Secular Ethics: Utilitarianism, Consequentialism

[Orrenaut]

YOUR THEMESONG IS SICK.

[Theologica37]

Yea the piano/eg mix is definitely good.

[AtheistAltar]

"Morality" is the codification of base biological drives. When people figure out there's no imposed "morality" upon them and that they create value and utility, the world will go on and people will act out these base biological drives. I'm okay with that.

[AtheistAltar]

Congratulations, Theologica, you've figured it out: Morality doesn't exist! Now we just need to get you unhooked off of God :)

Natural Law doesn't do anything to prove anything. Using your logic of "rooting out the presuppositions" (which I don't mind), that presupposes that we ought to listen to God. Why ought we listen to God? How do we know God is telling the truth?

[SirWinstonChurchill]

@AtheistAltar

Morality and any associated ideal is rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.

Utilitarianism is just a sanctified excuse to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for the gods of communism.

[hat655]

Great video, thanks.

The fact the Atheism is wrong is because Ultilitarianism is wrong, though this is not the only reason I am a Christian. God bless.

[shlockofgod]

Even if secular ethics were useless I still don't see how religious based ethics are any better.

If you believe in God and believe that god is the source of morality then how can you ever know what is morally right or wrong?

How would you ever know that the holocaust was wrong? It could be part of a god's plan. You can never know.

A moral objectivist must remain silent on all moral matters surely.

[QuisSeperabit60]

Not if God has given man either a) the ability to rationally discern basic principles of practical reason, which give man a framework for ethical judgements, or b) if God provides a set of objective criteria to give such a basis (for Christians - the Bible).

I think its a combination of both.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 - "Not if God has given man either a) the ability to rationally discern basic principles of practical reason, which give man a framework for ethical judgements"

Okay then Why was the holocaust objectively morally wrong? I don't want to her your subjective opinions based on your subjective criteria.

Tell me why the holocaust was objectively morally wrong and not objectively morally right.

[QuisSeperabit60]

On the a) criterion, the holocaust was objectively morally wrong because it violated principles of practical reason i.e. the actions of the holocaust were disregarded self-evident basic goods of human existence - life, etc. I say self-evident goods in the sense that they cannot be reduced to, or justified by, resorting to any more foundational proposition... and that any moral agent who reflects honestly upon the aims of his own life and human life in general must accept their value.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 - " and that any moral agent who reflects honestly upon the aims of his own life and human life in general must accept their value."

Perhaps I don't understand you but this is not objective morality. It is morality based on certain criteria you and perhaps most people value but's that's not objective. Something has to be inherently morally wrong irrespective of what people think to be objectively wrong.

more -

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod Not quite, its not based upon subjective preferences but objective reason. The argument goes that any person of reasonable intelligence, using their critical faculties, and reflecting on these things at length, can see that there are certain activites which cannot be supported by reason e.g. they derive no benefit. These are not accepted or proposed by some rational moral agents, but by all.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 - You say it's objectively wrong because the Bible says so and you believe the Bible. That's circular and as such not objective. An atheist could say objective morality is a natural property of the universe and viola - atheist objective morality. It still wouldn't be objective. Until they could demonstrate some objective existence it would just be their opinion. In the same way your belief in objective morality is your opinion.

more -

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod

Whether or not the Bible is sustained as true is independent from the question of whether it, even as a work of fiction, outlines a deontological ethical system providing absolute moral values. Even if it were fiction, I believe it to be objectively true - I don't belief it because I like what it says, or because it meets my subjective criteria.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod

There would be no warrant for saying moral values are inherent in the nature of the Universe. To do so would raise metaphysical and metaethical questions that point to God. Regarding your accusation of circular reasoning - I believe the Bible to be true, for various reasons, as I mentioned above - its not subjective opinion, rather personal acknowledgement of objective truth.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 Your argument that objectively morally wrong "activities" are those "which cannot be supported by reason e.g. they derive no benefit" trys to bridge the fact / value gap but fails because your criteria are just ones you happen to value. I value them too but that does not mean my moral values have objective existence because I used objective reason to arrive at them.

Objective morals are moral facts that exist indepenently of human minds.

more -

[QuisSeperabit60]

The theist can bridge the fact value gap if his account points to a God that created men as rational agents, capable of, upon proper reflection, making objective moral judgements about the nature of life and ethics.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 Yes you believe the bible. That does not make the moral values you supposedly derive from that book objectivly correct. I'm asking about OBJECTIVE morality.

"There would be no warrant for saying moral values are inherent in the nature of the Universe."

Says you. That's just a bald assertion. You're missing the point which is that you can no more demonstrate that your objective morality exists than the atheist can.

more -

[QuisSeperabit60]

On the atheist account, if naturalism/physicalism are true then there is no warrant for saying objective moral values could be instilled in the nature of the Universe. If you believe there is then let me know what such would be. to make such a claim instills, unjustifiably, the Universe with some sort of personality or attribute.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 "On the atheist account, if naturalism/physicalism "

Atheism is not metaphysical naturalism. You are missing the point. I'm saying that you have no more basis for saying YOUR objective morality is true than anyone else.

"I believe the Christian ethical system best explains morality qua morality"

You keep telling me what you believe as if it means anything in regards to objective morality. I'm sure the Muslim and the Hindu all believe they can best explain it. So what?

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 "I believe the Bible to be true, for various reasons, as I mentioned above - its not subjective opinion, rather personal acknowledgement of objective truth"

No offense but I find that spectacularly arrogant. There's no way you have any evidence to say the Christian Bible is objectively true. You care to back that up? The fact that the Holocaust was allowed as part of a grand scheme doesn't detract from its objective immorality.

I guess God's hands are clean then.

more -

[QuisSeperabit60]

I believe the Christian ethical system best explains morality qua morality. It avoids euthyphro's dilemma, and the inevitable immorality, or non-morality of secular ethical positions. I accept the historicity of the ressurection and Lewis' trilemma - making biblical infallibility a matter of logical deduction. I also have other reasons for accepting the Christian faith.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 " I accept the historicity of the ressurection and Lewis' trilemma - making biblical infallibility a matter of logical deduction." Even if all that nonsense were true how do you know the holocaust is objectively morally wrong? It's just your interpretation.

"Like I said read up on your theodices"

Oh right. Read more abstruse apologetics. Can't i just get a straight answer?

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod Like I said read up on your theodices - I don't know how we have any grounds for determining whether God's hands might be clean or unclean :P - but they largely satisfy me.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 The point you miss is that u don't know this. Objective morality is the only valid morality to you so unless you can show something is OBJECTIVELY wrong or right you must remain silent. Otherwise it's just your opinion.

If you want to prove me wrong then tell me why, without just giving me your opinion, was the holocaust objectively morally wrong. All you've done so far is give me your opinion about what you think the Bible says or your personal criteria for what's best.

more

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 "If the theistic account is correct..."

Yes "IF". It's speculation. Opinion. You cannot demonstrate this objective morality in any way. If you can't tell me why something as atrocious as the holocaust was OBJECTIVELY morally wrong then what good is your morality?

" The theist can bridge the fact value gap ..."

Do it then.

[QuisSeperabit60]

Of course it's an if... I wouldn't be so ignorant as to presume that I might be able to reach a position of absolute truth with regard to metaphysical questions like the existence of God and the nature of ethics. Particularly in a world where absolute truth is almost precluded. But that doesn't affect, or rebut, the argument the coherence of the argument I made - which you didn;t address.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod I just postulated how one way in which it might be bridged - if God instilled within human agents the capacity to make reasoned normative judgements that resolves the problem.

Anyway, I've got a dissertation to be working on so unfortunately can't continue the debate. It's been nice chatting to you tho :). (This is the point where I would normally type God Bless but I don't want to offend you :P)

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 " I just postulated how one way in which it might be bridged "

Fine, that's very interesting. I can "postulate" ways myself.

I just want you to answer the question - Why, without just giving me your opinion, was the holocaust objectively wrong?

If you can answer that I might actually believe in a god.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 You'd say The holocaust being "wrong" is an objective moral fact. How do you know?

I understand we all have an overwhelming disgust at such genocide but I'm asking you why was the holocaust OBJECTIVELY wrong?

I didn't say "God" approved of the holocaust. But it could be part of his plan and as such objectively morally right. As Veritas argued "we are not in the epistemic position to know whether the holocaust was necessary or not..."

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod

I acknowledge the point in the second paragraph. But what are objectively morally right and wrong actions for us, as human agents, are distinct from what God might morally permit as part of a sovereign plan, e.g. to give humans free will. The fact that the Holocaust was allowed as part of a grand scheme doesn't detract from its objective immorality.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod

If the theistic account is correct, and we do all have some sort of grasp of objective moral values as given by God (with very few actual nihilists in existence) then I'm not so sure that Hume/Moore's is/ought dilemma is a problem. They could be sustained as instilled within human beings by God, but Alasdair McIntyre and others have questioned the distinction in their writings.

[shlockofgod]

@QuisSeperabit60 - I don't want an opinion based on what you think is practical or for the best because that would be subjective morality. Anyone can do that.

I assume that that which is morally wrong goes against gods will. You think the holocaust was morally wrong and therefore against god's will. How do you know this? How do you know it wasn't part of God's plan and therefore his will?

In other words - Why, without just giving me your opinion, was the holocaust OBJECTIVELY morally wrong?

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod shlockofgod As I have said already, we can know that it was objectively morally wrong, on the Christian worldview, because the new covenant places universal objective ethical prohibitions on the murder of innocent people by other people.

Your assumption isn't entirely accurate. Whilst the Holocaust occured, and it was obviously within God's will to allow it to happen, that doesn't mean that God approved of it. Read up on your theodices.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod On the b) criterion - the holocaust was objectively morally wrong because (as a Christian) the new covenant holds that murder of innocent people is never, under any circumstances, morally justifiable.

If you want to learn more about objecitve morality I would recommend Alasdair McIntyre, John Finnis, Richard Swinburne or CS Lewis - Abolition of Man, which you can access online.

[TheEcumenator]

theologica, i would say that the only coherent form as to being an atheist is by being a nihilist.

Because even utilitarianism as subjective as it is, it is still held as a virtue.

[shlockofgod]

@TheEcumenator " i would say that the only coherent form as to being an atheist is by being a nihilist"

A moral nihilist yes. But not really in other ways.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@shlockofgod

If you want to be rigorously skeptical about ethics logically you have to be rigorously skeptical about everything - including science, the universe, and even the very nature of existence itself.

[Crunchybear1]

Any ethical theory, in particular secular ethics simply falls apart when ever we apply Humes "Is-Ought" Gap to it.

[kerplunk288]

Bentham's utilitarianism was rather myopic, particularly thinking that we could quantify pleasures and pains. Mill's, however, was much more cohesive and coherent - though still incapable of giving an adequate defense of justice for justice's sake. Nevertheless, Mill does have compelling rebuttals to your objections. For example, Mill says in reply to your "Chinese dilemma", that while people ought to take into consideration the pleasures and pains of all sentient beings, they ought to be

[kerplunk288]

only proportionate to our ability to affect other sentient beings' pleasures and pains. More simply, we ought to be primarily concerned with the people we interact with directly. Family, friends, neighbors, community and so forth. As our social ties weakens, so ought our actions. More good can be produced if I care for my immediate family than if I worry about some unidentified Chinese man halfway across the world. I still consider this Chinese man's pleasures, my concern is mitigated however.

[Theologica37]

Thank you for this response. It is nice to see some actual thought for a change.

I do disagree with the purpose of "pleasure" as it would assumed in that context. Though it may be possible to get out of the labyrinth in the above ways I don't find it possible to place our subjective understanding of "pleasure" as anywhere near the foundation of our axiology, especially lacking any means of objective criteria. Further, there would remain the very significant epistemic issues outlined.

[kerplunk288]

Again, this is another objection which Mill at least tries to address. Mill recognizes that he cannot develop an a priori hierarchy of pleasures and pains, with some pleasures and pains being intrinsically greater than others. He supposes that a general educated consensus is suitable. In order to secure the worth of higher pleasures of philosophy, art, friendship, against the baser pleasures of the body like food and sex, Mill supposes that if we were to ask someone who has rightly

[kerplunk288]

experienced two pleasures (emphasis on rightly), say philosophy and food - consensus would lean towards holding philosophy as higher. From there we can bypass the inherent epistemic difficulties. These difficulties are present in all ethical theories - even natural law and virtue ethics. Take Aristotle for example. The entirety of the Ethics rests on the ergon argument in 1.7. However, he makes a huge epistemic leap, assuming that natural beings have functions. We easily know the function

[kerplunk288]

of a screw-driver. Since it is made by man its function is defined by man. But it is far more difficult to grasp the function of natural objects, like animals. What is the function of flower or a squirrel. We may say, flowers ought to exhibit its floweriness and squirrels ought to exhibit its squirreliness. But what is floweriness and squirreliness? We may name a few key functions, but can we know the entirety of their nature? Moreover, can we know the entirety of our own nature and ergon?

[waketherabble]

My take is that "function" is assigned because it is contingent on the existence of purpose, and purpose only comes about through man's creation of goals based on his own desires.

One need not know the entirety of an animal's nature in order for the animal to have a "purpose." If I own a dog, I assign that dog's function, namely to please me. The same goes for people. But, obviously, the person to whom I assign a function need not agree with me on purpose.

[QuisSeperabit60]

Why ought we to care more about those directly related to us than those to whom we have no familial connections? By those criteria would our moral obligations to rescue from a fire say, a family pet (assuming it was a sentient being with whom we interact frequently) be greater than those we owe to say the child in the flat above?

[ScientificMethodist]

What about Desire Utilitarnianism?

Also are you going to do a video on the utter absurdity of the Divine Commandment theory too?

[Theologica37]

DCT Has indirect issues. Utter absurdity are the wrong words, because within the DCT you still have Law following by necessity-- but there are nonetheless issues and I'm not a proponent of it.

Desire utility has the epistemic issues described in this video.

[ScientificMethodist]

Indirect issues? You call the Euthyphro Dilemma an indirect issue?

Also you are incorrect about Desire Utilitarianism, since it evaluates desires, not actions themselves as objects of moral value. It is a virtue ethics theory rather then a utilitarian one. If you are going to attempt to refute Desirism, it probably needs an entire video of it's own.

[Theologica37]

The Euthyphro D is purely semantical, is easily solved and ignores fundemental theological principles-- and I do not hold to the DCT.

[ScientificMethodist]

Really? Easily solved? First I'm hearing of it.

If you don't adhere to it, why don't you make a video about it, or are you only sticking to secular ethics?

[Theologica37]

We'll see. DCT has other issues, make no mistake, but this is not one of them. The so-called euthyphro dillema is hardly more than a poorly worded, semantical gesture that implicitly defines God in an impersonal way by its' tautologus reasoning. Even rebuttals from DC Theorists themselves alleviate the issue smoothly. The better approach is to question how command is defined, and our epistemic framework.

[K2Tanner]

How is any objective moral system epistemically(SP*) possible? I noticed the little jab at atheists, do you think that a divine providence is a good basis for an objective moral system?

I can't say I necessarily agree with you but you do seem to know your stuff.

[Theologica37]

Via a coherent, objective rationality.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@Theologica37

Is a particular variant of coherent, objective rationality not in itself a form of secular ethics? Finnis would say that the natural law perspective doesn't necessarily depend on the existence of God for its validity.

[nate263]

I am a moral nihilist so I agree that utilitarianism is not an objective moral system. However, you misrepresent Peter Singer. He is a preference utilitarian, not a pleasure utilitarian and he does not believe in animal rights. He does believe that their preferences should be taken into account however. The Bill example didn't even make sense. He would wake up before they could do anything and a preference utilitarian would say you were disregarding his preferences anyway so it was unethical.

[nate263]

There are more coherent variants of utilitarianism so if you want to "refute" utilitarian ethics in 10 minutes you should address those. I made a similar argument about the difficulties of making ethical decisions in certain circumstances under utilitarian ethics in one of my recent videos.

[Theologica37]

Feel free to bring such videos forward, or to refute the arguments I present in this video (they are numbered so as to make this very easy).

I look forward to your argument.

[nate263]

I might make a video soon (within a few days) making an argument against the particular points I felt were wrong.

[4312ton]

Have you ever heard of the "KISS" principle? Perhaps you've taken too many philosophy classes.

On Bill: tell me again why we cannot use Bill's body parts. I believe you stated he only has one week to live. perhaps Bill agrees, but if he's sleeping anyway...

[Theologica37]

You are wrong on Singer: pick up his book:

"The Ethics of What we Eat" ; P. Singer.

[nate263]

A quote from Animal Liberation: "In misguided attempts to refute the arguments of this book, some have gone to much trouble developing arguments to show that animals do not have rights... These claims are irrelevant to the case for Animal Liberation. The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand. It is even more valuable in the era of 30 second TV news clips than it was in Benthams day; but in the argument for a radical change in our attitudes to animals it is in no way necessary."

[Theologica37]

This is one of the problems with Utility, the means of "right" are non-existent-- but nonetheless brought to the table. Make no mistake, Singer advocates animal rights--- though he may say these discussions are "in no way necessary". He believes in animal rights, he gives something like 3/4 of his paychecks to to furthering of ethical conditions for raising/the betterment of starving animals and children. One such right, that is hardly arguable, is that animals should not have to feel pain.

[nate263]

I think there was a confusion over what I meant by animal rights. He obviously believes that animal welfare should be taken into account when ethical decisions are made but he believes that the concept of rights, human or animal, is empty. He only uses the term "rights" as shorthand. He does not consider them a part of his ethical system. He does not believe that animals have a right to not feel pain. If their pain (for example, in an experiment that might cure cancer) satisfies preferences...

[nate263]

more than the alternative, it might even be good for an animal to go through some pain.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@nate263

Wouldn't the weight of their preferences and those of their patients outweigh Bill's own in the example given, making the action permissible?

[nate263]

Only if that is the only way of saving those patients' lives. In the vast majority of cases, there would be other means of saving their lives besides killing Bill, so it would not be moral since Bill's death would not be necessary for the patients to survive.

[QuisSeperabit60]

But if Bill's death is necessary; which it in all likelihood would be given the severe shortage of organ donors, then the same point applies... Murder is still legitimised.

You've demonstrated the point far better than Theologica ever could.

And i still don't see how there is any basis for acertaining whose preferences trump whose. The preference of one patient, whose desire to live, via the use of Bill's organs, would surely reach parity with Bill's own.

[nate263]

If the only possible option is to kill Bill in order to save 5 people, I would be in favor of it but that would be exceedingly unlikely and only if Bill's death would not cause more suffering via the media or whatever. If the choice is between two equal preferences, you can use nonmoral criteria to decide the course of action to take. It's a coin flip.

[jemerson85]

Oh hell yeah.

Van Hagar baby!

[Theologica37]

Great song huh?

[muertos06]

Peter Singer scares me on such a deep level.

[FlowCell]

Happiness is the responsibility of the individual. Societal policy based on the mass production of happiness takes away the personal growth that meaningful pain gives to the individual. It also strips the individual of personal value, mocking solipsism in it's face. The core of Utilitarianism is Elitism where the political class controls the populous like a man controls his pets. Existentialism, in many ways, is far more appealing to me then the control of utilitarianism.

[epaminodas]

most utilitarians i know would chafe at your hypo saying it's out of line with their theory given that utilitarianism does not condone murder/rape etc b/c doing so goes against societal mores which underpin any philosophical system. once we've established that murder/theft/rape are wrong b/c they destabilize society and lessen our chance of survival/prosperity we can adopt a system which ensures our being led to outcomes resulting in satisfying our desire to be happy. what's so wrong with this?

[Theologica37]

The Homeless Bill example?

Thats the thing about the example, there is nothing in it that specifies people will know about the action. The only way societal norms are affected is if it spreads-- under this scenario as little as two doctors know and it is unlikely to make it past that.

Rights and Justice must be accounted for.

[OblivionMon]

Hey Theo, you need to check out Hume's Abject Failure by John Earman. I imagine you will really like it.

[AbdielAbiram]

Quick question, which theory of morality do you accept? Ockham's Divine Command Theory, or St. Thomas' Natural Law theory?

[Theologica37]

Hey Abdiel.

DCT has very serious philosophical and theological flaws. I will include a refutation of DCT in this series.

I will argue for the synthesis of Virtue and Law in this series. Stay tuned.

Check out "After Virtue" by Alasdair Macintyre. He is an Analytic Thomist at Notre Dame and probably the most influential Christian Ethicist in academia.

[AbdielAbiram]

I was going to make a video in critique of Divine Command Theory, but I can never find the time.

I heard that book was good, I might get it

[ncs901]

It's a coincidence that I see the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy in your resources. I was just about to buy it but instead bought a book on theistic evolution...