This is the first (and hopefully longest) of a series of posts I want to start to ‘explain’ hedonistic utilitarianism. The idea will be to have a single thread for each stage in the argument, which should add up to a logically valid argument with convincingly sound premises.

I’m hoping to interlink each stage with quotes, and to constantly edit each chunk for clarity, precision, and general readability, according to criticisms and comments people post in each of the threads. (I’ll have to think of a way of doing this that shows the changes and gives credit where it’s due, but that doesn’t turn the OP into a complete mess.) To suggest changes, please be as specific as possible, providing exact phrases and then explaining (if it's not obvious) why they're better than or should be added to the current one.

If it seems like I’m achieving anything, I might try stickying this post – and Ryan will unsticky it promptly if it seems like I’m acting like a megalomaniac.

The idea isn’t necessarily to solve all problems of ethics – I’d like to finish this project one day – but it would be nice to have a reasonably straightforward, logically consistent FAQ/essay hybrid ready for people to engage with if they want, or even – horrors – to be persuaded by.

As I write new posts, I’ll try and link them together as much as possible (mimicking Wikipedia or maybe Tractatus), but until I do, I’ll surround with square brackets [] any word or phrase that I think will eventually merit its own chunk. So, square brackets will be like red links on Wikipedia – things that will eventually become regular hyperlinks.

---

With that out of the way, this first chunk is on assumption. Specifically, that assumption is something we all have in common: we all treat some things as true and then allow these things to guide our thoughts and behaviour. In attempting to read this sentence, by getting out of bed in the morning and by acting coherently in-between, we’ve assumed countless things. Some of these assumptions will be conditional on our circumstances – for example, I’m assuming that I’ll have access to a PC in the near future to return to this forum.

Let’s ignore these contingent circumstances, though. All I want to claim in this post is that there are some assumptions which we all seem to share (if we’re not solipsists). Since I’m only discussing assumptions that I claim we all hold, I won’t necessarily discuss whether they’re actually true. It will hopefully be obvious that we universally assume things like consistency (a=a) and induction (that the world will continue to behave much as it seems to have done). I’ll probably have to argue that we universally assume some of the other things I’ll claim we do:

[Happiness is important]
[Parsimony is important]
[Solipsism is false]
[At any given moment, we can choose from multiple actions] (what some people might call free will)
[Logical inferences remain absolutely consistent]
[other things that I’ll no doubt think of – or that someone will point out to me]

That’s pretty much it for this post. Things in brackets I’ll argue for in their respective threads, so I’d like to avoid discussing them in this one. The key thing for my argument is that we assume these things, not that we actually know they’re true.

I like the idea. I like that it’s ambitious and I like that it allows Felicifians to make a contribution which is permanent. The opening post of each thread should become a shared creation of forum posters but I think it will also be quite positive to introduce to the discussion quotes from great past thinkers, utilitarian and other.

-
On-topic, I think that assumptions can be a good tool for setting aside complex topics for some time, but I also think that we have to be careful of what we assume. The fact that you and I both believe something does not make it true. We need to be clear that assumption of future internet access is quite different from assuming superiority of one race or wrongness of a sexual orientation.

We have a good reason for believing we’ll have future computer access. We know where computers are. Assuming physical laws and social behaviours continue, those computers should be there at the end of today’s work. The discriminatory ideas, on the other hand, aren’t fair assumptions until they can be backed up by reason and evidence.

I don’t think that any proposition should be shielded from scepticism permanently. But some things can be assumed temporarily. The pathway from rationality to utilitarianism seems more important for us to talk about than the pathway from square one to rationality. So we can assume that rationality is a good thing.

If I were to write my assumptions, I guess they would be
> Rationality, knowability of the universe, the principle of induction (these to me are different ways of stating the same assumption)
> Will (We are free in the sense that we make decisions and we do not need to be free in the sense of being able to override physical laws)

I think these other bracketed quotes of yours also look like they should be good to discuss. I totally look forward to it.

I think that any mention of utilitarianism has to attempt to answer the questions of whose welfare you're concerned with. Do all currently existing humans count equally, for example? How do potential future humans count? Do we have a duty to produce as many more humans as possible? Where do animals fall on the scheme of things - is animal happiness equal to human happiness?

But these are much later down the line - for the moment, it might be politic to primarily consider the wellbeing of the humans currently on the planet and go from there.

I'll edit the OP to say this too, but I'll need the feedback to be in the form of specific amendments followed by justification if I'm going to be able to use it in the thread topics. Something like:

I'd suggest changing the line, 'I’ll have access to a PC in the near future to return to this forum' to 'I am a chimp.'
Reason: you are a chimp.

And so on (but preferably keeping actual comments relevant to the argument...)

Okay, this time I’m directly criticising and changing your writing:

I’d suggest changing to: “With that out of the way, this first chunk is on assumption. Specifically, that assumption is something we all have in common: we all accept some things to be true and then allow these opinions to guide our thoughts and behaviour. In attempting to read this sentence, by getting out of bed in the morning and by acting coherently in-between, we’ve assumed countless things.”

Reasons:
1. removed the word ‘gibberring’ for its obscurity.
2. defined assumption. I feel a touch confused about this post but I think if you write exactly what you mean by assumption, it might help. I tried to answer what exactly we mean by assumption as distinct from an opinion. I figure we’re not talking formal logic because free will (a premise) and utilitarianism (a conclusion) are both referred to as assumptions.

Continuing on:
3. what do you mean by contingent? http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... 7A72AZvskF
4. I don’t think I agree with the statement “some of these hopefully don’t require an argument”. I believe all assumptions need to have a reason behind them. I would write something more like “Assumptions that are nearly universal, I will not justify until I am asked to. Those assumptions that are contentious, on the other hand, will be treated immediately. They are listed below:”

Changes history:

1) Replaced this passage

With that out of the way, this first chunk is on assumption. Specifically, that assumption is something we all have in common. In attempting to read this sentence, by getting out of bed in the morning and by doing anything other than gibbering in between, we’ve assumed countless things.

with a slightly modified version of Ryan's suggestion from here. (modified I don't want to get into whether we 'accept' as true in this thread - I'm trying to discuss that point in the knowledge thread I'm currently putting together)

2) Changed 'contingent' to 'conditional' to clarify concern in same post.

3) Changed

Some of these hopefully don’t require an argument (that the world will behave as it has done; that our memories are at least a passable guide of how the world has behaved before, and so on).

But there are others that I think I’ll have to argue for:

to

Since I’m only discussing assumptions that I claim we all hold, I won’t necessarily discuss whether they’re actually true. It will hopefully be obviously that we universally assume things like consistency (a=a) and induction (that the world will continue to behave much as it seems to have done). I’ll probably have to argue that we universally assume some of the other things I’ll claim we do:

to try and clarify my position, which wasn't clear, judging by Ryan's first post.

One thing I openly disagree on, Ryan - I'm not 'assuming utilitarianism' (it's not well enough defined for that, for one thing). Few people, utilitarian or otherwise, will dispute the importance of happiness (and I'm going to claim that in doing so they've already assumed it). What separates util from its critics, IMO, is the claim that nothing else besides happiness is important.

Hiya Arepo

On your shared common beliefs:-

[Happiness is important] - agreed
[Parsimony is important] - I disagree this is a commonly shared belief
[Solipsism is false] - agreed
[At any given moment, we can choose from multiple actions] (what some people might call free will) - agreed
[Logical inferences remain absolutely consistent] - I disagree - there are too many who do not understand or hold to this
[other things that I’ll no doubt think of – or that someone will point out to me] - I disagree

Hi

I am just wondering if this thread warrants, at this time, being a sticky thread?

Not really (unstickied now)...

Hopefully it will be more convincing when I've added a few more entries to it.