This is kind of trivial compared to factory farming, war, poverty etc. but if the world adopted hedonistic utilitarianism, do you think monogamy would fall apart? People might not be outright swingers or polyamorous, since sexual jealousy might still be an issue, but if it's almost guaranteed that your partner won't suspect or find out you are having an affair or be directly or indirectly harmed in any way, is there really an ethical reason not to (according to HU). I don't have time to elaborate, simple question!

No.

If everyone did that, people would be generally suspicious enough that they'd probably find out eventually. Given that, if just one person did it, it would seem that they'd make it likely for someone else to get caught. I suppose that's largely if you aren't discreet enough about it.

It's a fair question. I think infidelity is pretty consistent with plain selfishness. If someone is ruthless enough and guiltless enough to get away with it, they can benefit. But to say that such a couple would overall be happier due to infidelity seems unrealistic to me. Infidelity causes a lot more suffering than happiness in my view. Planned polyamoury, on the other hand, could easily be supported by utilitarianism. However,this shouldn't exclude monogomy. It's horses for courses. "Find a partnership that works for you, and don't let anyone talk you out of it". That should be the utilitarian message in my opinion.

DanielLC wrote:No.

If everyone did that, people would be generally suspicious enough that they'd probably find out eventually. Given that, if just one person did it, it would seem that they'd make it likely for someone else to get caught. I suppose that's largely if you aren't discreet enough about it.

This sounds like 'rule utilitarianism' to me (which I view as a contradiction, 'rule utilitarianism' is deontology). In specific scenarios where a person can be sure that their partner will never suspect or find out, that they won't be directly or indirectly harmed in any way and not cheating on them would not make them any happier, I see no moral reason why a person shouldn't cheat. In real life, this can never be guaranteed so I can't support infidelity but the less likely it is that a person's partner will suffer as a result, the weaker my opposition is.

I think infidelity is pretty consistent with plain selfishness.

Selfish is not necessarily anti-social

If someone is ruthless enough and guiltless enough to get away with it, they can benefit.

Why should a person feel guilt or remorse for committing any action that does not either harm others or deprive them of happiness?

But to say that such a couple would overall be happier due to infidelity seems unrealistic to me.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that the couple would be happier, although they might be if having passionate affairs with other people helps to relieve sexual boredom and make their own sex lives more interesting, only that it wouldn't necessarily make them less happy.

Infidelity causes a lot more suffering than happiness in my view.

I agree but besides the suffering it can cause, the only problem that I have with infidelity is not allowing your partner the same sexual freedom, but that's a problem whether you have that freedom or not.

Why should a person feel guilt or remorse for committing any action that does not either harm others or deprive them of happiness?

Well you can write that into the scenario, yes. Say you're certain that your partner won't find out. Is infidelity legitimate yet? Not really. You'd have to also specify that your infidelity won't effect your half of the relationship. It mustn't weaken your emotional attachment to your partner, or worsen your actions towards your partner. For infidelity not to effect you at all, I think you would have to be pretty ruthless. So, if a person is extremely ruthless, and perfectly stealthy, should they commit infidelity? Possibly. But, should any person with realistic character traits commit infidelity? No, it'll cause a lot more suffering than happiness.

Re rule utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism, let's recap first:
Rule utilitarianism says we should follow whichever rules maximise happiness.
Act utilitarianism says we should do what maximises happiness.

Critics of act utilitarianism say it's too slow. There's too much critical thinking, too much time is spent deciding, not enough time is spent doing.
Critics of rule utilitarianism say they "worship rules". They superstitiously follow rules, when it is contrary to our shared goal of increasing wellbeing.

I say, both critics are right. Neither act utilitarianism nor rule utilitarianism will always maximise wellbeing. Different types of thinking work in different situations. The utilitarian philosopher R M Hare said roughly this in his book Moral Thinking, in the chapter Archangels and Proles.

Wikipedia said:Hare posited two extreme cases of people, one of whom would only use critical moral thinking and the other of whom would only use intuitive moral thinking. The former he called the 'archangel' and the latter the 'prole'. ... according to his theory each person shares the traits of both to limited and varying extents at different times. The archangel has superhuman powers of thought, superhuman knowledge and no weaknesses. This unbiased 'ideal observer', when presented with an unfamiliar situation, would be able to immediately scan all potential consequences of all possible actions in order to frame a universal principle from which he could decide an appropriate action for the situation. Such a person would not need a set of intuitive moral rules, as he would be able to decide the correct response to any possible situation by reason alone. By contrast, the prole has these human weaknesses to an extreme degree. He must rely upon intuitions and sound prima facie principles all of the time, as he is incapable of critical thought. The set of intuitive moral rules that the prole follows must be simple and general enough that they can be easily understood and memorised, and also quick and easy to use. Once one has identified the different types of moral thinking, the next step is to identify when one ought to think like an archangel, and when like a prole. Hare identifies three types of situation where critical thinking is necessary. The first is when the intuitive general principles conflict in particular cases. The second is when, "though there is no conflict between principles, there is something highly unusual about the case which prompts the question whether the general principles are really fitted to deal with it."[9] Thirdly, and most importantly, critical thinking is necessary in order to select the intuitive prima facie principles that will be used.

So Hare's type of utilitarianism, two-level utilitarianism, is the best we've encountered so far. But in my opinion, we can still go one better.

Global Utilitarianism, as described in Toby Ord's paper How to be a consequentialist about everything. What he says is that we should do what will maximise happiness, but we should also feel what will maximise happiness too. Whatever happens in nature would best maximise happiness too. Basically, utilitarianism is about happiness, that's where it starts and finishes. A world with happiness in it, is better than one without, no matter whether it got that way by actions, rules, feelings, happenings, or whatever. That's why I call myself a global utilitarian.

Two-level and global utilitarianism are applied ethics. Act and rule utilitarianism are normative ethics. If you're a global utilitarian, you still have to have a normative ethical philosophy.

I'm an act utilitarian, but I don't have any formal strategy for applied ethics. I make up rules when I think rules will help. I do felicific calculus when I think that will help. I cultivate emotions when I think they'll help.

Why does a utilitarian have to have a normaative ethical philosophy, DanielLC? That's the part of your argument that I'd challenge.

You can't really judge how well a method would work without knowing what it is you're trying to accomplish.

Also, I was more commenting because you made it sound like two-level and global utilitarianism were as opposed to act and rule.

Well I can see that two-level and global-utilitarianism answer the practical question of how to maximise happiness. I agree that it might appear that act/rule utilitarians are having a separate argument. But if they are, I think global utilitarianism is the answer there too. At risk of being repetitious, let me explain.

Rule utilitarians say we should set rules to improve the world.
Act utilitarians say we should act to improve the world
Global utilitarians say the world should be improved. Period. it doesn't have to be by us, and it doesn't have to be through an action. It could be by a random event, through a thought, through a feeling, etc.

So, then, maybe global utilitarianism could answer both questions?

No, monoamory/monogamy wouldn't fall apart. It's a fact that many people feel unhappy if their couple partner has intimate relationships with others. That feeling is jealous, selfish, and irrational, but it is nonetheless. No amount of reasonable argument can change everyone monogamous/monoamorous into feeling otherwise.

If everyone were utilitarian, monoamory/monogamy would be understood as an option. Not the de facto standard like it is now, not a shunned alternative like polyamory/polygamy is now, but an option couples would consider with its pros and cons. Both polyamory/polygamy and monoamory/monogamy would be normal and common.


I wouldn't hide an affair to my partner, one of the first things I tell is that I'm polyamorous and I don't plan on changing that. No one will coerce me into doing pleasant activities just with one person only, whether it be going to the movie theater or having sex. If they told me I can only watch movies with my couple partner I would call it absurd and an unnecessary restriction of my freedom. It is no different with loving, cuddling, or having sex. I rather have no couple partner than have one that isn't okay with this, for all the headaches it entails.

I hadn't even heard of the word "polyamoury" until three months ago and most people I say it to don't know what it means. The discovery of it came as a bit of a "revelation" to me; I'm very supportive of the practice.

Ladymorgana, it seems like your friends need to see this:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-varieties-of-intimate-relationship/
http://tacit.livejournal.com/333842.html

They do! Very few people from back home have heard of asexuality either. And my evangelical Christian friends...if you're in a relationship with someone whom you're not intending to marry, regardless of your age, they will frown at you in a disgusted way and say "What's the point?" Thankfully I have met some far more open-minded people in Oxford

Somewhat ironically, I'm currently in the most cliched, storybook, Westernised, standard relationship you can imagine. But I still get quite touchy over some people's intolerance/disapproval of other people's consensual choice of Intimate Relationship.

I've never knowingly met anyone asexual. I wonder what proportion of the population they form...

I wonder how that really works. From what I understand, Heterosexuals like members of the opposite sex significantly more than of the same sex, and homosexuals are the opposite. They both will have at least some attraction regardless of sex. If someone is "asexual" there's nothing to compare it to. If they still have some attraction, all you could say is that they're more interested in things besides romance. From what I understand, that's not all that uncommon, but people don't think of that as being asexual.

I understand it as not wanting sex, primarily. Whether you want something recognisable as a romantic relationship seems like it would be a separate issue.

An estimated 1% of the population is asexual.

I understand it as not having any sexual feelings and, indeed, wanting a romantic relationship is a separate issue and most asexual people do.

Incidentally, Arepo, you've met someone who's asexual She was the one humping the pianist's leg.