I was just curious about what everyone would say were arguments for and against utilitarianism? I'm working on research and would appreciate any input anyone would have!

What do you mean for or against Utilitarianism? As a moral anti-realist, I don't think utilitarianism is true, per se.

The standard objections to utilitarianism are:
1.) Moral realism problem (Moral realism is false, therefore utilitarianism is false)

2.) Separateness of persons problem (Utilitarianism focuses on the aggregate, and therefore does not take seriously the distinctions between people; see also alleged utilitarian endorsement of gross inequality)

3.) Demandingness problem (Utilitarianism demands we be vegans and donate all of our income, which is too hard.)

4.) Difficulty of calculation problem (Calculating utility, especially on a daily basis, is too hard.)

5.) Grounding of justice problem (Utilitarianism makes no sense of justice; see also alleged utilitarian endorsements of gross injustices)

6.) Difficult scenarios problem (Other alleged endorsements of situations that appear intuitively terrible but are utility-maximizing, like the organ harvesting scenario, etc.)

7.) Perverse character problem (Utilitarianism tells you to not care about people for their sakes, but only to care about utility, which seems like a bad character to promote; see also comparisons with Virtue Ethics)

~

Things that make me prefer Utilitarianism:

1.) True equality for all (Only utilitarianism seems to endorse that all lives have equal worth -- we should actually take *everyone* into account, even those who live far away from us or are nonhuman, and treat them *equally*, not preferring say our family just because we love them)

2.) Action guiding (Unlike deontology or virtue ethics, there is very little ethical dispute over what the correct action is; it's a matter of empirical discovery and almost all disagreements about the correct action are practical.)

3.) Makes sense of weighting (Unlike deontology or virtue ethics, utilitarianism makes sense of why it's worse to kill someone than to be late to a meeting.)

4.) Probably some others, but I can't think of them right now.

Utilitarianism is not self-centered. Other ethical systems all are about what you do, whereas utilitarianism is about how the world is. For example, it's commonly believed that it would be wrong to go back in time and murder Hitler. This implies that you murdering one person is worse then Hitler murdering millions.

Before we reinvent too much of the wheel, I recommend checking out the Common Objections to Consequentialism thread.

I don't consider myself to be a utilitarian (because I don't consider myself to be an ethical person), if I felt compelled to, the only argument I could give for hedonistic utilitarianism as a normative position would be emotional persuasion. The argument that I would give for hedonism as a theory of value, a meta-ethical, descriptive claim, would be empiricism. The experience of pleasure or pain is the only credible authority on whether or not it's intrinsically good or bad (as for pleasure being the only intrinsic good, 'good' only has emotional meaning and if we experienced any state of mind as valuable we would call it 'pleasure'). Experience alone is what tells us about objective reality, not theoretical logic, common sense, intuition, faith etc. If hedonism as a theory of value is true, it's consistent to empathize with the pleasure and pain of all other beings but there's no logical reason to be morally consistent, it's just desirable.

Ubuntu wrote:I don't consider myself to be an ethical person

Why not?

Ubuntu wrote:Experience alone is what tells us about objective reality, not theoretical logic, common sense, intuition, faith etc.

This is a false dichotomy, as theoretical logic, commonsense, intuition, faith, etc. are all types of experiences.

Why not?

It would feel awkward, I'm a standoffish person. I don't do much that benefits other people.

This is a false dichotomy, as theoretical logic, commonsense, intuition, faith, etc. are all types of experiences.

I mean that knowledge about X (or a justified reason to believe something about X is probably true) can only be derived through direct experience of X or experience of something that would suggest X is true (evidence). Common sense, intuition, faith etc. would fall under mental experience but it doesn't tell you about anything other than itself. If we have reason to believe that intelligent alien life exists, it's because we've either encountered them personally or there's some kind of observable evidence for their existence, an emotional conviction that they exist doesn't support itself, neither does theorizing that they should exist for this reason or that without actual evidence.

Ubuntu wrote:

Why not?

It would feel awkward, I'm a standoffish person. I don't do much that benefits other people.

This is a false dichotomy, as theoretical logic, commonsense, intuition, faith, etc. are all types of experiences.

I mean that knowledge about X (or a justified reason to believe something about X is probably true) can only be derived through direct experience of X or experience of something that would suggest X is true (evidence). Common sense, intuition, faith etc. would fall under mental experience but it doesn't tell you about anything other than itself. If we have reason to believe that intelligent alien life exists, it's because we've either encountered them personally or there's some kind of observable evidence for their existence, an emotional conviction that they exist doesn't support itself, neither does theorizing that they should exist for this reason or that without actual evidence.

Just to play devil's advocate: we have knowledge of perfect geometric shapes (what size each angle would be, how to calculate their area, etc.) without ever encountering them.

Ubuntu wrote:I don't do much that benefits other people.

Why not? Have you ever wanted to? What do you do? Do you donate money to effective organizations or refrain from eating animal products? Not that this is a litmus test for Felicifia membership, of course, but they are high impact opportunities and I always wonder what other people think about them.

~

Ubuntu wrote:Common sense, intuition, faith etc. would fall under mental experience but it doesn't tell you about anything other than itself.

Sorry, can you clarify this? I don't know what you mean.

Just to play devil's advocate: we have knowledge of perfect geometric shapes (what size each angle would be, how to calculate their area, etc.) without ever encountering them.

Because those shapes have been measured before? I think mathematical-logical truths are true because we define them in a way that necessitates their being true. Logic doesn't tell us about the world, it's just the language we use to talk about it.

Why not? Have you ever wanted to? What do you do?

I don't like intruding into other people's affairs, I prefer to mind my own business, for one. If I could snap my fingers and make every sentient being in the universe experience unimaginably intense and overwhelming eurphoria and joy I would, but I'd rather avoid any kind of actual contact/interaction with some people.

Have you ever wanted to? What do you do? Do you donate money to effective organizations or refrain from eating animal products?

I avoid eating and using animal products, as much as is possible. I don't donate to charity, I will when I get a steady income.

Sorry, can you clarify this? I don't know what you mean.

I think a belief about something has to be supported by evidence, intuition, common sense and faith are not evidence. An argument for or against the intrinsic value of pleasure has to be based on the experience of pleasure itself, not rationalizing or common sense (since it is so self-evident to many secularists that 'magical' objective moral truths obviously can't exist).

Because those shapes have been measured before?

I'm not sure drawings of them can really be consider those shapes. Our universe isn't even euclidean.

Also, it's completely false for some things. For example, nobody has ever cut a ball into five pieces and reassembled them into two balls the same size as the original.

DanielLC wrote:

Because those shapes have been measured before?

I'm not sure drawings of them can really be consider those shapes. Our universe isn't even euclidean.

Also, it's completely false for some things. For example, nobody has ever cut a ball into five pieces and reassembled them into two balls the same size as the original.

Also, as far as I know, there are no perfect geometric shapes in nature. (See this for a good discussion: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27274.0) So someone, without any experience of these perfect shapes, had to be the first person to conceptualize them. (Or perhaps many people conceptualized them but weren't able to share these conceptualizations.)

DanielLC wrote:
Also, it's completely false for some things. For example, nobody has ever cut a ball into five pieces and reassembled them into two balls the same size as the original.

Isn't this a theoretical-mathematical model? How does the fact that no one has cut a real ball into 5 pieces and reassembled them into two balls that are identical to the original disprove my point, if not support it? Doesn't this only work with theoretical balls that are infinitely divisible? The B-T paradox doesn't tell us about the actual physical world.

So someone, without any experience of these perfect shapes, had to be the first person to conceptualize them.

I don't understand how this shows that knowledge of the existence of perfect shapes has been acquired through pure reasoning without evidence or empirical testing.

Ubuntu wrote:

DanielLC wrote:
Also, it's completely false for some things. For example, nobody has ever cut a ball into five pieces and reassembled them into two balls the same size as the original.

Isn't this a theoretical-mathematical model? How does the fact that no one has cut a real ball into 5 pieces and reassembled them into two balls that are identical to the original disprove my point, if not support it? Doesn't this only work with theoretical balls that are infinitely divisible? The B-T paradox doesn't tell us about the actual physical world.

So someone, without any experience of these perfect shapes, had to be the first person to conceptualize them.

I don't understand how this shows that knowledge of the existence of perfect shapes has been acquired through pure reasoning without evidence or empirical testing.

The evidence would have to exist somewhere other than in the physical world (since perfect geometric shapes do not exist there)

LJM1979 wrote:The evidence would have to exist somewhere other than in the physical world (since perfect geometric shapes do not exist there)

Why not mental abstraction? Also, where can something exist, if not somewhere in the physical world? Are we talking platonic realms?

~

Ubuntu, all of what you said seems spot-on to me.

peterhurford wrote:

LJM1979 wrote:The evidence would have to exist somewhere other than in the physical world (since perfect geometric shapes do not exist there)

Why not mental abstraction? Also, where can something exist, if not somewhere in the physical world? Are we talking platonic realms?

~

Ubuntu, all of what you said seems spot-on to me.

Well ubuntu originally said "Experience alone is what tells us about objective reality, not theoretical logic, common sense, intuition, faith etc."
It seems that what you're calling "mental abstraction" is most closely related to what ubuntu called "theoretical logic" and said was not sufficient to tell us about reality.

LJM1979 wrote:Well ubuntu originally said "Experience alone is what tells us about objective reality, not theoretical logic, common sense, intuition, faith etc."
It seems that what you're calling "mental abstraction" is most closely related to what ubuntu called "theoretical logic" and said was not sufficient to tell us about reality.

When I asked ubuntu to clarify, they said:

I think a belief about something has to be supported by evidence, intuition, common sense and faith are not evidence. An argument for or against the intrinsic value of pleasure has to be based on the experience of pleasure itself, not rationalizing or common sense (since it is so self-evident to many secularists that 'magical' objective moral truths obviously can't exist).

That seems fine to me, though I'd revise and say that intuition / commonsense can count as very weak evidence. I think ubuntu is currently still being unclear about the nature of mental abstractions and reasoning logically about counterfactuals, etc. So I dunno if I support that.