To what extent do you think the psychology of wanting others to experience happiness and to be free from pain is related to feelings of love (affection) or respect? On one hand, you could argue that the former requires the latter since it's the experiencer of happiness or pain that benefits from or is harmed by their experience, on the other hand you could point out that even people with the lowest self-esteem generally want to experience happiness and to be free from suffering and you often hear people say things like "I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy" or "so and so is an idiot but no one deserves that" and you can make a distinction between sympathizing with a being and despising their personality or behavior, the arguments for both sides could go on and on. As much as I think there are completely 'selfish' reasons for someone to maintain an affectionate and respectful attitude toward others (which would go a long way in helping them to actually have affectionate and positive feelings about others), it seems inevitable that most people will eventually come across someone, at some point in their life, who they cannot force themselves to feel love or any kind of pleasant emotion toward, this is probably especially true for less resilient people, but it's easy to care unconditionally about someone else's pleasure and pain if you use your own pleasure and pain as a reference to why there's is worth caring about (at least in terms of having some kind of basic preference for their well-being, people often fail to give even 'their' future mental states equal consideration because it doesn't seem as real as the here and now), and maybe to divorce that concern from your feelings about them. As flawed as I think the charge of hedonistic utilitarianism treating people as "vessels" for pleasure and pain is, do you think it could be wise for utilitarians to maintain a clear distinction between the two? It has a certain advantage to it in terms of simplicity, you only have to worry about one thing (caring impartially about the experience of happiness or suffering itself regardless of whose emotional state it is as opposed to that and trying to force or suppress positive and negative feelings toward all beings). Of course that would still require treating people you dislike with kindness. I know most of this board deals with moral decision making rather than moral character but they are inter-related concerns .

The same question could be posed to preference utilitarians, except with the moral concern being preference satisfaction/frustration instead of felt pleasure or pain.

Imho, love has no place in ethics, or in politics. It creeps me out when politicians use the word. Respect is better, but it's too vague to mean much. I find that I can care about the wellbeing of others without having personal feelings of this sort.

As flawed as I think the charge of hedonistic utilitarianism treating people as "vessels" for pleasure and pain is...

I now think the charge is not flawed at all. There are very real harmful effects of this kind of thinking. It makes excuses for violence cheaper. It offends people. It reduces trustworthiness. It ignores practically relevant differences in other value dimensions. Its hypothetical political implementations would be correctly anticipated as totalitarian. And so on.

This is probably less relevant when applied to nonhuman animals because they don't share the expectation to be treated as autonomous and humans have almost complete power over them already. But in dealing with humans, treating them as 'vessels' is a serious error.

Hedonic Treader wrote:Imho, love has no place in ethics, or in politics. It creeps me out when politicians use the word. Respect is better, but it's too vague to mean much. I find that I can care about the wellbeing of others without having personal feelings of this sort.

I think the world would be better off If everyone lived by the principle of 'loving their neighbors' and 'loving their enemies', if only because love is a pleasurable emotion and seems essential for mental health, at least in humans and some other social animals. I just don't view loving others as altruistic (treating others with love would be), which is a relief because not everyone can force themselves to feel love for everyone else at all times. Caring about everyone's happiness and suffering is easier, it only requires projection.

I now think the charge is not flawed at all.

I meant that I thought the the charge is flawed because H.U doesn't actually do this. People benefit from or are harmed by their experience of happiness or suffering, a mind can't be a vessel for it's own state of being.

There are very real harmful effects of this kind of thinking. It makes excuses for violence cheaper.

How so? Violence causes pain.

It offends people. It reduces trustworthiness.

People can only be offended by being viewed as 'vessels' if they are aware of it, which would be a good reason not to tell people you viewed them as 'vessels' even if it was acceptable to, but you can make that charge against hedonistic utilitarianism itself. Hedonistic utilitarianism might be offensive to some people but, in my opinion, other normative moral positions allow for far more harm, as open as I am to the idea that there are better moral philosophies to promote that encourage compassion and discourage cruelty but aren't value monist. People can always trust a consistent utilitarian to care about their interests unconditionally. I don't think we should shy away from the fact that hedonistic utilitarianism can justify promise breaking, deception and disregarding someone's preference. Unlike the infliction of pain to minimize a greater amount of pain, I wouldn't even reluctantly view any action that didn't cause anyone (including the actor) even the tiniest amount of distress or prevent them from experiencing any happiness as a necessary 'evil', I would see nothing wrong with it at all. Caring about the pleasure and pain of all beings is the only thing I consider to be virtuous and (the desirableness of) basing decisions exclusively on what is expected to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering has come to fit in perfectly with my intuitions.

It ignores practically relevant differences in other value dimensions.

What do you mean? If you mean that it ignores what other people consider to be valuable, this seems like it could be an argument as to why hedonistic utilitarianism shouldn't be promoted at all.

Its hypothetical political implementations would be correctly anticipated as totalitarian.

Hedonistic utilitarians would have to take into consideration that people are happier when treated with respect and as autonomous beings when considering whether or not to implement totalitarian policies and this might be justification for not implementing them.

This is probably less relevant when applied to nonhuman animals because they don't share the expectation to be treated as autonomous and humans have almost complete power over them already. But in dealing with humans, treating them as 'vessels' is a serious error.

I agree that people shouldn't be viewed or treated as 'vessels', but could it be a good idea to completely separate your personal feelings about a person (or their personality) from a concern for their felt well-being, do you think this is what you're able to do ?

I find that I can care about the wellbeing of others without having personal feelings of this sort

.