We can't.

Now these aren't even all of the most popular arguments against utilitarianism, but they'll suffice. But yeah all in all, utilitarianism stinks, and it makes a pretty crappy foundation for ethics and by extension political philosophy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Consequences are difficult to predict. Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily claim mathematics can solve our ethical dilemmas. In theory, it suggests this is possible. Additionally, causality is sometimes difficult to determine. Most ethical theories suffer from issues of consequences and causality being difficult to determine.

Utilitarianism with respect to men can say that killing others for utility, in case X, is somehow a rule "against utilitarianism." Alternatively, you know nothing about the man who you cure except his potential. Utilitarianism typically weighs potential positively - especially in the absence of other evidence. This is why Mill and others objected to suicide, primarily. You need existence to continue creating utility.

**

I'm also against utilitarianism. I just thought I would defend it somewhat. I'm sympathetic to the following ideas.

1. There is a basic set of needs a person must fulfill before they can legitimately be criticized for being unethical.
2. After these needs are met, society should distinguish resources according to the methodology that most benefits the least advantaged in society - prioritarianism.
3. However, prioritarianism does not necessarily imply giving wealth the the poor. If giving money to a business man created more long-term jobs, thus benefiting the poor more, you could give wealth to the rich, talented, et cetera - John Rawl's A Theory fo Justice.

After that, I'm skeptical as to how much (if any) inequality is actually justifiable. Straight prioritarianism could have the following situation. If 10 people all receive 10 dollars, one person could be absolutely miserable. If he only received 11 dollars, he would be fine. If such a case arose, and the individual had minimal prospects (mentally defficient), it's considerably difficult to draw a line. If we all had to live in poverty, but had our basic needs met minus entertainment, would we do so if a small minority required mansions to be happy? Not just tradition. A legitimate psychological state of perpertuatle greed, perhaps.

I'd like to think we'd give up some to help those in need. However, I'd also like to think we'd draw a line somewhere. This is why basic needs, I think, have to include more than "basic needs." Even if property is shared, a person needs the ability to work for themself rather than the benefit of their insatiable (tragically so) comrade.

Many ethical theories would have us endure capitalism. Those individuals are so accustomed to their conditions, and we are not living in horror, for the most part. Therefore, we should leave them alone because they need more to be happy. I'm skeptical at that point.

I think there is some sort of standard of basic charity. Give as much as you can. Ideally, we should all be giving everything to others after our basic needs are satisfied. Unfortunately, we have more than basic needs. After all our needs are satisfied, for some of us, there is considerably little left of our time.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

First off, it suffers the obvious problem of the inability to aggregate happiness or utility, and measuring it over the short or long term. We could hold that it's ethical to kill one man to save one thousand, because that results in more happiness, but is it ethical to kill one man to save two men? or to save one man? How do we determine whether that act of killing one man to save another actually brings about more happiness or utility, or whether it prevents more pain, than would occur if it was not done? We can't.

So because a moral system is hard we cannot use it? That sounds like moral relativism to me.
Utilitarianism presents simple clean principles, it does not give simple clean answers. In this way it is very different from moralities based on rules, indeed it is the exact opposite.


To use that example above, an moral act (according to utilitarianism) just became immoral, because of a condition we had no ability to predict. So how could we have accounted for this?We couldn't. We can only do our best.


Obvisouly, I had good intentions, and acting off of those inentions and a reasonable expectation of the consequences, I decided to go through with the action.Intentions mean nothing. Only reality matters.
The reality is someone is suffering.


But how could I have predicted this? I couldn't have. And there is the problem.Well you could have checked if your friend had any allergies, so certainly not nothing in that case.


Since I can't have that information, I can't know what is ethical, and therefore what I ought to do. So in this sense, utilitarianism isn't very helpful as a normative ethical philosophy is it?You can have reasonable expectations of consequence and agent knowledge however.
And a normative ethical philosophy needs to apply to octopi as well as humans or it becomes a form of moral relativism.


Now these aren't even all of the most popular arguments against utilitarianism, but they'll suffice. But yeah all in all, utilitarianism stinks, and it makes a pretty crappy foundation for ethics and by extension political philosophy.I've never seen a moral system that didn't boil down to rules based utilitarianism.
Well other than power and selfishness of course.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Sedrox, all your objections to utilitarianism boil down to knowledge: We do not have perfect knowledge of something (aggregate utility, the full consequences of our actions, or what-if scenarios), therefore we can't make clear-cut decisions.

True, but that is equally true for all ethical systems except for those based entirely on intent. We never have perfect knowledge of the world, therefore it's always possible to make mistakes in ethical judgments about the world. Deontological or rights-based ethical systems suffer from knowledge problems too. Suppose there's a rule against killing. What happens if you kill someone by mistake? What happens if you break a rule, or violate a right, without your knowledge?

Because you can always do things by mistake, ANY ethical system that takes into consideration your actions upon the world will suffer from knowledge problems.

But what is the alternative? Ethical systems that don't take into account your actions upon the world. In other words, ethical systems based on intent - "it only matters what you intended to do, not what you actually did." Such systems are utterly stupid for a variety of reasons, but the main problem with them is that there is no way to verify a person's intent, so we cannot use intent-based ethics to create laws or rules for human society.

[Nwoye]

Sedrox, all your objections to utilitarianism boil down to knowledge: We do not have perfect knowledge of something (aggregate utility, the full consequences of our actions, or what-if scenarios), therefore we can't make clear-cut decisions.
more or less.


True, but that is equally true for all ethical systems except for those based entirely on intent. We never have perfect knowledge of the world, therefore it's always possible to make mistakes in ethical judgments about the world. Deontological or rights-based ethical systems suffer from knowledge problems too. Suppose there's a rule against killing. What happens if you kill someone by mistake? What happens if you break a rule, or violate a right, without your knowledge?
well most versions of deontological ethics focus on intent of the agent. they draw (usually legitimate) distinctions between allowing bad to happen (conscientiously or not) and actually willing it to happen. In your example, the person would not be held morally responsible insofar as they did not will or predict that outcome.


Because you can always do things by mistake, ANY ethical system that takes into consideration your actions upon the world will suffer from knowledge problems.
which is why intentions are incredibly important.


But what is the alternative? Ethical systems that don't take into account your actions upon the world. In other words, ethical systems based on intent - "it only matters what you intended to do, not what you actually did." Such systems are utterly stupid for a variety of reasons, but the main problem with them is that there is no way to verify a person's intent, so we cannot use intent-based ethics to create laws or rules for human society.
I think that is an obvious problem if we try to apply them in public policy or real world instances, but for the purpose of determining "what I ought to do" - which is the ultimate goal of normative ethics - it is very helpful. I mean, we always know what our personal intentions were or are, so we will always know whether or not what we are doing is ethical.

[Nwoye]

Utilitarianism presents simple clean principles, it does not give simple clean answers. In this way it is very different from moralities based on rules, indeed it is the exact opposite.
it doesn't give us any answers.


Intentions mean nothing. Only reality matters.that's silly. I don't see how you could have a reasonable and applicable ethical system if you completely disregard the intentions of the acting agent.


Well you could have checked if your friend had any allergies, so certainly not nothing in that case.
the analogy still illustrates my point.


You can have reasonable expectations of consequence and agent knowledge however.sure you can. but that isn't utilitarianism. that is agent based deontological ethics.


And a normative ethical philosophy needs to apply to octopi as well as humans or it becomes a form of moral relativism.why is that?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

it doesn't give us any answers.

Correction, no easy answers.
It does however give us principles that are internally consistent.


that's silly. I don't see how you could have a reasonable and applicable ethical system if you completely disregard the intentions of the acting agent.Intentions are lies, rationalizations made after the fact. Why should we consider lies in our moral judgments?
Are the most moral people those who are the best at self deception?


why is that?Because a moral system has to be equally applicable to an objective moral system, otherwise your buying into moral relativism by default. Since the moral principles your claiming for your society are non-applicable to the universe at large.

[Nwoye]

Correction, no easy answers.
It does however give us principles that are internally consistent.
so was the bombing of Hiroshima an ethical act? remember, stick to utilitarian ethics here. You have to quantify all the pain from the people who died and were injured, then determine whether the bombings actually did cause the Japanese surrender, and then quantify the pain avoided from the act.

its fucking impossible.


Intentions are lies, rationalizations made after the fact. Why should we consider lies in our moral judgments?
Are the most moral people those who are the best at self deception?
I think it's quite clear that intentions are not purely rationalizations made after the fact. There is a clear difference between baking a cake for someone and unknowingly causing an allergic reaction and intentionally poisoning someone, even though they both may have the same outcomes.

but who cares, were not talking about kantian ethics, we're talking about utilitarianism.


Because a moral system has to be equally applicable to an objective moral system, otherwise your buying into moral relativism by default. Since the moral principles your claiming for your society are non-applicable to the universe at large.i don't think you can apply moral propositions to non-humans. Only humans can reflect on past actions and make normative decisions, so applying ethics to beings other than humans seems silly.

we're talking ethics from an agent based perspective here, btw.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

so was the bombing of Hiroshima an ethical act? remember, stick to utilitarian ethics here. You have to quantify all the pain from the people who died and were injured, then determine whether the bombings actually did cause the Japanese surrender, and then quantify the pain avoided from the act.

It was wrong, as it didn't cause the surrender. They were already going to surrender.


its fucking impossible.So is calculating pi to the last decimal. That doesn't make pi wrong however.


but who cares, were not talking about kantian ethics, we're talking about utilitarianism.Your the one who brought intent into the argument.


i don't think you can apply moral propositions to non-humans. Only humans can reflect on past actions and make normative decisions, so applying ethics to beings other than humans seems silly.And also bullshit.
Wolves have morality.
Ants have morality.
Every social animal has morality.
And Chimps well chimps have the exact same common sense morality we do. Everything were born with morally is right there in them just as much as us.

The difference here is the ability to go into far mode and discuss morality, which isn't a big difference as it isn't going to change the moral impulses we act on except through social engineering.



we're talking ethics from an agent based perspective here, btw.

Then it boils down to moral relativism. Either morally is as universally applicable as math, or it isn't objective.
And if it's not objective we can do away with it, embrace power and selfishness. and crush the bourgeois cause we want a bigger slice of the pie.

[Nwoye]

It was wrong, as it didn't cause the surrender. They were already going to surrender.
good luck proving that, and then incorporating the answer into a guideline of what you should do next time that situation should occur.


your the one who brought intent into the argument.
true. but i did it to illustrate the difference between intention and result, not to advocate kantian ethics.


And also bullshit.
Wolves have morality.
Ants have morality.
Every social animal has morality.
And Chimps well chimps have the exact same common sense morality we do. Everything were born with morally is right there in them just as much as us.

The difference here is the ability to go into far mode and discuss morality, which isn't a big difference as it isn't going to change the moral impulses we act on except through social engineering.
in what sense do animals have morality? unless you count an egoist instinct towards self preservation as morality.

I would say that the difference between humans and animals in terms of ethics is the ability to reflect on past actions and formulate a coherent guideline as to "what i ought to do".

[mel]

Then it boils down to moral relativism. Either morally is as universally applicable as math, or it isn't objective.
And if it's not objective we can do away with it, embrace power and selfishness. and crush the bourgeois cause we want a bigger slice of the pie.

I don't think that you can come up with a set of objective principles that will give answers to ethical problems. Period. No two people will have the same conception of "utility", no two people will have the same ideas about which action will bring about the greatest utility for any sufficiently complex problem. I think the fact of the matter is that we can't come up with any normative, prescriptive set of ethical rules that will allow for people to make ethical decisions. With utilitarianism, most literally any behavior can be justified given a sufficiently warped definition of utility.

I think what people need to realize is that relativism isn't a prescriptive ethical position, it's descriptive. Moral relativism identifies morality as constantly shifting, and defined almost entirely by socialization. However, that doesn't mean that every action is permissible. Just because we cannot come up with a wholly objective prescriptive framework that will allow people to make ethical decisions, does not mean that we cannot as a society, uphold the ideas of our collective culture, and prescribe our own set of moral rules. We have determined, as a world society, that liberty is a net good and should be preserved. We have determined, as a world society, that killing other people is something to be avoided whenever possible. While these types of rules can be justified by utilitarianism, a utilitarian framework cannot hope to help people make practical decisions in more complex situations. I think for that, we need to leave the decision making up to the individuals and as a society, we can decide whether the decisions that were made are consistent with our goals.

Why should we throw away all of the ideas that we have come up with through the progress of civilization because we can't come up with a prescriptive, objective, universal framework to justify those ideas?

[thundertail19921]

I disagree with this philosophy.

[mel]

I disagree with this philosophy.

Which philosophy? Can you possibly give us any more information?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

in what sense do animals have morality? unless you count an egoist instinct towards self preservation as morality.

If morals didn't serve our egoist instinct for self preservation, they would never have evolved in the first place.


I would say that the difference between humans and animals in terms of ethics is the ability to reflect on past actions and formulate a coherent guideline as to "what i ought to do".

Rational thought has no influence on behavior. That's reality, our ability to reflect on things isn't going to change what we will do.
We are creatures of instinct and habit, rational thought is not some magical formula that overturns millions of years of evolution.


However, that doesn't mean that every action is permissible. Just because we cannot come up with a wholly objective prescriptive framework that will allow people to make ethical decisions, does not mean that we cannot as a society, uphold the ideas of our collective culture, and prescribe our own set of moral rules. We have determined, as a world society, that liberty is a net good and should be preserved. We have determined, as a world society, that killing other people is something to be avoided whenever possible. While these types of rules can be justified by utilitarianism, a utilitarian framework cannot hope to help people make practical decisions in more complex situations. I think for that, we need to leave the decision making up to the individuals and as a society, we can decide whether the decisions that were made are consistent with our goals.

Why should we throw away all of the ideas that we have come up with through the progress of civilization because we can't come up with a prescriptive, objective, universal framework to justify those ideas?

Convention and social contracts are not morals.
We can toss aside morality without tossing aside those things. We just need to accept our laws exist for wholly selfish reasons.
We can strike down the bourgeois because they offer no benefit to us.
We can work together because it's more beneficial than killing each other.

[mel]

If morals didn't serve our egoist instinct for self preservation, they would never have evolved in the first place.

While I agree with you that some of our moral rules may have evolved due to their benefit to us (and I think murder is a good example of one that may have), you can't really come up with a rational evolutionary basis for any ethical rules that have come up more recently than that. This doesn't explain our general ideas that liberty is a net good, or that equality is a net good. If you can come up with an evolutionary defense of egalitarianism, go for it, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to do so.



Rational thought has no influence on behavior. That's reality, our ability to reflect on things isn't going to change what we will do. We are creatures of instinct and habit, rational thought is not some magical formula that overturns millions of years of evolution.

This is the most bizzarre thing I have ever heard anyone say. How on earth can you say that rationality has absolutely no effect on behavior? People sit down, reflect on their positions in life, weigh their options, and then make decisions as a result of what they think, rationally, will most benefit them. Perhaps not for every decision, but the fact that this process occurs at all is a testament to just how wrong you are about the ability for reason to influence behavior. Instinct and habit play a role, but so does rational thought. You can't just dismiss it as a factor.


Convention and social contracts are not morals.
We can toss aside morality without tossing aside those things. We just need to accept our laws exist for wholly selfish reasons.
We can strike down the bourgeois because they offer no benefit to us.
We can work together because it's more beneficial than killing each other.

I never said convention and social contracts were morals, just that they largely enforce and define the morality of a given culture. The moral rules of a specific culture exist in large part because of convention and socialization. Modern societies codify those rules into laws, and people living in those societies are punished, rehabilitated or restrained if they do not follow those conventions.

If instinct and habit were the only things which effected our behavior, and evolution had told us that killing is wrong, then why does war exist?

Either our "moral instincts" are weaker than instinctual desire to protect our territory and to acquire more (giving credence to the arguments of capitalists that our "human nature" is why socialism cannot work. Property rights are instinctual and innate) or rationality can win out over instinct.

People make decisions that they think will benefit them, and socialization plays a large role in the moral rules of a society. In a capitalist society, greed is valued higher than all other instincts, by design, so that the most greedy and the most ruthless take power, but by rational discovery the proletariat can eventually awaken to their class interests and overthrow those who have exploited them.

If instinct was really the only thing which influenced behavior, the awakening of the proletariat would be impossible, the instinct for self-preservation would dictate that they attempt to put food on their tables, habit would dictate that they do so by taking jobs which give them the money they need to subsist. If the ability to reason had no influence on behavior, this would be the end, but once the basic needs are met, humans have the remarkable ability to decide against their own immediate self-interest, to defer instinctual desires for greater rewards later. Reason combined with the instinct for self-preservation and a moral predilection towards egalitarianism deems the overthrow of the exploiting class necessary.

[Nwoye]

egoism is a complete contradiction as a moral philosophy. you might as well be a moral nihilist.

[black magick hustla]

utilitarianism is really vulgar. you might as well justify 19th century racism against black folks cuz it made the white majority happy

[WhitemageofDOOM]

you can't really come up with a rational evolutionary basis for any ethical rules that have come up more recently than that.

The basic concept of morality is engineered into the human psyche, from there we use culture to bolt on new rules.


If you can come up with an evolutionary defense of egalitarianism, go for it, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to do so.

Except said evolutionary desire for egalitarianism actually exists in...every social animal ever. Humans actually have an extreme strong dislike of unfairness.
What do you thing jealousy is?


This is the most bizzarre thing I have ever heard anyone say. How on earth can you say that rationality has absolutely no effect on behavior?

Actual neuroscience disagrees. The centers of our brain responsible for rational thought is only informed of a decision after it's been made.


If instinct and habit were the only things which effected our behavior, and evolution had told us that killing is wrong, then why does war exist?

Because we make in group/out group distinctions in regards to morality, there's actually a part of your brain that exists to have your emotions affect your moral judgments. It's the part of your brain that says "If my brother hurts you, that's an accident. But if you hurt my brother i'm going to seek revenge.". Damage it, and that goes away...and they become much more utilitarian.(Yes, i'm aware of the implications.)


Either our "moral instincts" are weaker than instinctual desire to protect our territory and to acquire more (giving credence to the arguments of capitalists that our "human nature" is why socialism cannot work. Property rights are instinctual and innate) or rationality can win out over instinct.

It's more complex than that.
For one, were social animals we've evolved to work together because it's just a much more effcient way to survive and aquire territory than wasting energy killing each other.
Second while rationality can't restrain instinct it's true, but culture can. And we certainly can use rational thought to play with that, since we can sit around disscussing it in far mode.


People make decisions that they think will benefit them, and socialization plays a large role in the moral rules of a society. In a capitalist society, greed is valued higher than all other instincts, by design, so that the most greedy and the most ruthless take power

Completely correct, and in a socialist society greed will be heavily sanctioned while cooperation is encouraged. Making the people favor those behaviors.
The mental adaptability of humans is quite impressive really.


but by rational discovery the proletariat can eventually awaken to their class interests and overthrow those who have exploited them.

Why haven't they? It's plainly in there benefit with rational analysis.


the instinct for self-preservation would dictate that they attempt to put food on their tables, habit would dictate that they do so by taking jobs which give them the money they need to subsist.

And this is why they haven't. But it is not impossible.


Reason combined with the instinct for self-preservation and a moral predilection towards egalitarianism deems the overthrow of the exploiting class necessary.

See i agree with that. The problem is your over rationalizing humanity(in the same way objectivism does in fact.) Rational thought is incredibly useful because it lets us have disscussions like this, but it doesn't run our lives. When instinct and rational thought conflict the more powerful instinct will win.


utilitarianism is really vulgar. you might as well justify 19th century racism against black folks cuz it made the white majority happy

No you really might as well not, it meant a lot of unhappy black folks. In some theoretical bizzaro world racism might actually increase net happiness, but we oppose racism in our world because it engineered and continues to cause horrible suffering.
The question boils down to "Why is something wrong" inevitably the answer leads to "because it hurts people".

[mikelepore]

I'd rather have an ethical theory that's difficult to apply, and it's premise is utility and consequences, than a theory that's easy to implement directly, and it's source is a holy prophet who made it all up out of the clear blue sky.

[mel]

I'd rather have an ethical theory that's difficult to apply, and it's premise is utility and consequences, than a theory that's easy to implement directly, and it's source is a holy prophet who made it all up out of the clear blue sky.

Did anybody here suggest that the alternative to utilitarianism was morality handed down from some abstract "god" figure. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.

However, utilitarianism is more than just difficult to apply, it's entirely impossible except for the most trivial of ethical dilemmas, which just about everyone is already in agreement on. What's the point?

[ZeroNowhere]

No you really might as well not, it meant a lot of unhappy black folks. In some theoretical bizzaro world racism might actually increase net happiness, but we oppose racism in our world because it engineered and continues to cause horrible suffering.So I would presume that you calculated net happiness in order to find this out?

[mikelepore]

Did anybody here suggest that the alternative to utilitarianism was morality handed down from some abstract "god" figure. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.

Clearly there are going to be social rules, and either we at least try to use a rational formula for determining them, or else we give in to randomness and make up the rules out of thin air without attempting to apply any formula at all.


However, utilitarianism is more than just difficult to apply, it's entirely impossible except for the most trivial of ethical dilemmas, which just about everyone is already in agreement on. What's the point?

The point is that criticizing such methods as utility and consequences is a form of the perfect solution fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy).

[Luís Henrique]

But what is the alternative? Ethical systems that don't take into account your actions upon the world. In other words, ethical systems based on intent - "it only matters what you intended to do, not what you actually did." Such systems are utterly stupid for a variety of reasons, but the main problem with them is that there is no way to verify a person's intent, so we cannot use intent-based ethics to create laws or rules for human society.

1. In real world, we base our moral choice both on actions and intent. Seems reasonable.

2. Why do you say there is no way to verify a person's intent? Of course there is.

3. Ethics and law are different matters. Any rational set of laws must allow some "unethical" actions and forbid some "ethical" ones.

Luís Henrique