For discussion of the responses in the original thread.

One thing I wanted to pick up on:

RyanCarey wrote:Now, I note that some of your answers are circular reasoning. They just say "If you don't agree with us, then you're not a consequentialist". Well, what we're trying to do here is refute objections to utilitarianism persuasively. Some of the current arguments are no better than the argument "god wrote the bible, therefore the bible is true, therefore there is a god". In particular, I'm looking at
Gordonhide's answers 1 & 2
DanielC's answers 2 & 9

This was my first reaction, and I think it's a reasonable point. But that said, we can divide objections to consequentialism another way: into those which argue that it's fundamentally illogical, and those which argue that it's just one of many options, which only our intuition can guide us between (basically Hare's two kinds of criticisms again).

Using circular arguments against these criticisms won't turn people consequentialist, but it might address the charge that util is inconsistent, if that's what you think they're claiming.

Still, in the long run the less circular approach is like to be more productive...

faithlessgod wrote:A good start but some stuff is too vague or too specific e.g. Objections to utilitarianism should to utilitarianism simpliciter not a specific version such as hedonic or happiness utilitarianism.

I just put in the objections I've heard a couple of times or more. Since I'm a CU, they tend towards objections about CU. But if you've heard any that apply more generally to util but not conseq, or that apply specifically to DU, let me know and I'll edit them in to the OP.

[quote=DanielLC]How about objections to nonconsequentialism? I think the idea that doing the right thing makes the world worse just seems wrong.[/quote]

Nonconsequentialism comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, though. Apart from arguments in favour of consequentialism (which is basically what your line is, IMO), I don't think you'd find much to attack them all as a group. If there's a particular ethic you want to focus criticisms on, it'd probably be more helpful to start a separate topic for it.

DanielLC wrote:What do you mean by "using others as means"? Does paying people for their services count? What exactly does whoever has that objection think we're doing? It's not like we're masterminding a huge Xanatos Roulette.

DanielLC, this objection isn't my invention. I don't believe in it. But the point of the whole exercise is to create answers that are respectful. We need to show sensitivity to these objections. We can't approach them with a "don't be ridiculous" spirit!

Arepo wrote:Using circular arguments against these criticisms won't turn people consequentialist, but it might address the charge that util is inconsistent, if that's what you think they're claiming.

I am not sure this makes sense. Arguing that a non-consequentialist theory is circular says nothing about a consequentialist except, provided consequentialist arguments are non-circular is a logical argument for consequentialism on the basis that circular arguments are no argument at all and so, by default, go to the back of the queue.

Arepo wrote:I just put in the objections I've heard a couple of times or more. Since I'm a CU, they tend towards objections about CU. But if you've heard any that apply more generally to util but not conseq, or that apply specifically to DU, let me know and I'll edit them in to the OP.

I suppose I would like to see a hierarchy of criticisms.
Level 0: Against Consequentialism (vs non-consequentialism)
Level 1: Against Utilitarianism (vs Egoism, Altruism, Egalitarianism)

Level 2 is more of an internal dispute amongst those who accept both consequentialism and utilitarianism and maybe should be left out of a sticky list.
e.g .
Level 2A: Against Classic Utilitarianism (vs Preference, Satisfacion/ Modern Utilitarianism)
Level 2B: Vice Versa
This is what we will discuss in this sub-forum.

DanielLC wrote:How about objections to nonconsequentialism? I think the idea that doing the right thing makes the world worse just seems wrong.

[/quote]
This begs the question how do we know what the "right thing" is without looking at its consequences. This could generate a parallel Level 0/1 list focusing on arguments:
Level 0: Against Non-Consequentialism
Level 0: Against Egoism etc.

I suppose it is a question of positive (for your/our own) versus negative arguments (eliminating others)

I'm not sure which thread I'm supposed to put this in. Do I put the counter-arguments here, or just the discussion of the counter-arguments?

RyanCarey wrote:Here is another objection. Drawn from youtube comments, actually. It's one I don't think will prove too troublesome:

Utilitarianism is self contradictory....
The contention is: "Any action can be described as good or evil based on the ammount of happiness it brings"

Now, in order to deem the amount of good or evil something brings, you must commit to an act of comparison; in other words, deliberate on what the good to bad ratio is, you must make a cost benefit analysis of what the greatest happiness is. But wait, that is an action. So before we can make the analysis, an analysis must be made using the ethical ramifications of utilitarianism on whether the analysis is preferable.

Well, the same is true for that action, and the action that must inevitably follow that. This goes on to infinity. It is a paradox.

How must the (act) Utilitarian avoid this? Well, they must assume the action is moral. However, this is in ethical violation of the Utilitarian principle. And thus, Utilitarianism defeats itself."

This paradox applies to any ethical viewpoint, and, for that matter, any goal at all. If I want to get a good job, should I think about what to do to get a good job? Should I think about that?...

Exactly. Utilitarianism doesn't demand a cost-benefit analysis of the steps towards happiness any more than employment demands a cost-benefit analysis of the steps towards a job! What utilitarianism tells us is that analysing an analysis of an analysis to act is a bad idea. Because it won't make anyone happy. It tells us that there's an optimal level of learning, thinking and planning. Beyond this point, we should implement our plans, otherwise we are procrastinating. So utilitarianism can, like other theories, explain that procrastination tends to be a bad thing, and it can surpass other ethical theories by explaining why.

Here is another:

In order to ensure consistency of application, a central committee would be assigned the task of evaluating consequences to a minute degree, and drawing up detailed tables of happiness values. These would at least govern every aspect of public life, if not personal life. Any individual who refused to accept the choice prescribed by applying the maximisation law to his situation must be punished accordingly... Utilitarianism, like Communism, is hopelessly Utopian. It provides an attractive model for ethical decision making, but turns out to be totally impractical...as with Communism, unscrupulous individuals can use its broad principles to justify any means available to achieve their ends.

Drawn from the essay "The Poverty of Utilitarianism"

RyanCarey wrote:Here is another

In order to ensure consistency of application, a central committee would be assigned the task of evaluating consequences to a minute degree, and drawing up detailed tables of happiness values. These would at least govern every aspect of public life, if not personal life. Any individual who refused to accept the choice prescribed by applying the maximisation law to his situation must be punished accordingly... Utilitarianism, like Communism, is hopelessly Utopian. It provides an attractive model for ethical decision making, but turns out to be totally impractical...as with Communism, unscrupulous individuals can use its broad principles to justify any means available to achieve their ends.

Drawn from the essay "The Poverty of Utilitarianism"

That is not utilitarianism. It is a hypothetical government that attempts to force people to be utilitarian. I doubt any utilitarians believe that is a good idea. After all, would an anarchist like the idea of a government that tries to force people to be anarchists?

This is an example of the straw man argument. It claims utilitarianism is something that it is not, and points out how obviously wrong that which it claims is utilitarianism is.

Would it be useful to try sorting the objections to consequentialism by counterargument, as Ryan originally suggested? I don't know if that's a bit pompous, though...

RyanCarey wrote:Here is another criticism of Peter Singer and utilitarianism:

An additional error in Singer's thinking is the assumption he makes that the suffering (or happiness) of individuals can somehow be added to each other and thus create "all this suffering in the world." C. S. Lewis explains that if you have a toothache of intensity x and another person in the room with you also has a toothache of intensity x, "You may, if you choose, say that the total amount of pain in the room is now 2x. But you must remember that no one is suffering 2x." There is no composite pain in anyone's consciousness. There is no such thing as the sum of collective human suffering, because no one suffers it.

It was drawn from this essay

The sum of collective human suffering is an abstraction. Person A's toothache hurts him, so I'm willing to try to stop it. Person B's toothache hurts him, and I'm willing to try to stop that too. If I find a way to simultaneously make them both hurt less, I'd be twice as willing to do it. It's hitting two birds with one stone.

Look at it this way: suppose you want salt and you want pepper. You can't just add not having salt and not having pepper. Despite that, if you find a pack of salt and pepper, you'd be willing to pay twice as much as for just salt or just pepper.

A specific example I've seen of objection number one is that utilitarianism would say that it's okay to steal under certain circumstances.

It is generally accepted that it is okay for the government to tax (i.e. steal) money to pay for public goods. It's slightly less generally accepted that it's okay for the government to steal from the rich and give to the poor to promote equality.