defend the indefensible: utilitarianism

if you could somehow demonstrate to me that e.g. capitalism was the form of economic organization that maximized "happiness" for the greatest number of people

i think good (no doubt controversial) case can be made for this (with proviso that definitions of ‘capitalism’ & ‘happiness’ not unproblematic givens)

this is prob dumb-obv thing to say, but my problem with utilitarianism/ consequentialism is problem with any totalizing ethical system/ theory

irl (as opposed to academic philosophy), ethical considerations, criteria, calculations involve complex, heterogeneous, mixed set of language-games, engaging with abstraction/ generalization, analogies & disanalogies, yet also attuned to dense web (context) of particulars

in ‘pure’ form or as totalizing theory, consequentialism & deontology both are inhuman & absurd, alien to ways humans actually ‘reason’ morally— ways much more sophisticated than philosophy’s gedanken-parables capture or allow for (ways not easily schematized by philosophy)

imo everyone (sociopaths aside) is consequentialist and deontologist, i.e. these are primordial ethical perspectives/ arguments/ language-games, most useful & essential as correctives, checks & balances on each other

philosophers like singer seem to me like children, frustrated at illogicalities & apparent paradoxes of e.g. english language, adamantly insisting others shd adopt their own invented wd-be ‘rational’ language
i don’t begrudge anyone that choice of personal ethics (especially if it induces ethical action), but ultimately— in pure form— it’s no more ‘rational’ (its normative power no more secured by ‘logic’) than e.g. ethics based on religion
the complexity of ethical thought prob best elucidated through narrative, not abstract theory or some input-output algorithm for action

nb theories, algorithms, gedanken-experiments, schematizations of philosophy (e.g. of utilitarian philosophy) are useful— insofar as they contribute to diverse toolbox of ethical-political reasoning, argumentation, persuasion, evaluation (e.g. of policy)
but imo they don’t in themselves provide any answers

i agree it can be argued, it frequently is argued! by "demonstrate" i meant "proved to a reasonable degree of certainty".

not all consequentialism is utilitarianism, obv, but the problem they both have at the macro and micro level is fundamentally one of time - of consequences, even. an action that benefits me in the short term might do me greater harm as it's consequences unfold. a policy that benefits x number of people over a year might harm 100x people over 10.

this isn't to say consequentialism can't be a good way of taking decisions on how to behave, but it does mean that to call those decisions "moral" requires a lot of qualification of what "good", "right" and "consequence" mean

i think the language of ethics as commonly used is far closer to a deontological position. consequentialism feels closer to the language of government.

which is to say yeah i broadly agree with you drash, to insist on either position dogmatically is only sane in the realm of philosophy...the same might be true of a rigid belief in the field of ethics as a guide to how to live tho

x-post: No I can't. In the same way I can't find anything inherent in modern science to preclude it's application to proving that the world is flat. Nobody in their right mind, and in good faith, could argue that it would be utilitarian to kill a bunch of grandfathers and -mothers. But somebody might lie and manipulate to say such a thing, sure. However, the risk of something like that happening - due to utilitarianism - are so little that it simply doesn't matter, consequentialistically speaking. When speaking consequentially, what matters are not 'inherent' things, what matters is not 'being', but 'doing'.

As I said upthread, I fully accept if people think that the moral philosophy with the best consequences are anti-consequentialist. I cannot argue against lying and saying that you're not a consequentialist, even though consequentialist argumenation brought you to that conclusion. But what I would need to hear to consider deontology, for instance, would be a convincing argument based on deontological reasoning, instead of utilitarian.

Also, crash mostly otm.

Also, Noodle Vague also tom that 'the language of ethics' is closer to deontology, which is obviously why it's a worthless waste of time ;)

Also also also, late Wittgenstein rules! Language games forever.

Sorry, drash not crash. Stupid auto-correct.

children, frustrated at illogicalities & apparent paradoxes of e.g. english language, adamantly insisting others shd adopt their own invented wd-be ‘rational’ language

Have to admit that I am irrationally sympathetic with those people

xps yr points otm nv

Also also also, late Wittgenstein rules! Language games forever.

:) with you there (waving my lighter in the air)

Have to admit that I am irrationally sympathetic with those people

am sympathetic too. funny thing is, temperamentally wittgenstein was like epitome of this, keenly felt & suffered from this frustration/perplexity
that’s always one of the voices in his (dialogic) texts (a voice in himself)
all his late philosophy is like therapeutically trying to work through this, let go of that obsessiveness/ demand/ delusion, demystify ‘rule-following’

Singer distinguishes between involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia and argues the latter is defensible whereas the former is basically not http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

This is twenty years ago now though so maybe he's gotten weirder. Euthanasia is probably the topic of his that has sparked the most lay outrage iirc

imo everyone (sociopaths aside) is consequentialist and deontologist,

macintyre_shed_tear.gif

utilitarians of many non-horrific stripes routinely repudiate dumm consequences drawn from their main doctrine by e.g. claiming that the basic moral standards (inclusive of duties, rights, liberties, autonomy, what have you) are to be observed in some fashion or other when applying the principle of utility. mill did so. whether or not their theoretical refinements or their official stance toward existing moral practices hold up is another matter (esp. e.g. in view of their generally wide-open attitude toward the revision of any existent practice that could be improved utility-wise), but their official view excludes 'let's kill all the babies' etc.

xp aw & virtue ethicist too (i.e. everyone is)
(<3 aristotle)

(though not v aristotelian irl myself)
(think aristotle wd be first to criticize utilitarians & deontologists, strict dogmatic ones anyway, for reasons related to discussion above)

i think it's straightforward to maintain lots of inalienable human rights & other rules on utilitarian grounds esp when allowing for the lack of omniscience/consensus on individual decisions

Gawker ended up publishing the piece: http://gawker.com/heres-the-philosophy-essay-vox-found-too-upsetting-to-p-1727243459

Furthermore, it’s difficult to get a grasp of what Big Bad World would be like. But the way people live there may be similar to the way we live. There are ups and downs in our lives. Perhaps a typical human life often ends up with only a little happiness as its net sum. Perhaps many lives end up with a negative sum. But then, is the Big Bad World so bad as one may at first have thought? It’s quite possible that people in Big Bad World aren’t living in abject poverty and misery, but instead have lives similar those of many affluent people living in rich, developed countries today.

I thought an assumption of the repugnant conclusion is that the people in Big Bad World live lives barely worth living. If in imagining such a world we imagine a world in which peoples' lives are pretty good, that just means we haven't thought about a big enough world, and we can reiterate the problem with respect to an even bigger world where individual standards of living are much worse but the net happiness is greater.

I think a concave real-valued function is a great metaphor for this argument but that doesn't mean I think there literally IS a real-valued function lying around whose concavity is the issue. Let alone any talk about fixed point theorems.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, August 28, 2015 11:27 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

all language is just metaphors, none of the things literally exist (although it's possible to observe these functions under very weak assumptions, just in rather banal settings). i think this is just bias against math, people take it more literally than they do other language for some reason. i just said concave real valued function as a shorthand to what we all understand and are familiar with as a real thing

Metaphors don't suffice for what's supposed to be (and claimed as by some of its proponents) a totalizing ethical theory. If philosophers in the anglophone tradition still want to make arguments about how we ought to live (which, for some reason, some of them do) resorting to analogy, sophistry, and appeals to common sense sorta seems like admitting the project is ridiculous.

utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a tactic.

i think this is just bias against math, people take it more literally than they do other language for some reason.

for some reason?!?!

I mean I'm not trying to be difficult, just saying, as someone in math I'm keenly aware of the way that mathematical language is actually much more useful to take literally than other language, as long as you make sure only to take it literally when it's meant literally.

all language is just metaphors, none of the things literally exist

flopson comin out all nietzschean

Which is why I think it's cool to say "it's good when money flows from rich to poor because IT'S KIND OF LIKE there's a concave function" is cool but "I can't tell you what utility different actions have but there must be a consistent way to assign utilities to outcomes because fixed point theorem" is not OK; it takes what was a useful metaphor and promotes it to the kind of thing to which one can apply fixed-point theorems.

i think i see what you mean

/all language is just metaphors, none of the things literally exist/

flopson comin out all nietzschean
--j.

haha i love these threads cause i'm just pulling stuff outta my ass but you guys have actually studied thought hard about and know like the history of these ideas. thank you for putting up with me each time i load the thread im like oh god what crap did i post here last night and cringe

utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a tactic.

― rushomancy, 29. august 2015 20:31 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

See, but what if, from a utilitarianist standpoint, in comparing language games, tactics are more moral than philosophy?

utilitarianism isn't a philosophy, it's a tactic.

― rushomancy, Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:31 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's ludicrous. I don't think Peter Singer is arguing in bad faith, using appealing intuitions about utility to achieve ends he doesn't think he could defend arguing from the utilitarian premise. I believe he really believes that what is good is to reduce suffering in the world as much as possible. His tactics are political.

good effective altruism smackdown by felix salmon http://t.co/aqXBa8UBEA

The same argument could be deployed about anything else that makes the world a better place without being a direct donation of money or time to charity, whether it’s founding Google, writing the novels of Judy Blume, or even working for a do-gooding nonprofit, if doing so pays you anything close to a market wage. Cooney’s admiration for check-writers is mirrored by his disdain for the people cashing those checks and doing the actual work: “Most non-profit staffers are not choosing the path that leads to the greatest good,” he writes.

gets at the self-hating dimension that must drive a lot of these people who i would wager predominantly HAVE social-benefit jobs in the first place

'i am so useless as a teacher, i submit my grades and my students leave and what impact have i even had on the world!??!'

and again with the arts

"My theater teacher saved my life" is definitely something nobody has ever said.

theater students say that all the time

theater students say that all the time

then have i got an altruistic social movement for you!!!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n18/amia-srinivasan/stop-the-robot-apocalypse

Doing Good Better is a feel-good guide to getting good done. It doesn’t dwell much on the horrors of global inequality, and sidesteps any diagnosis of its causes. The word ‘oppression’ appears just once. This is surely by design, at least in part. According to MacAskill’s moral worldview, it is the consequences of one’s actions that really matter, and that’s as true of writing a book as it is of donating to charity. His patter is calculated for maximal effect: if the book weren’t so cheery, MacAskill couldn’t expect to inspire as much do-gooding, and by his own lights that would be a moral failure. (I’m not saying it doesn’t work. Halfway through reading the book I set up a regular donation to GiveDirectly, one of the charities MacAskill endorses for its proven efficacy. It gives unconditional direct cash transfers to poor households in Uganda and Kenya.)

But the book’s snappy style isn’t just a strategic choice. MacAskill is evidently comfortable with ways of talking that are familiar from the exponents of global capitalism: the will to quantify, the essential comparability of all goods and all evils, the obsession with productivity and efficiency, the conviction that there is a happy convergence between self-interest and morality, the seeming confidence that there is no crisis whose solution is beyond the ingenuity of man. He repeatedly talks about philanthropy as a deal too good to pass up: ‘It’s like a 99 per cent off sale, or buy one, get 99 free. It might be the most amazing deal you’ll see in your life.’ There is a seemingly unanswerable logic, at once natural and magical, simple and totalising, to both global capitalism and effective altruism. That he speaks in the proprietary language of the illness – global inequality – whose symptoms he proposes to mop up is an irony on which he doesn’t comment. Perhaps he senses that his potential followers – privileged, ambitious millennials – don’t want to hear about the iniquities of the system that has shaped their worldview. Or perhaps he thinks there’s no irony here at all: capitalism, as always, produces the means of its own correction, and effective altruism is just the latest instance.

otm from a theoretical standpoint but i just can't get on board the anti effective altruism bandwagon. alright they are totally up themselves, far too confident in their flawed models, all too keen to work within a system that is ultimately responsible for the harms they are trying to prevent, and inasmuch as they truly act according to utilitarian principles obviously inhuman monsters. but in terms of practical effects, what is the worst you can say about them? that they might dissuade others from thinking about more radical change? idk seems a stretch, or counterbalanced by the fact that they are unquestionably encouraging people to give more money to more effective (probably) charities.

i wont't defend the ones trying to prevent robot apocalypse though, they really are the worst.

yeah i p much agree. like, it's ok to want to know how to save most lives with your charity donation without writing a book on or even having an opinion of the causes of global inequality.

yeah this seems like one of those cases where i wouldn't want to make perfect the enemy of the good

i mean there's something inherently offensive about the branding, like they're the only people that actually give a shit about having an impact. i say this as someone who used to listen to "intelligent dance music".

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18407/helping-a-drowning-stranger

In the past few years, the “effective altruism” movement has entered the fray to help nascent do-gooders make this decision by ranking charities according to how much good they do, measured by “quality-adjusted life years” saved per dollar. Not surprisingly, the movement has proved particularly popular with those in the earn-more, give-more camp, whom MacFarquhar identifies as mostly “well-educated young, white men of technological background and rational disposition.”

Yet for many of us, effective altruism's urge to assign a calcuable value to human life feels alien, and the scientific rationalism so beloved of tech-minded young, white men seems reductive at best. We are not rational, perhaps, when we prefer to donate to a cause in our neighborhood rather than to more urgent disaster relief overseas. But there's a value in community that most of MacFarquhar's do gooders seem, quite painfully, not to understand. Although many of them have partners, with whom they plunged at young ages into relationships dominated by debates about how to save the world, few are connected to a wider human group. They do not pursue political or collective solutions to the world's ills, but are weighed down by an almost unbearable sense of individual responsibility. In several cases, despite MacFarquhar's sympathetic storytelling, that individualism starts to sound a lot like narcissism. Of those profiled, a pastor, a nurse and a Buddhist priest come closest to doing the type of good that doesn't merely save a life but tries to improve it, too, in its fullness. It's a complicated business that does not fit easily into a utilitarian schema, but it's what most of us know instictively to be true: Saving a life is just the beginning.

The idea that saving a life is just the beginning fits very easily into a utilitarian schema.

not gonna read the whole thing but from the pull-quote that seems like the worst yet...

i don't know how to better express it but the entire argument seems to boil down to 'calculating stuff feels icky'

Yet for many of us, effective altruism's urge to assign a calculable value to human life feels alien, and the scientific rationalism so beloved of tech-minded young, white men seems reductive at best.

calling the cost of saving a life by donating to charity "a calculable value to human life" is a pretty shitty rhetorical trick

We are not rational, perhaps, when we prefer to donate to a cause in our neighborhood rather than to more urgent disaster relief overseas. But there's a value in community that most of MacFarquhar's do gooders seem, quite painfully, not to understand. Although many of them have partners, with whom they plunged at young ages into relationships dominated by debates about how to save the world, few are connected to a wider human group. They do not pursue political or collective solutions to the world's ills, but are weighed down by an almost unbearable sense of individual responsibility.

it is rational to donate to a neighbourhood cause, just not if you are strictly altruistic. the author's argument for giving to a neighborhood cause rather than disaster relief overseas is that there's value in community... value for who? for the person donating? if we're talking about altruism that shouldn't matter. value for other members of the community? well, then does that outweigh saving a life of someone else? presumably that other person is also a member of a community... is it better to improve the value of a rich-world community than for a member of a poor-world community to die?

also... maybe people these cold rich rational calculating technology young men also pursue political or collective solutions... or maybe they don't because they don't think they're effective? there are obviously some famous examples of political or collective action working well, but there's also tonnes of self-righteous idiot activists not doing any good for anyone. it's complex, maybe these rich bros just figured the best thing they could do was stay out of it and cut a cheque

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

this guy is like an effective altruist with an evil spock beard

maybe there is a continuum between utilitarians and ultra-randian psychopaths but that doesn't mean white is black.

it turns INTO black in the other universe

so in this bizarro world there must be evil utilitarians who want to cause the most harm to the most people, and who are mocked by others for being overly rational and lacking the human touch in their malevolence...

whatever happened to just knifin a dude?????

"Earning to take": instead of accepting a high-paying job on Wall Street, go work at a non-profit and do a half-assed job.

adopting the point of view of the youniverse