I note you said "probably". And rightly, too. There are several different interpretations of utilitarianism, and no matter what interpretation I chose, someone would say, "this is a common misunderstanding of utilitarianism". Such is the sacrifice one must make when tweeting.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
You're obfuscating. Yes, there are different versions of utilitarianism, but none I know of says "only consider what's right in front of you, ignoring side-effects".
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner
Yet even that's open to interpretation. By what metric do you interpret side-effects? How do you conclude that people worrying they might be next on the chopping block is worse than people dying because they can't get the organs they need?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Ease of application is orthogonal to conceptual validity. You're can't get from "utilitarianism is messy in application" to "utilitarianism is wrong in principle". And I still haven't heard you propose an alternative system.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner
Straw man. I'm not saying it's messy in application, I'm saying it's messy in theory. There is no metric by which to measure the greatest happiness of the greatest people, so any morality based on it risks the danger of becoming the morality of the individual instead.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Measurement ease depends on open questions in philosophy of mind, which is why I called it an application question, but not much turns on that label. We can already measure happiness with some accuracy, & this will improve over time. Every system is vulnerable to individual bias.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner @G_S_Bhogal
Finally, I really can only get so far defending utilitarianism against an invisible rival system. One of the best arguments for u-ism is the way it absorbs other systems, which you can see in real time if you ask yourself honestly how you're making your judgments.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner @G_S_Bhogal
By the way, all of these arguments have been discussed at length in the literature already, going back to Bentham: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1780.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner @G_S_Bhogal
Excerpt from Bentham, link to full text abovepic.twitter.com/JbIZcvmkxc
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner
Yes, I'm aware of Bentham's work. The way I see it, any utilitarian system must avoid becoming monist (the sole arbiter of right and wrong), and must instead work in tandem with other frameworks, such as the golden rule, and various metrics of well-being conceptual & statistical
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
It is a piece of the puzzle, not the whole solution.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
It feels like we're almost agreeing, but I would stress that things like the golden rule & multiple metrics of well-being *fit inside* and *are justified by* utilitarianism. They're not bolted on from the outside, because the reason we use them at all *is utilitarian*.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 23 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.