You wanted details: You are dropping context when you say that since "society is a collection of individuals, what is good for individuals will be good for society". As you yourself admit, individuals have vastly differing values and therefore the actions of each individual will be evaluated differently by the other individuals affected by a given individual's actions. There is no referent object known as society.
Therefore you can't say "X is good for society". The introduction of better detectives, for instance, will have a negative effect on serial killers. You say no one wants sociopaths in 'their' society. I am sure some of the sociopaths want their selves in it!
Secondly, while Mises's theories focused on individual actions, utilitarianism as a moral theory focuses on the 'right' or 'wrong' of those individual actions being measured against perceived societal effects.
The trolley scenario, from a utilitarian perspective, ignores the choice of the individual to pull the lever or not, concentrating on the outcomes of those choices, and from the point of view of some imagined entity (society).
"Most people would do what is in their long-term interests, if they just understood what that was" While I agree many people appear to have no desire to define these interests, do you think others can define this?
The trolley scenario, from a utilitarian perspective, ignores the choice of the individual to pull the lever or not, concentrating on the outcomes of those choices, and from the point of view of some imagined entity (society).
"Most people would do what is in their long-term interests, if they just understood what that was" While I agree many people appear to have no desire to define these interests, do you think others can define this?
I feel that you try to dodge this contradiction by saying these choices are good for individuals long term - but that judgement itself has formed from a collective standpoint. Only the individual can judge what is good for his self.
You are wise to point out that virtue ethics and the omnipresent ubergeists of 'rights' are nonsensical and have no basis in reality, but sadly saying 'utilitarian ethics are good because they serve the interests of people' is itself just a tautology.
Utilitarianism has nothing valid to say about the moral choices of individuals because it is a consequentialist theory, focusing not on the choices that precede action but on the consequences - real or imagined.
As a definitive example, division of labour will not get me what I need in the long run because what I want is precisely to estape the paradigm of the division of labour - that is literally my long term goal. The society that obstructs me in my attempt to do this is one that has grown up around utilitarian and consequentialist dogma.
I love how most libertarians love to quote Bastiat about how in the market, the ends of market participants are in harmony with one another, but when you use the word Utilitarianism you are an evil mass murder. Cooperation is the means to attain virtually all ends.
BTW, if you haven't seen them, you should watch Michael Sandel's Harvard lectures. The arguments are probably familiar, but they're covered in a very engaging way. They're on YT, but justiceharvard [dot] org lists them all in order for easy access.
Interesting points you make about virtue and natural rights being good for their own sake by definition. The problem is, for a utilitarian moral calculus to be workable, it's also necessary to have a concrete sense of what these mean in terms of action. That's far from obvious: would you kill one person to save two from an accident, or neglect to act and let the two die? Most people, I think, would not act, and in that sense are not utility maximizing from a consequentialist perspective.
@stcmsw102 The subjective utility of the individuals involved. What I would do in this situation has no effect on why I think morality is. What I would do is, curl up in a ball and cry, screaming "no, no, no"
@lifeishowitis It's a horrible situation, I agree, but the inevitability of the outcomes and forced choice in the heat of the moment cut to the heart of the question: for either action, why is that choice morally justified? If there is no moral choice, why not? Would you make the same choice if it was property rather than lives that were about to be destroyed? How can neglecting to act be justified convincingly on purely utilitarian grounds?
@stcmsw102 I don't agree that it cuts to the heart of the question about where morality comes from. But what I will say nonetheless is the main point of this video: morality is constructed in such a way the individuals get the most benefit: neglecting to act would work "best" for me because I wouldn't be able to do anything else; and I would be at no fault to society for being put in such a situation and not choosing to deliberately harm people.
@lifeishowitis I think both choices in this situation are deliberate but neither is blameworthy because of the inevitability of the outcome. The question I'm raising is whether an inability to act is drawn from utilitarian praxis despite the net loss of one life, or if it results from a non-utilitarian moral axiom? IMO, this example demonstrates that personal respect for human dignity is for most people a moral end in itself, not the result of favourable long-term consequences.
@lifeishowitis cont'd. Which is not to say that respect for human life and dignity doesn't lead to favourable outcomes, but only that this can't be the justification in this situation because the utility of action is here greater than that of inaction judged by long-term consequences. Since the principle isn't eroded even when maximizing utility would suggest the opposite course of action, isn't it moral absolutely, rather than justified because it works well enough in most cases?
@stcmsw102 This is at least debatable. Killing the one person is disregarding what their personal choice might have been. It sacrifices not only the person, but the concept of self determination. It might also lead moral hazard, where a majority behaves irresponsibly, so long as they know there is a minority around to be sacrificed. So even from utilitarian perspective one might argue that the long run consequences of sacrificing the one for the two has more adverse consequences than benefits.
@mbarkhau I agree, but for the sake of argument let's assume that none of them would choose to die, yet due to the situation at least one of them has to, and that there are no confounding factors such as not knowing which of them, by living, would ultimately provide the greatest or least benefit to society. Is it more moral to allow a preventable accident to happen, if it means violating a person's right to self-determination only accidentally rather than deliberately?
@mbarkhau How should a person act in the present given current information? How can they know the ultimate consequences of their decision for society? This leads to something akin to Mises's economic calculation problem, whereby the long-run consequences to society may be strongly negative yet still be outweighed in personal choice by immediate positive consequences. For that reason, I find the argument from long-term consequences unconvincing.
@stcmsw102 The problem is similar to economics. It is true, we cannot know the exact consequences of each action. But we can say for example, that minimum wage causes unemployment. I think we can make general statements about consequences in a praxeological framework. So the next question would be, if your question can be answered in this manner.
that's why Pareto efficiency becomes important. Making at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off...so not acting is not an improvement but it also doesn't make anyone worse off (if you don't act, then what will happen will happen and you're not making things worse). Its' quite possible for this to be utility maximizing, especially with value being subjective but even if it isn't then the ppl saved would have to compensate those who saved them
continued - the ppl doing the saving would need to be compensated according to their own subjective values. Honestly, i don't think people would require a whole lot of compensation for saving someone's life in many cases (unless it's like, their job)
@stealthswimmer I agree with you, especially about the restriction to Pareto-efficient situations, although I think your reply somewhat dodges the question. Even assuming an objective utility function, proportional to the number of people saved minus those killed, is the utilitarian moral calculus fully sufficient? That is, will the self-professed utilitarian actually act in this situation? How about if, instead of people, we have property. Is the decision easier now? If so, why?
I tend to lean towards natural rights (Rothbard - what is right for human species per se, not for me in the long run etc.), while accepting Mises' utilitarian approach, that further validates non-aggression and private property.
The main objections I've heard to consequentialism are - it fails to give a non-circular definition of what is good, it relies on a capacity to predict consequences we don't possess, and there's a fear of an "ends justify the means" mentality. In my opinion, the first problem is solved through appeal to human desires, the second is true but we can make our best guesses, and the third is simply an insufficient consideration, or improper weighting, of all consequences, not an inherent problem.
not to mention that "ends justify the means" argument is similar to the argument against the "principled" view that many atrocities have been committed by people who were deeply principled and committed. Like saying the state's violence against us justifies violence and then advocating killing state officials or something. I think that would have terrible consequences for pretty much everyone but a deontological view might "justify" it.
I love you.
Tsicar 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You wanted details: You are dropping context when you say that since "society is a collection of individuals, what is good for individuals will be good for society". As you yourself admit, individuals have vastly differing values and therefore the actions of each individual will be evaluated differently by the other individuals affected by a given individual's actions. There is no referent object known as society.
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
Therefore you can't say "X is good for society". The introduction of better detectives, for instance, will have a negative effect on serial killers. You say no one wants sociopaths in 'their' society. I am sure some of the sociopaths want their selves in it!
Secondly, while Mises's theories focused on individual actions, utilitarianism as a moral theory focuses on the 'right' or 'wrong' of those individual actions being measured against perceived societal effects.
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
The trolley scenario, from a utilitarian perspective, ignores the choice of the individual to pull the lever or not, concentrating on the outcomes of those choices, and from the point of view of some imagined entity (society).
"Most people would do what is in their long-term interests, if they just understood what that was" While I agree many people appear to have no desire to define these interests, do you think others can define this?
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The trolley scenario, from a utilitarian perspective, ignores the choice of the individual to pull the lever or not, concentrating on the outcomes of those choices, and from the point of view of some imagined entity (society).
"Most people would do what is in their long-term interests, if they just understood what that was" While I agree many people appear to have no desire to define these interests, do you think others can define this?
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
I feel that you try to dodge this contradiction by saying these choices are good for individuals long term - but that judgement itself has formed from a collective standpoint. Only the individual can judge what is good for his self.
You are wise to point out that virtue ethics and the omnipresent ubergeists of 'rights' are nonsensical and have no basis in reality, but sadly saying 'utilitarian ethics are good because they serve the interests of people' is itself just a tautology.
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
Utilitarianism has nothing valid to say about the moral choices of individuals because it is a consequentialist theory, focusing not on the choices that precede action but on the consequences - real or imagined.
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
As a definitive example, division of labour will not get me what I need in the long run because what I want is precisely to estape the paradigm of the division of labour - that is literally my long term goal. The society that obstructs me in my attempt to do this is one that has grown up around utilitarian and consequentialist dogma.
I hope you get well soon.
BenettFreeman 2 months ago
I love how most libertarians love to quote Bastiat about how in the market, the ends of market participants are in harmony with one another, but when you use the word Utilitarianism you are an evil mass murder. Cooperation is the means to attain virtually all ends.
t3hsauce 2 months ago
BTW, if you haven't seen them, you should watch Michael Sandel's Harvard lectures. The arguments are probably familiar, but they're covered in a very engaging way. They're on YT, but justiceharvard [dot] org lists them all in order for easy access.
stcmsw102 2 months ago
Interesting points you make about virtue and natural rights being good for their own sake by definition. The problem is, for a utilitarian moral calculus to be workable, it's also necessary to have a concrete sense of what these mean in terms of action. That's far from obvious: would you kill one person to save two from an accident, or neglect to act and let the two die? Most people, I think, would not act, and in that sense are not utility maximizing from a consequentialist perspective.
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@stcmsw102 The subjective utility of the individuals involved. What I would do in this situation has no effect on why I think morality is. What I would do is, curl up in a ball and cry, screaming "no, no, no"
I'll check out the lectures.
lifeishowitis 2 months ago
@lifeishowitis It's a horrible situation, I agree, but the inevitability of the outcomes and forced choice in the heat of the moment cut to the heart of the question: for either action, why is that choice morally justified? If there is no moral choice, why not? Would you make the same choice if it was property rather than lives that were about to be destroyed? How can neglecting to act be justified convincingly on purely utilitarian grounds?
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@stcmsw102 I don't agree that it cuts to the heart of the question about where morality comes from. But what I will say nonetheless is the main point of this video: morality is constructed in such a way the individuals get the most benefit: neglecting to act would work "best" for me because I wouldn't be able to do anything else; and I would be at no fault to society for being put in such a situation and not choosing to deliberately harm people.
lifeishowitis 2 months ago
@lifeishowitis I think both choices in this situation are deliberate but neither is blameworthy because of the inevitability of the outcome. The question I'm raising is whether an inability to act is drawn from utilitarian praxis despite the net loss of one life, or if it results from a non-utilitarian moral axiom? IMO, this example demonstrates that personal respect for human dignity is for most people a moral end in itself, not the result of favourable long-term consequences.
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@lifeishowitis cont'd. Which is not to say that respect for human life and dignity doesn't lead to favourable outcomes, but only that this can't be the justification in this situation because the utility of action is here greater than that of inaction judged by long-term consequences. Since the principle isn't eroded even when maximizing utility would suggest the opposite course of action, isn't it moral absolutely, rather than justified because it works well enough in most cases?
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@stcmsw102 This is at least debatable. Killing the one person is disregarding what their personal choice might have been. It sacrifices not only the person, but the concept of self determination. It might also lead moral hazard, where a majority behaves irresponsibly, so long as they know there is a minority around to be sacrificed. So even from utilitarian perspective one might argue that the long run consequences of sacrificing the one for the two has more adverse consequences than benefits.
mbarkhau 2 months ago
@mbarkhau I agree, but for the sake of argument let's assume that none of them would choose to die, yet due to the situation at least one of them has to, and that there are no confounding factors such as not knowing which of them, by living, would ultimately provide the greatest or least benefit to society. Is it more moral to allow a preventable accident to happen, if it means violating a person's right to self-determination only accidentally rather than deliberately?
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@mbarkhau How should a person act in the present given current information? How can they know the ultimate consequences of their decision for society? This leads to something akin to Mises's economic calculation problem, whereby the long-run consequences to society may be strongly negative yet still be outweighed in personal choice by immediate positive consequences. For that reason, I find the argument from long-term consequences unconvincing.
stcmsw102 2 months ago
@stcmsw102 The problem is similar to economics. It is true, we cannot know the exact consequences of each action. But we can say for example, that minimum wage causes unemployment. I think we can make general statements about consequences in a praxeological framework. So the next question would be, if your question can be answered in this manner.
mbarkhau 2 months ago
@stcmsw102
that's why Pareto efficiency becomes important. Making at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off...so not acting is not an improvement but it also doesn't make anyone worse off (if you don't act, then what will happen will happen and you're not making things worse). Its' quite possible for this to be utility maximizing, especially with value being subjective but even if it isn't then the ppl saved would have to compensate those who saved them
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
@stcmsw102
continued - the ppl doing the saving would need to be compensated according to their own subjective values. Honestly, i don't think people would require a whole lot of compensation for saving someone's life in many cases (unless it's like, their job)
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
@stealthswimmer I agree with you, especially about the restriction to Pareto-efficient situations, although I think your reply somewhat dodges the question. Even assuming an objective utility function, proportional to the number of people saved minus those killed, is the utilitarian moral calculus fully sufficient? That is, will the self-professed utilitarian actually act in this situation? How about if, instead of people, we have property. Is the decision easier now? If so, why?
stcmsw102 2 months ago
cogent :)
mrblisterfist 2 months ago
something i just realized - the nature of all species being utility maximizing is probably because our environment selected for it XD
We've evolved to be that way, though I think it's also possible we evolved with other institutions that make us distrust markets
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
I sprained my ankle last week and it totally kept me off my feet. Virtually nothing changed in my life.
Clearly, I need to get one. ;-)
Panpiper 2 months ago
Thanks for the video. Hope you'll recover soon.
I tend to lean towards natural rights (Rothbard - what is right for human species per se, not for me in the long run etc.), while accepting Mises' utilitarian approach, that further validates non-aggression and private property.
rumco 2 months ago
The main objections I've heard to consequentialism are - it fails to give a non-circular definition of what is good, it relies on a capacity to predict consequences we don't possess, and there's a fear of an "ends justify the means" mentality. In my opinion, the first problem is solved through appeal to human desires, the second is true but we can make our best guesses, and the third is simply an insufficient consideration, or improper weighting, of all consequences, not an inherent problem.
Stargazer5781 2 months ago
@Stargazer5781
not to mention that "ends justify the means" argument is similar to the argument against the "principled" view that many atrocities have been committed by people who were deeply principled and committed. Like saying the state's violence against us justifies violence and then advocating killing state officials or something. I think that would have terrible consequences for pretty much everyone but a deontological view might "justify" it.
stealthswimmer 2 months ago