Hi!

I wondered if there was a forum for utilitarianism on the web, and here it is. Great!

I my self is an revolutionary utilitarianist from Norway with a lot of different interests in history, philosophy, ethics, politics and the natural sciences. Questions I'm interested in at the moment is: Is there something to the teachings of P. Singer on rational animals equality to humans? And why is there not any utilitarian political parties?

I hope I'll find some answers and a lot of questions on this forum!

- George

Hi George, welcome along

Not sure exactly what you're asking about Peter Singer - he does address the relative value of animals to humans in Practical Ethics, if I remember rightly, though not in huge amounts of depth.

As for utilitarian parties, I think the simple reason is people dislike utilitarianism, so they'd have no chance of getting elected, and the costs of running one would be quite high. It might raise awareness of utilitarianism, but it's probably more efficient to try to do that directly rather than via a doomed political venture.

Hi George! Welcome!

What's a revolutionary utilitarianist?

As for Peter Singer on animals, you should read "Equality for Animals?", if you haven't already.

Yes, I'm familiar with Singer, but my question is if he is right or not. I'm not sure, can't deside eather way, but i'm thinking about it.

In Norway we have a political system with many parties, so even the smal ones with 5-10 % of the votes have quite some influence. Another option is to start an international political movement, maybe as a first step and then political parties later.

As an utilitarian I believe that the goal of all of our choices should be the most happiness for the most people. Even when we discuss politics, or specialy in politics because that is what matters, really. The political and economical system does not maximize happiness in the world as it is now. This isnt even the politicans goal or their way of thinking. I belive that we have to change the systems fundamentally to make happiness the ultimate and only goal. So therefore does our world need a big change, or call it a revolution, to make this happen.

Is there any thead on this forum on politics and economics allready?

There are a few political threads around, probably the most recent of which I can find is here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=626&p=5590 (I thought there was one more recently about the ideal utilitarian government, or similar? But can't find it now)

The consensus among most (I don’t think all) of us is that engaging with politics just isn’t a utilitarian activity, since there are ways you can get a much higher expected return in the time, money and effort you put in.

Re Singer, I don’t fully agree with his metaethics (he seems to be some sort of moral realist), but it’s hard to escape the argument that other animals almost certainly suffer to at least some proportion that we do, and so any utilitarian calculations should include their welfare.

Elfrandor wrote:Yes, I'm familiar with Singer, but my question is if he is right or not. I'm not sure, can't deside eather way, but i'm thinking about it.

I'm not a moral realist, so whether or not nonhuman animals deserve your concern is a question of how much you personally value nonhuman animal well-being. Do you care about nonhuman animals? If not, is there any other goal you can accomplish best by caring about nonhuman animals? If no to both, then Peter Singer is going to be wrong in your view.

~

Elfrandor wrote:Is there any thead on this forum on politics and economics already?

Discussion of that would belong in the "Applied Ethics" section.

~

Arepo wrote:Re Singer, I don’t fully agree with his metaethics (he seems to be some sort of moral realist), but it’s hard to escape the argument that other animals almost certainly suffer to at least some proportion that we do, and so any utilitarian calculations should include their welfare.

I think it's actually an open question whether Peter Singer is a moral realist. He definitely uses very realist language, but in his book The Expanding Circle (p201-203) Singer states he agrees with Mackie that moral truth cannot be "built into the very nature of things", but follows Derek Parfit in his argument for moral truth in On What Matters.

Carl Shulman seems to be currently writing that immigration is very important from an effective-altruist point of view. That is something that might be best achieved politically.

I think there are not utilitarian political parties because utilitarianism is unpopular.

Hi Elfrandor. I guess you are an esperantist ("saluton" = "hi" in esperanto). Right?

Daniel Dorado wrote:Hi Elfrandor. I guess you are an esperantist ("saluton" = "hi" in esperanto). Right?

Jes, mi parolas iom Esperanton, sed volas lernas multe pli! Ti parlas Esperanton?

You guys say that an utilitarian political party will not be any success, and I could agree to that, but I think that trying to spread practical utilitarian solutions through politics could make people more positive over time. May be not a political party right away, but a larger organization dealing with political questions could be a first step?

Welcome! Please add us on facebook if you'd like to: http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?t=422

Welcome Elfrandor!

I guess such political solutions could include things like aid for people in extreme poverty, better protection of animals, climate change mitigation and encouraging immigration. Thus things that many effective altruist focus on. Maybe one could create a lobbying organisation first. (Utilitarian) people from the Center for Effective Altruism have recently visited the British government's headquarters I heard Not sure what the occasion was though

More on utilitarianism and politics:

http://crowdsourcingutopia.com/blog/a-u ... -platform/