This is my first attempt at a utilitarian argument!

The difficulty of "converting" people to utilitarianism intimidates me, but what about a more established philosphy with the same effect? Specifically, the application of Buddhism because it tends to (from what I know) coincide with utilitarianist application quite often.

Take this situation, a utilitarian teacher and a Buddhist teacher face off, with 150 people each to convert...

The Buddhist approach:
-He can convert 100/150 of the people (people accept Buddhism; it's very big already!)
-Buddhism is 75% utilitarian (because most of the time, they have the same idea)
Then, his overall effect is .75 times 100 which equals 75 utilitarians

The utilitarian approach:
-He can convert only 50/150 of the people (convincing people of such a tough ethical belief is, well, tough)
-Utilitarianism is 100% utilitarian (duh)
Then, his overall effect is 1 times 50 which equals 50 utilitarians


In other words, let's say "acceptability" is the probability a potential convert actually converts. Also, let's say "coincidence" if the probability an action is correct (utilitarian).

Then, if the margin of victory of Buddhism's "acceptability" over utilitarian's "acceptability" (which I believe is much lower, therefore the margin of victory is large) is greater than the margin of victory of "coincidence" of utilitarianism (which is always 100%) over "coincidence" of Buddhism (which I believe is very close to 100%, therefore than margin of victory is small), then...
Converting people to Buddhism is more utilitarian than converting people to utilitarianism!


Did that make sense at all?

Hi, WAN,
your argument is clear and logical. If this is your first attempt at utilitarian reasoning, then you'll sure have some potential!
I'd like to
1) question your figures. If you're attempting to convert people to Buddism or Utilitarianism, even if you commit many hours to persuade a personal friend, the success rate would hardly reach 50%. If it was something more realistic like approaching university students (in the vein of Vegan Outreach) or doorknocking then I imagine the success rate would be more like 1-5%.
2) I'd add a complicating factor. It does not just matter how many people you persuade to believe in utilitarianism or buddhism at the instant of conversion. It matters that their beliefs persist long enough for them to do some good! A good way of putting this is that we want to know whether Buddhism will decay more quickly than utilitarianism. If Buddhism decays twice as quickly, we should discount it by half, for example. Working in favour of buddhism is the fact that buddist groups are easier to find and such community can reinforce group alignment. Working in favour of utilitarianism is the fact that it is logical, coherent, relevant to the 21st century and, well... right!

I look forward to your second attempt at utilitarian argument WAN!

Welcome to Felicifia, WeAreNow!

I second Ryan's points, and add another complicating factor, namely that

3) your ultimate goal as a utilitarian is to produce the best possible expected consequences; whether this requires you to actively try to convert others to utilitarianism is an open question. First, given obvious limitations of time, energy and money, it is unclear whether persuasion attempts are an optimal use of your scarce resources. Secondly, even if there were no such limitations, it remains an open question whether it is better to have a world populated by utilitarian agents than a world where at least some endorse a non-utilitarian morality. Human beings are complex creatures with strong innate drives, and it is likely that at least a few of us will have to endorse a different (perhaps inconsistent) moral theory in order to act as utilitarianism requires.

Still, I think the question deserves attention, and acquires particular relevance when we take a long-term perspective. There are reasons to think that, if our descendants survive for long enough, they will be in a position to create astronomical amounts of happiness and suffering. And it is plausible to believe that their decisions on this matter will be at least partly influenced by their moral views. To the extent that we think we have an influence on the moral views of posthumanity, then, it makes a lot of sense to ask what sort of morality we should be actively trying to spread.

Good stuff!
1) My figures are completely arbitrary. They don't really matter for the sake of the argument, as long as the difference between "acceptability" outweighs the difference between "coincidence." I have no idea if that difference really is greater, but even if it's 10% over 3%, if that 7% still outweighs the "coincidence" of Buddhism, the math still works.
2) I completely agree! I guess I'll revice my "acceptability" to be the probability one converts and sticks with it.
3) Again, I agree. I'm arguing for Buddhist teaching over utilitarian, not that one should even teach at all.

So if one were to teach these ideas (either one)... what would be the best path to do so? A professor like Singer? Or another position of influence?

I'm not really familiar with Buddhism, but I wouldn't expect people who aren't utilitarian to donate to the right charities. Given how much less efficient a random charity is than the best ones, I wouldn't be surprised if one utilitarian was better than a hundred Buddhists.

The primary "goal" of Buddhism is actually reducing suffering (which, in effect, is increasing happiness). The odd similarity to utilitarianism sparked this thought.

I think DanielLC is raising the specific point illustrated by Toby Ord here
That is, reducing suffering on a large scale requires more than just good intentions. It requires specifically investigating the cost-effectiveness of particular interventions. You need to think like an economist. This is generally seen as too cruel and calculated outside of utilitarian circles. I would imagine few Buddhists think about cost-effectiveness in this way.

It's sort of like Christians aren't always generous. Jesus has taught that for a rich person to get to heaven is as hard as for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Although it's in the bible, it's just not how christians live. So I suppose the claim that Buddists are able to reduce suffering at all cost-effectively is one we have to be cynical about, just like the claim that the best way to encourage generosity is by preaching Christianity.

Ah, I fold my cards. I'll further investigate this and other ways to increase utilitarian action in the world and get back to you guys