I think utility in a objective sense or a physical sense should be related to things we can objectivity on. I think the utility of feelings should be labelled something like emo-utilitarianism, as in what is a emotionally subjective utility. But in general utilitarianism should be based on what is usable physically. But I think the argument is some would argue we don't need a house and others we do. So it's hard to determine objective utility.
@pyrrho314 utility and satisfaction are synonymous when you assume, one is satisfied by outcomes that are beneficial. If one cares not about; outcomes of actions or if anything gets done at all, then utility would not be related to satisfaction.
@pyrrho314 : useful things are ABLE to satisfy desires... so if it's useful, something could eventually come up and satisfy their desire (to cross). This basic nature of useful things is what makes a utility-based utilitarianism workable. People's desires are much less logical and rational than that. People can be sad after a victory, depressed after they get what they want when they realize how they really felt... or not even ever know how they really feel.
Whether a device which allows me to live longer has utility depends upon whether I value living longer.
You can say that I value a longer life because it has utility for me, but that is merely saying the same thing - you can also say that it has utility because I value it; the two words in this context point to the same exact reality. I am accustomed to using the word "value" for this.
@blackacidlizzard : all true and fair enough. I find that "utility" implies a subjective and relativistic root, where "value" implies a things inherent value. Value pretends to be absolute but is still dependent on subjectivity while utility is clearly relative to the goals to which something is put to use. Thus arguments over value naturally involve multiple perspectives, while arguments over value tend presume there is one true value.
I see what you're saying, I typically consider the connotations to be the other way around because I start from the understanding of value as either a product of evaluation or evaluation itself, and from there I tend to think of utility as something which is factually present or not in relation to the (necessarily subjective) value.
@blackacidlizzard : that approach makes them equivalent, value and utility. I'm on board because the import part ultimately for me will be that value or utility is something calculated over time, something -generated- by a mind, from that minds reasoning process and perspective. I use the notion of value all the time just as you say. I give things values. In programming, literally so. So it's semantics that in philosophically I prefer "utility".
@silversoul7 : yeah, probably so. Also, see positivism to round out the modern practicalists. They all went in interesting but somewhat desperate directions if you ask me.
I also consider myself a Utilitarian, in the strictest pragmatic sense. I do have a problem with the concept of 'maximizing happiness'. Not just because that term is vague, but I think it is impossible. I think that we, being a civil society, should do our best to provide the infrastructure and environment to guarantee the 'pursuit' of happiness. That's why remarks coming from the likes of people like Sam Harris talking about science being useful to determine happiness chill me to the bone
@HeavyTrafficAhead I think Sam Harris is only talking about how if we understand our brain more scientifically we can use that info to help our pursuit of happiness. I don't think he's referring to like a perfect happy drug or rigid lifestyle as a result. I agree with you but not exactly the same way. Because that perfect happiness is vague, everyone has different limits of stress, and science does often sound cold. Its just information we can ignore right lol
@TekLok Science works best when it informs policy, not when it dictates it. Besides 'Harris' field if barely what I would call 'science' and he's also made statements for a Technocracy more or less. He made a chilling statement that the ban on being compelled to testify against yourself is a 'quaint superstition'. Eggheads should stay in their labs and only talk when called upon by policy makers. BTW science can be catastrophically wrong, as in the case of Eugenics in the Americas
"Maximizing other people's happiness is just egotism"
We work to improve quality of life, infrastructure, education etc for the benefit of individual people; while attempting to minimize risks of starvation, disease, crime etc. The general concept of utilitarianism is pervasive throughout much of human society.
It only breaks down when you propose terminating the system itself (i.e. killing). Utilitarianism examines the system when in motion... not whether or not terminating it is logical.
@IdaMiaDot : but that's utilitarianism with practical adaptations... utilitarianism doesn't give a unique value to the individual, promoting the individual is not the point... it's all about how to take statistics. But it's fundamentally trying to turn hedonistic criteria into a way to skip finding out what people want in particular... as if it can all be summed up as a level of satisfaction. It's akin to putting a price on everything.
@pyrrho314 "It's akin to putting a price on everything."
This only diminishes pleasant experience.
When you commodify pleasurable sensation into a form of consumerism via utilitarianism they lose their sense of value... they need glorification to maintain dignity. Turning satisfaction into a production line upsets many people; but summating suffering in the same fashion only intensifies its hideousness.
@IdaMiaDot : yes, and it's also bad to commodity it in terms of satisfaction, like to do work you spend satisfaction. It's an unhealthy sort of monistic reductionism.
I think utility in a objective sense or a physical sense should be related to things we can objectivity on. I think the utility of feelings should be labelled something like emo-utilitarianism, as in what is a emotionally subjective utility. But in general utilitarianism should be based on what is usable physically. But I think the argument is some would argue we don't need a house and others we do. So it's hard to determine objective utility.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 utility and satisfaction are synonymous when you assume, one is satisfied by outcomes that are beneficial. If one cares not about; outcomes of actions or if anything gets done at all, then utility would not be related to satisfaction.
masluxx 1 month ago
If a bridge does not satisfy a desire, it is not useful.
The root of utility is value.
blackacidlizzard 1 month ago
@blackacidlizzard : no, the root of value is utility.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 : useful things are ABLE to satisfy desires... so if it's useful, something could eventually come up and satisfy their desire (to cross). This basic nature of useful things is what makes a utility-based utilitarianism workable. People's desires are much less logical and rational than that. People can be sad after a victory, depressed after they get what they want when they realize how they really felt... or not even ever know how they really feel.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
Whether a device which allows me to live longer has utility depends upon whether I value living longer.
You can say that I value a longer life because it has utility for me, but that is merely saying the same thing - you can also say that it has utility because I value it; the two words in this context point to the same exact reality. I am accustomed to using the word "value" for this.
blackacidlizzard 1 month ago
@blackacidlizzard : all true and fair enough. I find that "utility" implies a subjective and relativistic root, where "value" implies a things inherent value. Value pretends to be absolute but is still dependent on subjectivity while utility is clearly relative to the goals to which something is put to use. Thus arguments over value naturally involve multiple perspectives, while arguments over value tend presume there is one true value.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
I see what you're saying, I typically consider the connotations to be the other way around because I start from the understanding of value as either a product of evaluation or evaluation itself, and from there I tend to think of utility as something which is factually present or not in relation to the (necessarily subjective) value.
blackacidlizzard 1 month ago
@blackacidlizzard : that approach makes them equivalent, value and utility. I'm on board because the import part ultimately for me will be that value or utility is something calculated over time, something -generated- by a mind, from that minds reasoning process and perspective. I use the notion of value all the time just as you say. I give things values. In programming, literally so. So it's semantics that in philosophically I prefer "utility".
pyrrho314 1 month ago
When I started getting into pragmatism, it dawned on me that it was basically utilitarianism applied to epistemology.
silversoul7 1 month ago
@silversoul7 : yeah, probably so. Also, see positivism to round out the modern practicalists. They all went in interesting but somewhat desperate directions if you ask me.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
Hi Pyrrho. Thanks for this. It’s great to get my first response vid ever! I’ll definitely respond with a video as soon as I get the chance. Cheers.
Kuanslog 1 month ago
@Kuanslog : cheers
pyrrho314 1 month ago
I also consider myself a Utilitarian, in the strictest pragmatic sense. I do have a problem with the concept of 'maximizing happiness'. Not just because that term is vague, but I think it is impossible. I think that we, being a civil society, should do our best to provide the infrastructure and environment to guarantee the 'pursuit' of happiness. That's why remarks coming from the likes of people like Sam Harris talking about science being useful to determine happiness chill me to the bone
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead I think Sam Harris is only talking about how if we understand our brain more scientifically we can use that info to help our pursuit of happiness. I don't think he's referring to like a perfect happy drug or rigid lifestyle as a result. I agree with you but not exactly the same way. Because that perfect happiness is vague, everyone has different limits of stress, and science does often sound cold. Its just information we can ignore right lol
TekLok 1 month ago
@TekLok Science works best when it informs policy, not when it dictates it. Besides 'Harris' field if barely what I would call 'science' and he's also made statements for a Technocracy more or less. He made a chilling statement that the ban on being compelled to testify against yourself is a 'quaint superstition'. Eggheads should stay in their labs and only talk when called upon by policy makers. BTW science can be catastrophically wrong, as in the case of Eugenics in the Americas
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
"Maximizing other people's happiness is just egotism"
We work to improve quality of life, infrastructure, education etc for the benefit of individual people; while attempting to minimize risks of starvation, disease, crime etc. The general concept of utilitarianism is pervasive throughout much of human society.
It only breaks down when you propose terminating the system itself (i.e. killing). Utilitarianism examines the system when in motion... not whether or not terminating it is logical.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot : but that's utilitarianism with practical adaptations... utilitarianism doesn't give a unique value to the individual, promoting the individual is not the point... it's all about how to take statistics. But it's fundamentally trying to turn hedonistic criteria into a way to skip finding out what people want in particular... as if it can all be summed up as a level of satisfaction. It's akin to putting a price on everything.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 "It's akin to putting a price on everything."
This only diminishes pleasant experience.
When you commodify pleasurable sensation into a form of consumerism via utilitarianism they lose their sense of value... they need glorification to maintain dignity. Turning satisfaction into a production line upsets many people; but summating suffering in the same fashion only intensifies its hideousness.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
@IdaMiaDot : yes, and it's also bad to commodity it in terms of satisfaction, like to do work you spend satisfaction. It's an unhealthy sort of monistic reductionism.
pyrrho314 1 month ago