Is (non-egoistic) ethical hedonism necessarily utilitarian? Is it possible to believe that the sole objective of ethics should be to maximize happiness/minimize suffering without ascribing to the idea of aggregate happiness/suffering? Does value hedonism (the idea that happiness is the only intrinsic good, not to be confused with welfare hedonism or the view that happiness is the only thing that's good *for a person) necessarily lead to HU?

[strike]On Wikipedia it says it's consequentialist, but not utilitarian. I don't know if it's accurate.[/strike]

Edit: I just realized I misunderstood the question. Somehow I read that as you asking if ethical egoism was utilitarian.

I like aggregation. It makes sense. If you want happiness, you want more of it, in more places at once, experienced by more people at once. That's all there is to it.

People can definitely be hedonsitic, in an ethical sense, and not be utilitarian. But people can be a lot of things. People can favour lists of principles over single principles. Rather than just maximising happiness, people seek to maximise autonomy and justice as well. They say that they have several principles, and that they can each override each other. But they allow these principles to override each other in each possible permutation. They provide hand-wavey explanations for why this is so. But what they never admit, is that unless you properly explain how your principles are weighed against each other, that is, how you aggregate them, you haven't provided any answer to questions of ethics at all. Until you can combine your principles, you're only providing more questions.

Sorry about that rant, but I really like aggregation! Basically, many people will value happiness without ascribing to the idea of aggregate happiness, but they're not going to have anything sensible to contribute to the domain of ethics.

If you're not egoistic, and don't ascribe to aggregate happiness, but believe happiness is the good, then to what happiness do you give importance? 'Cause happiness is had by concrete beings, it is felt by someone. Whose happiness would you care about?

If you consider prioritarianism to count, then it isn't necessarily utilitarianism.

I wouldn't say that that only considers happiness to count. It seem that happiness and fairness both count.

That's true. See I think Egoism is easier to interpret than utilitarianism. Prioritarianism is harder to interpret than utilitarianism. Because it aggregates two things together - happiness and fairness. But once you press on beyond two, it gets very tricky. For example, in biomedical ethics, a four principles system is commonly promoted, involving beneficience, nonmaleficience, autonomy and justice. As you can imagine, figuring out which principle dominates which other principle in certain situations is a nightmare. If you would like to share a patient's STD history with their wife in order to treat them, what should you do? Should you act in the interest of benefiting this wife's physical health. And in the interest of justice - surely it is only fair that they should both know an equal amount. Or should you refrain from risking a blow to the husband's mental health, caused by a breach of confidentiality, given also that breaching his confidentiality is generally regarded as compromising his autonomy?

This argument never leads anywhere. One principle is a system for figuring out answers in ethics. It's hard, but eventually, answers can be reached, even if it takes years of research. But multiple principles is impossible. People just stop even trying to aggregate the principles together, and they just use them to justify their intuitions instead. It's a disaster.

Biomedical ethics has justice? "We're sorry, but we can't give you migraine medicine. You've been a real pain in the neck, so you don't deserve to get rid of yours." "We can't search for a cure for old age. Humanity doesn't deserve immortality."

Then again, I might be misinterpreting that. I'm not sure what "justice" means. I think it's one of those words like "liberty", which pretty much means whatever you want it to.

Having multiple principles shouldn't be too much of a problem if you come up with a standard comparing them. Just come up with a unit, and give examples with how many units are cause from each one.

RyanCarey wrote:I like aggregation. It makes sense. If you want happiness, you want more of it, in more places at once, experienced by more people at once. That's all there is to it.

People can definitely be hedonsitic, in an ethical sense, and not be utilitarian. But people can be a lot of things. People can favour lists of principles over single principles. Rather than just maximising happiness, people seek to maximise autonomy and justice as well. They say that they have several principles, and that they can each override each other. But they allow these principles to override each other in each possible permutation. They provide hand-wavey explanations for why this is so. But what they never admit, is that unless you properly explain how your principles are weighed against each other, that is, how you aggregate them, you haven't provided any answer to questions of ethics at all. Until you can combine your principles, you're only providing more questions.

Sorry about that rant, but I really like aggregation! Basically, many people will value happiness without ascribing to the idea of aggregate happiness, but they're not going to have anything sensible to contribute to the domain of ethics.

I thought I was on board (with HU) but I still have my doubts. I know I'm going back and forth but the gang-rape/burning cats for fun scenario still bothers me, not as far as practical scenarios are concerned but in theory. Aren't there some scenarios where causing someone a great deal of suffering is the only way to increase a lesser amount of pleasure for many more people? Altruistic hedonism is beginning to appeal to me, I think the world would be a better place if everyone (as much as is practical) prioritized the happiness and suffering of other beings over their own and the gang rape scenarios would become a non-concern if the men were altruists. HU also has some other 'repugnant' conclusions, like preferring a universe with many moderately happy people over one with fewer extremely happy people. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that happiness is the only intrinsic good. A pluralistic theory of value prevents people from making consistent, moral judgments, in my view, because there is no standard they can use to determine when to prefer which value.

I don't agree with prioritarianism although I'm still not sure I understand it. Why is causing 10 points of suffering to a low-class, blue collar worker worse than causing 20 points of suffering to a wealthy businessman? According to prioritarianism, what qualifies someone as being 'worse off'? If it's their emotional state of mind, than prioritarians might as well just say that alleviating suffering is more important than maximizing happiness and call themselves negative utilitarians.

Ubuntu wrote:I don't agree with prioritarianism although I'm still not sure I understand it. Why is causing 10 points of suffering to a low-class, blue collar worker worse than causing 20 points of suffering to a wealthy businessman? According to prioritarianism, what qualifies someone as being 'worse off'? If it's their emotional state of mind, than prioritarians might as well just say that alleviating suffering is more important than maximizing happiness and call themselves negative utilitarians.

I think in practice prioritarianism, egalitarianism and negative utilitarianism aren't very different. They just stress a slightly different idea: to avoid suffering (negative utilitarianism), to improve worse-off individuals (prioritarianism) or to get equality (egalitarianism).

Altruistic Hedonism can still cause the rape scenario. It's just that in this case it's the rapist that doesn't want to do it. My problem with AH is that it means each person has a different goal. Ethics should be universal.

Yes but, in theory, utilitarians could participate in that rape. Altruists could not and if everyone were an altruist, then not even in theory would it be justified.

What do you mean different goals? Each person's goal is to increase the happiness/decrease the suffering of other beings. You could say that nobody benefits from altruism if everyone is an altruist but look at Christmas, everyone is preoccupied with buying gifts for other people, not themselves, yet they are still happy when they open their gifts and they should be since being happy will make the people who bought those gifts for them happy.

My problem isn't with the logic of HU, it's worth noting that utilitarianism can justify promoting ethical schools other than utilitarianism.

Merry Christmas, by the way!

Ubuntu wrote:Altruistic hedonism is beginning to appeal to me, I think the world would be a better place if everyone (as much as is practical) prioritized the happiness and suffering of other beings over their own and the gang rape scenarios would become a non-concern if the men were altruists.

The world would be a better place if everyone were a follower of 'insert ethical theory of choice' by definition, because better is the comparative of good where good is defined by 'insert ethical theory of choice'.

I'd be more worried about whether it makes sense, and altruistic hedonism makes as little sense as egoistic hedonism. Why is happiness of individual A intrinsically more important than happiness of individual B?

The world would be a better place if everyone were a follower of 'insert ethical theory of choice' by definition, because better is the comparative of good where good is defined by 'insert ethical theory of choice'.

Whether I ascribe to utilitarianism or altruism, I define 'good' as happiness. The world is 'better' when there is more happiness/less suffering.

I'd be more worried about whether it makes sense, and altruistic hedonism makes as little sense as egoistic hedonism. Why is happiness of individual A intrinsically more important than happiness of individual B?

Everyone's happiness is equally valuable, I just think that the best way to achieve the greatest balance of happiness over suffering is if everyone adopted a selfless concern for the welfare of other beings and prioritized that concern over their own happiness/suffering. I could be wrong but it's worth noting that utilitarianism can justify advocating a non-utilitarian school of ethics if a non-utilitarian school of ethics would produce the greater balance of happiness over suffering (or preference satisfaction over preference frustration). If I believed that deontology, Islam, astrology etc., as belief systems, would necessarily make the world a better place than altruism or utilitarianism would, then I would promote those world views even if I privately disbelieved.

Altruism making sense is important in giving it credibility but frankly, it's the consequences of promoting altruism that I'm concerned with, not it's logic.

Whether I ascribe to utilitarianism or altruism, I define 'good' as happiness. The world is 'better' when there is more happiness/less suffering.

If that's the case, you are objectively wrong. If the gang rape results in less happiness, it couldn't be perpetrated by utilitarians. If it could be, it would result in more happiness.

[I]t's worth noting that utilitarianism can justify promoting ethical schools other than utilitarianism.

How do you figure?

Everyone's happiness is equally valuable, I just think that the best way to achieve the greatest balance of happiness over suffering is if everyone adopted a selfless concern for the welfare of other beings and prioritized that concern over their own happiness/suffering.

If you do what maximizes other happiness, you'll result in more total happiness than if you maximize total happiness?

When you maximize happiness, that means go with whatever results in the most happiness. If you find out that altruistic hedonism results in more happiness, that doesn't mean altruism is better. It means you messed up somewhere. You can't increase something to above the maximum.

DanielLC, it's plausible that altruism might be a good philosophy for increasing overall happiness.

Positive psychology scientists often say there's a paradox of happiness. If you think about and try to pursue happiness directly, you're unlikely to be effective. You need to seek out relatives of happiness such as a good job and good friends. Then, you can pursue happiness while slightly averting your eyes from it. Aiming for career can maximise your happiness.

Aiming for others' happiness could plausibly maximise total happiness. And as you'll hear people like people singer say, giving to charity can make you feel good about yourself. So, being altruistic could be a good idea for an egoist.

A guy who talks a lot about this is Shelly Kagan. He draws a sharp line between what you want to maximise, and what mode of thought is likely to achieve it. In the first chapter or two of his book Normative Ethics, and in some of his ethics lectures.

Hi, I'm just catching up so I'm going to quote a lot.

DanielLC:

But multiple principles is impossible. People just stop even trying to aggregate the principles together, and they just use them to justify their intuitions instead. It's a disaster.

I couldn't agree more. This is why I actually hate studying my favourite subject at the moment - practical ethics - because you're never allowed to assume utilitarianism from the start (at this stage in my education), and instead you're expected to just "weigh up" individual values, which effectively is using various principles selectively to justify your intuitions.

My problem with AH is that it means each person has a different goal. Ethics should be universal.

I like.

Ubuntu:

Aren't there some scenarios where causing someone a great deal of suffering is the only way to increase a lesser amount of pleasure for many more people?

The choice of whether or not to make humanity extinct fits this criteria, because to allow humanity to continue will mean causing (allowing) a great deal of suffering for some people and a lesser amount of pleasure for many more (presumably...I'm just assuming that the happiness balance of humanity is positive; also, it's a lesser amount of pleasure for others because humans have the capacity for a greater intensity of suffering than they do happiness). But the large majority of people have the intuition that we should allow humanity to continue. What do you think?

Altruistic hedonism is beginning to appeal to me, I think the world would be a better place if everyone (as much as is practical) prioritized the happiness and suffering of other beings over their own and the gang rape scenarios would become a non-concern if the men were altruists.

Hmm, not if the woman was an altruist!

The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that happiness is the only intrinsic good.

It seems to me that this logically implies utilitarianism until you introduce another principle/ethical fact.

RyanCarey:

people like people singer say

lol I love People Singer.

How do you figure?

Utilitarianism is concerned solely with consequences, with maximizing whatever is considered good and minimizing whatever is considered bad. If it were true that promoting deontology would produce a greater balance of happiness over suffering than would promoting utilitarianism, then utilitarianism would require that we promote deontology instead of utilitarianism. The truth has no inherent value and neither does logic, what matters is happiness/suffering (or preference satisfaction/frustration).

If you do what maximizes other happiness, you'll result in more total happiness than if you maximize total happiness?

No, I'm just predicting that a world where everyone prioritized the happiness of other people would have more happiness than one where everyone was equally concerned with their own happiness as they were with everyone else's. Ryan Carey put it well, people are happier when they empathize with others and behave altruistically. And even if utilitarianism, in practice, can probably not justify gang rape, burning puppies etc. for the greater good, many people are demoralized by the idea that this is even theoretically justifiable, so there's no point in promoting utilitarianism for it's own sake, it should only be promoted because it 'works'.

When you maximize happiness, that means go with whatever results in the most happiness. If you find out that altruistic hedonism results in more happiness, that doesn't mean altruism is better.

It does mean that altruism is 'better', not more logical, but 'better' in that it accomplishes the goal of utilitarianism more effectively than utilitarianism itself does. I'm not sure that altruism would, I'm just currently leaning towards the idea that it would. The idea of altruism seems more endearing to me, it probably will to many other people as well.

It means you messed up somewhere.

I don't understand.

You can't increase something to above the maximum.

I don't understand this either.

The choice of whether or not to make humanity extinct fits this criteria, because to allow humanity to continue will mean causing (allowing) a great deal of suffering for some people and a lesser amount of pleasure for many more (presumably...I'm just assuming that the happiness balance of humanity is positive; also, it's a lesser amount of pleasure for others because humans have the capacity for a greater intensity of suffering than they do happiness). But the large majority of people have the intuition that we should allow humanity to continue. What do you think?

I consider myself to be an anti-natalist (because humans experience pain more easily than we experience happiness, the possible negative consequences of bringing a new being into the world outweigh the possible positive consequences, not to mention ecological reasons, overpopulation, the number of children who already need homes etc.) and an abolitionist. When the biotechnology to eliminate suffering has been created, there are no more orphans, global warming etc. has been dealt with, I will no longer be an anti-natalist. The blowing up the world scenario is a lot more tolerable to me than gang raping someone if it increases a greater amount of pleasure for relatively happy people is because I'm fine with 'nothingness', I have a strong aversion to suffering.

Hmm, not if the woman was an altruist!

If she were an altruist, it wouldn't be 'rape'. Altruism can only work if the majority of humans become altruists and I think the best way to promote altruism is by example.

It seems to me that this logically implies utilitarianism until you introduce another principle/ethical fact.

I'm not absolute about promoting altruism instead of utilitarianism but if I am pro-altruism, I'd promote it for utilitarian reasons, lol.

I admire your ethical consistency r.e. your standpoint in the gang rape and extinction of humanity scenarios.

If she were an altruist, it wouldn't be 'rape'.

Lol, fair point!

It seems to me that this logically implies utilitarianism until you introduce another principle/ethical fact.

I said this because at the time that I was responding to the related comment of yours, I hadn't read further down the thread where you and DanielLC clarify what you're really suggesting. Incidentally, the other comments that you respond to in your last post seem to all be a result of misunderstanding, thinking that you are advocating altruism as an ultimate ethical theory, rather than altruism as a utilitarian state of mind.

It seems to me that an altruistic mindset would be more utiliarian than a utilitarian mindset, since my own welfare is almost negligible in utilitarian calculations but utilitarians are likely to subconsciously give more weight to themselves than to another individual. I don't think I'd promote it though for the sole reason that utilitarianism makes much more sense than altruism as the fundamental ethical principle, and so people will be far less likely to always try to act according to altruistic principles.

Ubuntu, you're going through various positions that need a different perspective each to be answered.

First, about the claim that the world would be better or have more happiness balance if everyone followed altruistic hedonism. This is a vacuous statement, a moot point. It's a truth that is devoid of content because it asserts "if A then B" when in fact A is inherently false. Matter-of-factly not everyone will follow the same ethical theory, and if your reliance on altruistic hedonism depends on everyone following it, well that's a pretty big flaw there. The argument 'it would be better if everyone followed it' is by no means a compelling one, it has a fictional condition to be met. And the scenario of a woman freely letting herself get having sex with someone unknown on the street because of altruism is ridiculous (edit - Ryan).

Second, you say you're leaning towards altruistic hedonism instead of utilitarianism because you have the feeling that it's better, you really give no explanation as to why this would be the case.

The argument that it produces more happiness than utilitarianism is false, utilitarianism searches to produce the outcome with the most happiness, and there is no more happiness to produce than the most. E.g. in a range from -10 to 10 if the maximum happiness that can come out of a situation is 7, then the most happiness an ethical theory can aspire to produce is 7 whether it is called altruistic hedonism or utilitarianism. Utilitarianism always looks for the maximum by definition, altruistic hedonism doesn't, so utilitarianism is best (taking into account that good is happy, better is more happy, best is most happy).

The other argument you provide is regarding greater balance of happiness. You say that this or that gives greater balance of happiness ('I just think that the best way to achieve the greatest balance of happiness over suffering is [...]'), but you don't explain what you mean by balance, or why should balance be a concern. But you also said:

Ubuntu wrote:I define 'good' as happiness. The world is 'better' when there is more happiness/less suffering.

So what role does 'balance' have in the equation?

edit - Ryan: I've edited out a line of ridicule that is potentially abusive. I don't moderate often, but let me know if there is a problem.

From a normative ethics point of view, utilitarianism will maximize happiness. From an applied ethics point of view, the best thing to do may be to pretend that your happiness doesn't matter. If that's the case, the utilitarian thing to do is to pretend that your happiness doesn't matter.

If she were an altruist, it wouldn't be 'rape'.

If they decide against it because it doesn't maximize others' happiness, and she forces it, it's rape. It's defined by consent, not enjoyment.