Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

MrGray wrote:Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you're going to say there's no such thing as ethics then you have to base it on something. Personally I find utilitarianism a bit silly because there's no way of knowing what the outcome of your actions will be. What if I shoot you in order to steal your wallet but in fact save your life because you were about to die from a massive brain haemorrage and the bullet did less damage than the haemorrhage (and relieved the pressure)?

I think that the only think that matters is one's intention. I don't think the actual outcome makes any difference. Shooting you was still wrong, even though I ended up saving your life.

It is the view that the right thing to do in any circumstance is that which has the greatest degree of utility; in simple terms, that which will bring the most good to the largest number of people. It is a collectivist ideology, and it is compatible with communism (which is also a collectivist ideology) but it is not equivalent to either them.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MrGray wrote:Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

I think that the only think that matters is one's intention. I don't think the actual outcome makes any difference. Shooting you was still wrong, even though I ended up saving your life.

Ethics tend to be subjective too; in the above scenario I might say it was the ethical thing to do.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Personally I find utilitarianism a bit silly because there's no way of knowing what the outcome of your actions will be.

Exactly why I question it being considered as a flawless philosophy by many.

EDIT: Dropped word.

Jef wrote:It is the view that the right thing to do in any circumstance is that which has the greatest degree of utility; in simple terms, that which will bring the most good to the largest number of people. It is a collectivist ideology, and it is compatible with communism (which is also a collectivist ideology) but it is not equivalent to either them.

That's what I want to understand - how/why is it not equivalent?

MrGray wrote:Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

Utilitarianism is simply that the action that brings the most utility is the most appropriate action.

Utilitarianism is compatible with many ideologies, not just communism. The basis for utilitarian politics is what brings the most utility. Thus there are utilitarian communists, but also utilitarian libertarians and everything in-between. It all depends on what is estimated to produce the greatest amount of utility.

MrGray wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MrGray wrote:Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

I think that the only think that matters is one's intention. I don't think the actual outcome makes any difference. Shooting you was still wrong, even though I ended up saving your life.

Ethics tend to subjective too; in the above scenario I might say it was the ethical thing to do.

Yeah, but see, the bullet also severed your spinal cord and left you a paraplegic for life. Oh, well. One can get used to anything, I guess. Except, maybe, "death". What matters is your intention in stealing the wallet. Don't forget, your children (whom you got by failing to use birth control) are malnourished. What matters is your intention in getting children.

Poor and undereducated people are of inestimable value to capitalists, who make utilitarianism a religion.

I have no idea how some people mistake it as having utopian tendencies. No utopian would honestly advocate utilitarianism. But then, no utopian would advocate "honesty", either. Charity begins at home.

Cito di Pense wrote:

MrGray wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

MrGray wrote:Could someone explain to me Utilitarianism? I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong? Isn't forming the favorable eventual consequence the basis for a philosophy just a tad too utopian?

..or maybe I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things.

I think that the only think that matters is one's intention. I don't think the actual outcome makes any difference. Shooting you was still wrong, even though I ended up saving your life.

Ethics tend to subjective too; in the above scenario I might say it was the ethical thing to do.

Yeah, but see, the bullet also severed your spinal cord and left you a paraplegic for life. Oh, well. One can get used to anything, I guess. Except, maybe, "death". What matters is your intention in stealing the wallet. Don't forget, your children (whom you got by failing to use birth control) are malnourished. What matters is your intention in getting children.

Poor and undereducated people are of inestimable value to capitalists, who make utilitarianism a religion.

I have no idea how some people mistake it as having utopian tendencies. No utopian would honestly advocate utilitarianism. But then, no utopian would advocate "honesty", either. Charity begins at home.

You've hit the proverbial nail right on the head Cito.

MillsianUtilitarian wrote:
Surprisingly, utilitarian calculations are relatively simple for the most part. People like coming up with crazy hypotheticals, like the one I am about to address below, and those do need addressing, but ultimately, even if utilitarianism has a few flaws (and I don't think it does, by its very definition of maximizing happiness it is flawless), it ultimately is a more complete and safe moral outlook on life than any other moral code I have come across. One need only look at the leading utilitarian philosophers and see how far ahead they were of their time (i.e. Mill supporting women's suffrage in a time when virtually no one else did) to get an idea of the superiority of this ethical code.

is what got me curious, I'm glad it's waning.

MrGray wrote:

Jef wrote:It is the view that the right thing to do in any circumstance is that which has the greatest degree of utility; in simple terms, that which will bring the most good to the largest number of people. It is a collectivist ideology, and it is compatible with communism (which is also a collectivist ideology) but it is not equivalent to either them.

That's what I want to understand - how/why is it not equivalent?

They are different categories of ideology. The term collectivism applies to any ideology which emphasizes the goals and welfare of a group over that of the individuals within that group. The term communism refers to a specific type of collectivist political ideology which advocates a classless society and the collective control of property. Utilitarianism is a collectivist ethical model which argues that the most moral action will the that with the greatest utility for the collective.

So, both communism and utilitarianism are collectivist ideologies, but utilitarianism does not imply communism. The history of communist states within the 20th century seems to suggest the direct opposite; that communism leads to an economically stagnant society in which overall utility is decreased relative to other societies, and so these other models should be preferred.

MrGray wrote:Exactly why I question it being considered as a flawless philosophy by many.

Being considered as flawless? Afaik no philosophy is flawless, or say what you mean by "flawless".
I used to think I'm a utilitarian at some point until I realized I'm only "borrowing" bits and pieces...

Jef wrote:

MrGray wrote:

Jef wrote:It is the view that the right thing to do in any circumstance is that which has the greatest degree of utility; in simple terms, that which will bring the most good to the largest number of people. It is a collectivist ideology, and it is compatible with communism (which is also a collectivist ideology) but it is not equivalent to either them.

That's what I want to understand - how/why is it not equivalent?

They are different categories of ideology. The term collectivism applies to any ideology which emphasizes the goals and welfare of a group over that of the individuals within that group. The term communism refers to a specific type of collectivist political ideology which advocates a classless society and the collective control of property. Utilitarianism is a collectivist ethical model which argues that the most moral action will the that with the greatest utility for the collective.

So, both communism and utilitarianism are collectivist ideologies, but utilitarianism does not imply communism. The history of communist states within the 20th century seems to suggest the direct opposite; that communism leads to an economically stagnant society in which overall utility is decreased relative to other societies, and so these other models should be preferred.

But the immediate happiness/pleasure was achieved in terms of communism besides of course the long term effects of it - which were either not predicted, or if they were, were considered less than harmful. Wouldn't the same apply to Utilitarianism? Like Cito's stretched hypothetical shows how what was perceived to have led to good was in fact, in eventuality, bad; begging the question as to where exactly does the prediction of the eventual outcome stop?

Also in terms of Communism - it seems to have worked quite well for China. Would I be wrong in claiming that many of the Chinese policies are in line with Utilitarianism?

LIFE wrote:

MrGray wrote:Exactly why I question it being considered as a flawless philosophy by many.

Being considered as flawless? Afaik no philosophy is flawless, or say what you mean by "flawless".

Tell me about it, I've found that out the hard way.

LIFE wrote:
I used to think I'm a utilitarian at some point until I realized I'm only "borrowing" bits and pieces...

That's what's annoying me! Utilitarianism seems to define itself everywhere yet it defines itself nowhere.

MrGray wrote:

Jef wrote:

MrGray wrote:

Jef wrote:It is the view that the right thing to do in any circumstance is that which has the greatest degree of utility; in simple terms, that which will bring the most good to the largest number of people. It is a collectivist ideology, and it is compatible with communism (which is also a collectivist ideology) but it is not equivalent to either them.

That's what I want to understand - how/why is it not equivalent?

They are different categories of ideology. The term collectivism applies to any ideology which emphasizes the goals and welfare of a group over that of the individuals within that group. The term communism refers to a specific type of collectivist political ideology which advocates a classless society and the collective control of property. Utilitarianism is a collectivist ethical model which argues that the most moral action will the that with the greatest utility for the collective.

So, both communism and utilitarianism are collectivist ideologies, but utilitarianism does not imply communism. The history of communist states within the 20th century seems to suggest the direct opposite; that communism leads to an economically stagnant society in which overall utility is decreased relative to other societies, and so these other models should be preferred.

But the immediate happiness/pleasure was achieved in terms of communism besides of course the long term effects of it - which were either not predicted, or if they were, were considered less than harmful. Wouldn't the same apply to Utilitarianism? Like Cito's stretched hypothetical shows how what was perceived to have led to good was in fact, in eventuality, bad; begging the question as to where exactly does the prediction of the eventual outcome stop?

Also in terms of Communism - it seems to have worked quite well for China. Would I be wrong in claiming that many of the Chinese policies are in line with Utilitarianism?

Possibly not, so long as you believe you can argue that Chinese policies are directed at achieving the greatest good for the widest number of the population, but regardless of whether or not the two ideologies are compatible with each other, I think you are now in a position to understand why I said they are not equivalent.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Unless you're going to say there's no such thing as ethics then you have to base it on something.

Why? Why should foundationalism be any more plausible in ethics than it is in any other field of knowledge?

Preno wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Unless you're going to say there's no such thing as ethics then you have to base it on something.

Why? Why should foundationalism be any more plausible in ethics than it is in any other field of knowledge?

I wasn't advocating foundationalist ethics. I was just saying that ethics is unavoidable.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I was just saying that ethics is unavoidable.

Interesting use of the word "unavoidable". Not the same sense that recognition of evidence you have dropped a load in your pants at the seminar is unavoidable. IOW, ethics stinks of hegemony. What you meant to say is that hegemony is unavoidable.

Human fucking nature, know-whut-ah-mean, Vern?

Cito di Pense wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:I was just saying that ethics is unavoidable.

Interesting use of the word "unavoidable". Not the same sense that recognition of evidence you have dropped a load in your pants at the seminar is unavoidable. IOW, ethics stinks of hegemony. What you meant to say is that hegemony is unavoidable.

Human fucking nature, know-whut-ah-mean, Vern?

May I interject that morality is the culprit unless you equate morality with ethics?

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Preno wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Unless you're going to say there's no such thing as ethics then you have to base it on something.

Why? Why should foundationalism be any more plausible in ethics than it is in any other field of knowledge?

I wasn't advocating foundationalist ethics. I was just saying that ethics is unavoidable.

It seems to me that what you actually said is that it's unavoidable to base ethics on something, though, not that "ethics is unavoidable".

LIFE wrote:
May I interject that morality is the culprit unless you equate morality with ethics?

See, semantics is always the culprit, if you look at it the right way.

You all should read some work by Peter Singer about utilitarianism. He is a great ethicist and is highly persuasive.

I find it highly equivalent to communism or collectivism, am I wrong?

I understand how you could perceive it that way, except I have never come cross a utilitarian who actually thought the he could quantify happiness, or at least quantify it in every moral dilemma, as some people believe utilitarians think they are capable of doing. I don't, and what I instead do is strive to find what I think will bring about more happiness in any moral dilemma, although I readily admit that there are circumstances where I cannot do so. Also, many people lack an imagination that would be necessary to make difficult but not impossible utility calculations, and thus often believe it cannot be done.

As for it being similar to communism and collectivism, I'll just agree Hugin, who said that utilitarianism has been used by thinkers on both the left and the right. These thinkers believe that their ideologies will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. I am a liberal utilitarian, favoring highly regulated capitalism, similar to the most famous utilitarians (Bentham, Mill, and Singer).

Also, animal rights is a huge part of being a utilitarian.