Utilitarianism.......?

[LiberalsUtopian]

Basically, but then there are different subsets within utilitarianism as well. A 1 minute video is insufficient and people should research utilitarianism further on their own. Thank you.

[lukebeevers93]

Utilitarianism as a concept is flawed and has truly, truly horrific implications. For example, if the population of Earth was 1 million and all these people are happy, say 99 units of happiness each, then there are 99 million units of happiness in the world. If there were 50 billion humans on Earth who each had appalling lives, say one unit of happiness each, then there would be 50 billion units of happiness in the world. Scenario 2 has the most overall happiness, so is this the best scenario?!!

[gotitans999]

@lukebeevers93 Flawed logic alert: Happiness is measured by overall individual ratio's not the total sum. That's like saying stealing $10 but then donating $100 is moral because it still is a positive equation. Rather, the highest ratio possible per individual must be achieved.

[lukebeevers93]

@gotitans999 The position you are advancing is ethical egoism, not utilitarianism. That position is even more flawed. "The highest ratio possible per individual" is a contradiction in terms because surely that is not a utilitarian outlook as it puts emphasis on individual rights over majority rights. The question I would ask you is this : Would you justify causing pain to someone in order that another person's pleasure could be increased overall more by this action?

[sirbestnameever]

vandbg@ well your right there but this arument would let a killer free as he has the right to happiness, Utilitarianism works on the idea that let have as many happy people and then help the outher after.

[hairball71]

The greatest good (utility) is usually achieved when we are able to pursue our own self interest without coercion from individuals or government so long as those goals do not deny life, liberty, or property of another.

[hairball71]

The greatest good (utility) is usually achieved when we are able to pursue our own self interest without coercion from individuals or government so long as those goals do not deny life, liberty, or property of another.

[hairball71]

Utilitarianism is not to be confused with outright democracy. Utilitarians like John Stuart Mill understood that tyranny can also come from the majority. As long as an action (from an individual or group) does not infringe on another person's right to life liberty or property. Democracy is, by its very nature, mob rule and should be avoided.

[vandbg]

@hairball71 The danger of tyranny is (as has been shown throughout history) the inevitable rising of a malevolent leader, and the fact that they are solely in charge leaves no barriers for them to cross. However, you are correct, I believe, on mob rule, as it is quite absurd to claim that the majority has more of a collective intelligence than the minority. The majority is merely the average intelligence of the whole, which is not necessarily greater than the minority's intelligence.

[PhecdaYuma]

@vandbg Hello, Im curious if your Statement above, still applies now.. if you were to tie it in with the WALL STREET group. There is "no one leader" in the group. No ONE demand and certainly No ONE Directed Corporation they are confronting. This MOB is assuming that all "Corporations" (due to same laws) do the same things. yet, there are NO "Demands" set for Any Particular Group since "Corporation" is not one set Entity. You would be, perhaps? a good speaker about this?

[Pres25man]

Utililitarianism is, indeed, a useful means of, "justly," allocating objects, but depending on the arena that utilitarianistic judgments are being implimented, (sports, law, medicine), it will prove to be a perverse school of thought.

[gotitans999]

@Pres25man But objects are finite, and happiness is not. A higher ratio of happiness per individual is always possible.

[pccp1]

"I know it's the foundation of our entire society and civilization"

What? And the vote example? You seem to be talking about democracy, not Utilitarianism. And yes, democracy is flawed, partially for the reason you state in this video.

It's not the greatest happiness for the greatest number (this sentence was discarded as it overcomplicates matters, which is evident here), but just the greatest amount of happiness overall that counts, hence the "Utility Monster" criticism (look it up).

[pccp1]

Therefore 1 person wanting something other than 9 people could be justified in getting his way if his gained utility (meaning his "amount" of happiness) is greater than the COMBINED gained utility (meaning the 9 people's individual "amounts" of happiness added together) of the 9 getting their way.

Actually this example is oversimplified and missing some parameters, but you can write what they are once you understand how to analyze a situation in accordance to Utilitarianism.

[Perunanaxu]

Utilitarianism is a fact, the decisions made by people depends on the people.

[SHSimps]

...

You take each individuals pain or pleasure, and this pain or pleasure is counted as one if they are for the same cause.

i.e if 2 people want to order pizza and one doesnt, they should order pizza as it brings the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But yeh, the problem is the 2 may only slightly want pizza, but the 1 may deperatly want pizza. Tbh, utilitarianism is a good idea but shit in practice

[vandbg]

exactly. People, I think, should rather decide based on the average lust of the party.

[BioNRGy]

'to do nothing and just sit thinking about it' would not have much utility. So that wouldn't be the utlilitarian thing to do.

[vandbg]

What I was saying was that utilitariaism should be a last resort

[BioNRGy]

Nah, don't really agree. Unconsciously and instinctively our moral desicions are mostly utilitarian.

[BioNRGy]

The only real problem I see in utilitarianism is that there is no real reason to choose a friend or family member above a complete stranger.

[vandbg]

Now THAT is genetic

[vandbg]

Yes but that does not make them right. Our biological instinct is 'an eye for an eye' but that does not clear up capital punishment

[BioNRGy]

Can you name an example?

Lets say the nine want to eat spaghetti and the one wants to eat pizza. You can only the same for everyone. Wouldn't it be better to order spaghetti?

I can't think of an example where utilitarianism would be flawed in this sense.

[vandbg]

But the question would be: why? If you wanted pizza, and by chance the majority of the party also wanted pizza, you would not be any happier getting pizza just because you had the majority 'vote'. You, and every other pizza lover, would be just as happy as the spaghetti man if he won. And is the point of utilitarianism not to cause the most happiness? So 1=100

[BioNRGy]

The happyness is gained from the food, not the voting.

[vandbg]

Exactly. Assuming the pizza man loves pizza as much as Mr.Spaghetti loves spaghetti, the amount of pizza men should not affect how much one enjoys pizza/spaghetti.

[BioNRGy]

What does this have to do with overall utility?

[vandbg]

Because happiness cannot be measured through utility. Happiness cannot be added up between people. Each one of the Spaghetti men would be happy if they got spaghetti. But the pizza man would also be happy if he got pizza. So everyone can only be so happy. I admit this is a somewhat controversial idea, and I haven't heard it thought of before, but I can't ignore the possibility that our entire civilization may be at flaw.

[BioNRGy]

Why can't the happiness be added up between people? Would you rather suggest them to order pizza?

[vandbg]

Because each individual experiences his own pleasure and pain. Groups do not suffer together. If you agree with this then surely if you hurt one person in a group they would all feel pain? I would not suggest that they order pizza any more than I would suggest that they order spaghetti. I would suggest for them to find another way of settling this dispute.

[BioNRGy]

As I said in the scenario: you can only order the same for everyone. In that case it is better to order spaghetti. To say that both choices have equal utility is stupid.

These kind of scenario's occur. Where there is only a limited amount of options. That's when you apply utilitarianism.

Of course, if they can find a better way of settling things, they should do that, but that is still a utilitarian decision.

[vandbg]

Utilitarianism really should only be used as a last resort because it is irrational to do nothing and just sit thinking about it (until what time the restaurant closes)

[ezsandler]

not your best, although I am loving this theme of utilitarianism throughout your videos.