As I'd said before, I haven't delved much into utilitarianism and so forth apart from those brief moments back in college, but that doesn't really count because I was mostly hammered out of my mind during those years.

So, I've had a chance to comb this site a bit, and I've tried to absorb as much as I can about utilitarianism. As of yet, I'm not sold on the idea, but I like to think I'm open-minded about it all, and I'm certainly willing to amend my conclusions if appropriate.

That said, I'd like to throw a couple of scenarios out there for y'all to consider. The first is Proposition 8. The second is the Jim Crow laws of the deep south (US).

In California, the voters passed Prop. 8 by a margin of 50.7% or thereabouts. Prop. 8 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and essentially forbade legal recognition of same sex marriage. Of course, the 50.7% reflects those who voted and not the CA people overall, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that a majority of CA citizens approved of Prop. 8. Strictly from a numbers analysis, most people would be satisfied with marriage being limited to those of the opposite sex. But of course, the analysis doesn't stop there. There are other people affected by this decision, but then again, the "numbers" element is difficult to ascertain, which is one concern for me as to how utilitarianism can be applied in this scenario. But also, if the majority's "happiness" is illusory, how is that determined? And how will that not simply turn into the typical pissing match that this issue usually devolves into? So anyways, this is a snippet of some of the thoughts that I've had thus far. Please feel free to weigh in.

As for the Jim Crow laws, before Brown v. Board of Education in '55(?), the deep south in the US was dominated by the "separate but equal" doctrine. Whites separated by blacks. Black schools, white schools. Black drinking fountains, white drinking fountains and on and on. Leaving aside the fact that the Jim Crows have been eradicated (in law anyways), I have the same concerns. In the deep south, which was dominated by white folks both politically and population-wise, the white folks clearly would have continued to promote the "separate but equal" doctrine but for the judiciary's intervention. Once again, please feel free to weigh in on the matter.

Just a few things to kick things off.

This is known as tyranny of the majority. At least, it would be if it was actually tyrannical, which neither of those are, especially the first. Trying to prevent it was one of the things that the Framers had in mind when writing the US Constitution. I don't think it was a good idea. The only way to prevent the majority from getting their way is to allow the minority to get their way, which has no guarantee of being better.

What do you mean about the majority's happiness being illusory?

What exactly do you want to know? Do you want our opinions on these two issues, or on tyranny of the majority in general? Are you asking if utilitarianism supports it?

DanielLC wrote:This is known as tyranny of the majority. At least, it would be if it was actually tyrannical, which neither of those are, especially the first. Trying to prevent it was one of the things that the Framers had in mind when writing the US Constitution. I don't think it was a good idea. The only way to prevent the majority from getting their way is to allow the minority to get their way, which has no guarantee of being better.

What do you mean about the majority's happiness being illusory?

What exactly do you want to know? Do you want our opinions on these two issues, or on tyranny of the majority in general? Are you asking if utilitarianism supports it?

It might not be "tyranny" in the sense that we commonly associate that word with, but in those two examples that I cited, the majority have imposed their will over their particular society at large with a set of laws that many (myself included) would find wholly disagreeable. I suppose that's one of my questions about utilitarianism. It seems to me that a central component of utilitarianism is based on the happiness among the most people so to speak, but if the majority of people are happy with a conclusion that others may view as an affront to the development of a "decent" society, how does one as a utilitarian respond? Are those laws valid under utilitarianism? If not, I'd like to know how that's analyzed.

As for my comment about happiness being "illusory", this is not dissimilar to one of the criticisms of utilitarianism that I saw in that FAQ. Depending on the facts of a particular scenario, it seems that there has to be a judgment call as to whether certain types of benefit/happiness are legitimate or not. Yes? No? Maybe so?

The fact that the majority likes something doesn't make it worth while. If the minority is passionately against it, it can be a very bad thing. For example, if 25% of the population was slaves, and their lives were half as good as otherwise, but the majorities lives were 10% better than otherwise, it would be (75%*10%-25%*50%)=5% worse than without slaves.

What FAQ?

I suppose there's stuff where people act like something benefits or hurts them more than it does. For example: people being happy or sad as a proposition wins or loses, but not caring afterward doesn't really count for much. On the other hand, if someone hates the idea that their civil union doesn't have the same rights as a marriage, and thinks about it continuously, they are truly sad about it even though they do have the same rights. At least, that's if you're a classical utilitarian. From a preference utilitarian standpoint, the fact that their preference (equal rights) is fulfilled is what's important. Whether they know it or not isn't.

Note that just because the government is doing something wrong doesn't mean it's a good idea to change the system. You can't just set up a government that does what's right. Somebody has to control it. I think we're probably better off with the majority.

DanielLC wrote:The fact that the majority likes something doesn't make it worth while.

Which is my concern about utilitarianism. I suppose there's a distinction between what people like and how people actually benefit, and I suppose I'm a bit unclear as to how precisely utilitarianism is applied, but even if utilitarianism is about how people overall actually benefit, even that analysis can get skewed by what the judgment call as to what is or is not actually a benefit. In other words, the majority may offer a multitude of reasons as to why society benefits overall, but those reasons may be suspect at best. Then what happens?

For example, in this issue of racism, back in the '60's in Virginia, there was a law in Virginia (and many other states for that matter) that forbade interracial marriages. In defending the statute, the Virginia Supreme Court offered a bunch of reasons including the following: "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," etc. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court (in Loving v. Virginia) rejected the Virginia law, and held that the VSC's articulated reasons are nothing more than disguised white supremacy. Though lawfully bound by the US Supreme Court ruling, the majority of Virginians nevertheless would feel that their rights have been overrun by the minority. Of course, I agree with the Supreme Court's analysis and conclusion, but would a different conclusion result from utilitarianism? If not, why not?

If the minority is passionately against it, it can be a very bad thing. For example, if 25% of the population was slaves, and their lives were half as good as otherwise, but the majorities lives were 10% better than otherwise, it would be (75%*10%-25%*50%)=5% worse than without slaves.

I see your point, but how do we arrive at those numbers? And even if we arrive at a certain value for certain features, perhaps there could be some calculations where slavery of a few may be outweighed by the large population's benefit?

What FAQ?

I'll have to look for this. It was in one of those threads that cited a site that listed some of the common criticisms about utilitarianism.

I suppose there's stuff where people act like something benefits or hurts them more than it does. For example: people being happy or sad as a proposition wins or loses, but not caring afterward doesn't really count for much. On the other hand, if someone hates the idea that their civil union doesn't have the same rights as a marriage, and thinks about it continuously, they are truly sad about it even though they do have the same rights. At least, that's if you're a classical utilitarian. From a preference utilitarian standpoint, the fact that their preference (equal rights) is fulfilled is what's important. Whether they know it or not isn't.

As for the gay marriage example, let's go ahead and assume that they truly are sad even though they have the same rights under civil union-ship (even though civil unions don't offer the same benefits, e.g., no federal benefits for civil unions). All their legal posturing thus far assumes as much that civil unions are basically an extension of the "separate but equal" doctrine.

So, from a classical utilitarian standpoint, their concerns while still valid is trumped by the majority? Or, if we place a higher value on their "sadness" as compared to the "joy" of the majority, how does that analysis work? And is that really tenable, realistic, practical, etc.?

If we apply preference utilitarianism, it still seems like a quagmire. For instance, with respect to the separate but equal doctrine, the majority of people back then would've viewed the minority as having equal rights. Under preference utilitarianism, does, say, the separate but equal doctrine survive scrutiny?

to DanielC "what FAQ?" http://felicifia.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49

To respond to meathead, utilitarianism is interesting in that it's main proposition "we should increase wellbeing" is only really a starting point for practical ethics. We have to tread carefully, too. By "make people happy", we definitely don't mean "make a quick fix". And by "treat people equally", we really mean "treat equal feelings equally" not "put everything to a vote".

Regarding proposition 8, I gather from Wikipedia that:
5-20% of people don't feel strongly one way or the other about gay marriage. These people's wellbeing is likely to be fairly stable whichever way the vote goes.
40-50% of people want only straight marriage to be allowed
35-45% of people want gay marriage to be allowed

Now, utilitarianism stands quite separately from both the conservative argument of the doctrine of sanctity of the institution of marriage and the progressive argument of inalienable human rights. We don’t call anyone’s beliefs invalid. People on both extremes feel strongly about gay marriage and will be genuinely upset if the vote doesn’t go their way.

I’ve graphed the situation below (click to enlarge). The advantages of banning gay marriage are represented by the yellow area. That is, that it will please conservatives. The disadvantages of banning gay marriage are represented by the pink area. That is, that it will please progressives. But also, the progressives have the advantage that gay people will have their lives seriously affected by a ban on gay marriage. Gay people will become unable to marry so they will feel restricted and they will also be unable to claim various financial benefits.

The pink and yellow areas are similarly sized so it’s no easy decision whether gay marriage should be legal here.



Compare, Australia. Here, public opinion is more progressive. Gay marriage is currently illegal but this may not be so in a decade. Since public opinion tends to slowly become more progressive and more tolerant, the pink area should gradually grow at the expense of the yellow area. And as this happens, the answer will become overwhelmingly yes to gay marriage.


(Sorry that had to be such a long answer, but like all things, utilitarian reasoning becomes really quick with practise)

Hey Meat,

I'd like to come at this from a different angle. The idea of comparison that you're concerned about isn't really controversial (I mean, you can dispute it, but it's not something that non-utilitarians often disagree with) - it's just the claim that you can look at some situations and say they're better or worse than others (or just that they're better or worse for the people involved). If you accept the possibility of any such comparison, it seems hard to see why you can't accept it of all such comparison.

The primary difference between util and other theories espoused by moral philosophers is that util says that's all there is to say about ethics - ie. that you don't also try to bring in the concept of justice.

So the question of whether util justifies proposition 8 is equivalent to the question of whether proposition 8 makes the world a better place to live in. Ryan and Daniel's answers only reflect their assessment of the latter question - which is obviously a difficult one to be sure about (fortunately we don't need certainty to reach conclusions, as long as we're suitably tentative about them).

I would add various considerations to those they've mentioned:
- The economic cost of enforcing an extra law (this counts against pretty much any law)
- The feelings of people outside California about Prop 8
- The influence Prop 8 sets (immeasurable, but it seems likely that it will make similar laws elsewhere look more plausible). I think this is a counterweight to the idea that waiting until social attitudes change is the utilitarian approach, since such laws almost certainly affect social attitudes. If you assume that a world where gay people can get married and everyone is happy about it is a better world than one where gay people are downtrodden and everyone else is happy about it, then laws that move us toward the former can be better than laws that move us toward the latter, even if they make more people miserable in the immediate future.
- The physical effects on those who live in California

The last one is the biggie, IMO - not passing it would have had very little direct impact on those who dislike gays. Passing it has a significant detrimental impact
on any gay people in California who want to get married, iff other laws privilege marriage over the options available to them (I don't know if they do? I'm guessing so...) - presumably they pay more in tax, and are prevented from making important decisions on behalf of their partner. So there's a fundamental asymmetry.

On a similar note I also think what Daniel said is very important - util isn't a 1 person 1 vote system. In theory suffering is no more important than happiness, but in practice it's usually a lot easier to avoid causing suffering (or even to reduce it) than it is to cause happiness. So physical harm is very hard to offset by a vague notion of conservatives feeling happier. Also (can't find a link to source these claims offhand, but I'll try and dig it out if anyone queries), a) happiness tends to level out over time barring major upsets (prop 8 creates a small number of major upsets - eg by a woman not being able to carry out her partner's DNR wishes - and seems to prevent none), and b) one of the major social causes of happiness is inequality: because of a), two people of roughly equal status who's lives are reasonably comfortable will be only very slightly less happy than they would be if you gave both of them a 10% pay raise. But if you give one of them a 20% pay raise and the other none, you probably cause more harm to the poorer guy than you cause happiness for the richer.

So as well as being basically a negative-sum game, prop 8 increases inequality.

Sorry this has been such a ramble. But as Ryan said it's a lot easier to think this stuff than describe it - and I wanted to explain why I think Prop 8 is almost unequivocally a bad thing IMO. It's less obviously so than for someone who just says it's 'unjust' or whatever, but I prefer it that way. Invoking moral language to legitimise your emotional response to something is no more honest a tactic for the good guys than the bad

meathead wrote:

If the minority is passionately against it, it can be a very bad thing. For example, if 25% of the population was slaves, and their lives were half as good as otherwise, but the majorities lives were 10% better than otherwise, it would be (75%*10%-25%*50%)=5% worse than without slaves.

I see your point, but how do we arrive at those numbers? And even if we arrive at a certain value for certain features, perhaps there could be some calculations where slavery of a few may be outweighed by the large population's benefit?

I made those numbers up. That's really more like classes. Slavery would probably be much more extreme.

Because of the law of decreasing marginal utility, equality is generally better. There are a few exceptions, however. First, there's punishment/reward. It's what makes the capitalistic system so successful, and I, at least, am all for it. It requires inequality to function. Second, differences of infrastructure. Making a third-world country into a first-world one would be incredibly expensive. You're better off just to slowly improve it.

Arepo wrote:Passing it has a significant detrimental impact on any gay people in California who want to get married, iff other laws privilege marriage over the options available to them (I don't know if they do? I'm guessing so...)

California Family Code Section 297.5 wrote:297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses....

Marriage and domestic partnership are legally the same.

Arepo wrote: I'd like to come at this from a different angle. The idea of comparison that you're concerned about isn't really controversial (I mean, you can dispute it, but it's not something that non-utilitarians often disagree with) - it's just the claim that you can look at some situations and say they're better or worse than others (or just that they're better or worse for the people involved). If you accept the possibility of any such comparison, it seems hard to see why you can't accept it of all such comparison.

Certainly, I don’t object to that kind of comparison at all. After all, we see that methodology employed every day in our lives, and presumably so because it seems to be at the heart of many choices, i.e., maximizing happiness.

But the reason why I would hesitate in applying it in whole is because that methodology seems to produce some practical difficulties and odd results, some of which I’ll try to elaborate on further below.

I would add various considerations to those they've mentioned:
- The economic cost of enforcing an extra law (this counts against pretty much any law)
- The feelings of people outside California about Prop 8
- The influence Prop 8 sets (immeasurable, but it seems likely that it will make similar laws elsewhere look more plausible). I think this is a counterweight to the idea that waiting until social attitudes change is the utilitarian approach, since such laws almost certainly affect social attitudes. If you assume that a world where gay people can get married and everyone is happy about it is a better world than one where gay people are downtrodden and everyone else is happy about it, then laws that move us toward the former can be better than laws that move us toward the latter, even if they make more people miserable in the immediate future.
- The physical effects on those who live in California

The last one is the biggie, IMO - not passing it would have had very little direct impact on those who dislike gays. Passing it has a significant detrimental impact
on any gay people in California who want to get married, iff other laws privilege marriage over the options available to them (I don't know if they do? I'm guessing so...) - presumably they pay more in tax, and are prevented from making important decisions on behalf of their partner. So there's a fundamental asymmetry.

And I agree wholeheartedly. It’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned, but the problem is that the anti-same-sex-marriage folks have pointed rebuttals to each and every one of those points you’ve raised.

Then, if we apply what Ryan said before that there is no invalidation of any beliefs (unless I'm conflating this in which case, I'd need clarification), the two sides of this debate essentially are at an impasse. Then what?

Well, unless I’ve misunderstood, Ryan’s analysis seems to lead to the conclusion that most if not all states in the US (and many countries for that matter) may not see the legalization of gay marriage in the near future if at all.

And the same would apply to those awful Jim Crow laws. You and I could sit down, and list a ton of reasons why happiness obviously will be maximized by the elimination of those discriminatory laws, but also similarly, I think it’s evident that those proponents of Jim Crow laws would counter each and every point that we offer. And if we reached that impasse back in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s primarily, maximizing happiness might have meant the prolonging of the Jim Crow laws.

And of course, it’s not limited to these two issues. There are numerous instances where society (in the US) as a whole probably would have felt happier if they had their way with issues like mandatory pledge of allegiance, criminalizing flag burning, religious invocations in public schools, etc. I find those results very disagreeable.

But this is not to say that I adhere to nebulous notions such as "justice", "morality" and so forth. I agree that they're generally cop-out reasons.

And I'll look up what "the law of decreasing marginal utility" is because I haven't a clue.

Oh, and by the way, I am always susceptible to bribery.

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility says that as each additional unit is purchased, the excess utility gained from each purchase decreases, until it becomes irrational to continue purchasing. This is the economics definiton of utility, which is slightly different than the utilitarian one, but it still holds.

So, your problem is that utilitarianism doesn't give obvious enough answers? There's not really much you can do about that. To my knowledge, it's the ethical theory with the most obvious answers. Your best bet is probably just to have a bunch of people vote on what the right thing to do is.

meathead wrote:But the reason why I would hesitate in applying it in whole is because that methodology seems to produce some practical difficulties and odd results, some of which I’ll try to elaborate on further below.

What Daniel said Except that I think plenty of other ethical systems do give much simpler results - it's just that there's no reason to believe them. That said, util is emphatically not a methodology - it's just an arrow pointing towards a goal.* This is a big enough difference that some people (most famously Henry Sidgwick, I think) believe that the best way to maximise happiness is not to think like a utilitarian at all, but to rely on our common moral instincts. Here's a slightly more elaborate description of the idea (which is usually called Indirect Utilitarianism).

*[ETA] 'just a description of a goal' might have been clearer...

I don't find the argument very persuasive myself since I don't believe that using rough utilitarian reasoning is nearly as difficult as that blogger (or you) claim... but if you start from the premise that it is too difficult, then I think that's IU gives a pretty convincing argument as to why it still leaves you with util.

And I agree wholeheartedly. It’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned, but the problem is that the anti-same-sex-marriage folks have pointed rebuttals to each and every one of those points you’ve raised.

Then, if we apply what Ryan said before that there is no invalidation of any beliefs (unless I'm conflating this in which case, I'd need clarification), the two sides of this debate essentially are at an impasse. Then what?

Then I can't say much without knowing what the supposed rebuttals are. If you're just saying that people have argued against those points, I don't really see a problem. Creationists haven't argued against just about every generalised claim about evolution scientists have ever made, but that doesn't make their arguments equivalent. If you're saying that people have offered solid evidence/logic based grounds for accepting P8, then I'm deeply sceptical, but if I saw the arguments, and they seemed sound, I'd accept P8. The Jim Crow laws you're also talking about seem like good reason for me to be sceptical - if the same arguments were made back then, but we now live in a world where getting rid of them seems to have done a lot more good than harm, the arguments were evidently unsound. So we'd need extra evidence to accept the same arguments now...

You can't necessarily get out of the quandary by rejecting util, incidentally - I mean, you can use a more intuitionistic approach to say 'I dislike these', but I could say that anyway even if I were persuaded that they're a necessary evil. And if your intuitionistic approach leads you to put tonnes of effort into fighting them that you could have put into combatting much less necessary evils (ie. as Toby puts it, picking the low hanging fruit from the tree first), then I hope that your intuition would think that might be a problem.

So if both util and intuition leave you saying 'I dislike this, but I can't justify actively opposing it', then you can't really single out util...

Oh, and by the way, I am always susceptible to bribery.

wel i am rich nijerian royelty and wood luv two giv yu munny (credit card number required in advance, terms and conditions apply).

DanielLC wrote:So, your problem is that utilitarianism doesn't give obvious enough answers? There's not really much you can do about that. To my knowledge, it's the ethical theory with the most obvious answers. Your best bet is probably just to have a bunch of people vote on what the right thing to do is.

No, that’s not necessarily my problem. Let me try to clarify where I'm coming from: I don’t oppose utilitarianism as a general proposition. How could I when its goal is to maximize happiness and to reduce suffering?

The problem that I have is invoking utilitarianism in all situations. For instance, in the context of laws, in the US, there obviously is the constitution, supreme law of the land, blah blah blah... The constitution provides for (in theory anyway) equal protection of the laws, due process, privacy, freedom of speech and on and on. And in many instances, the courts have relied on the constitution to strike down numerous discrimination laws, censorship laws, anti-gay laws, and a lot of these other stupid laws. Now, whether the constitution and its notions of "liberty" and "justice" may be based on dubious logic or not, such notions nevertheless have fostered more good than harm overall, IMO, in these insanely difficult times that we live in. So in my view, that is the benchmark, and as a result, the “new way” bears the burden of proof, so to speak, that that new way will be at least as good if not better than the current system. And thus far, because I can envision that the application of utilitarianism may, perhaps, lead to different conclusions that may do more harm than good despite its stated goals, I am as of yet unconvinced.

More later (yes, sad but true). Ran out of time. Arepo, my Nigerian brother, I’ll try to respond to your post later.

Alrighty. Just a few added thoughts about the constitution non-sense. I don't mean to suggest that we get down on bended knees, and worship the constitution. Far from it. I'm well aware of its numerous shortcomings. I'm also aware that a country doesn't need a constitution to function relatively properly, e.g., England. So, I'm not humping this constitution thingy like some dog in heat. All I'm saying is that this current system in the US, as well as other systems around the world, have reached homeostasis if you will. It has done a decent (though admittedly far from perfect) job of protecting important rights as well as protecting rights of minorities especially when the court decisions that mandated as such were very unpopular. If utilitarian philosophy results in the amending of the current system (which it may or it may not), I feel the need of assurance that utilitarianism will do at least as good a job as the current setup.

Arepo wrote:What Daniel said Except that I think plenty of other ethical systems do give much simpler results - it's just that there's no reason to believe them. That said, util is emphatically not a methodology - it's just an arrow pointing towards a goal.* This is a big enough difference that some people (most famously Henry Sidgwick, I think) believe that the best way to maximise happiness is not to think like a utilitarian at all, but to rely on our common moral instincts. Here's a slightly more elaborate description of the idea (which is usually called Indirect Utilitarianism).

*[ETA] 'just a description of a goal' might have been clearer...

I agree that it's not really a reason to justify something on the grounds of "justice", "morality", and so forth. Often times, I see it as a cop out when no other reasonable basis exists.

That said, could one not say that America's constitutional system or English common law is not inconsistent with utilitarian philosophy? Way back when in the US, those dudes got together, and spent a great deal of time trying to forge a new system, which later resulted in the bill of rights of course. One could suggest that they had in mind the notion that it would maximize happiness overall if the citizens were afforded rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, right to a speedy trial, etc. So, in other words, in this case, there seems to be a valid basis for the drafters of the constitution to rely on typically amorphous concepts such as "justice".

Alas, I've run out of time yet again. To be cont'd.

meathead wrote:That said, could one not say that America's constitutional system or English common law is not inconsistent with utilitarian philosophy?

Yes You could say that any set of actions is consistent with utilitarian philosophy. Critics of util sometimes Godwin that Hitler thought he was making the world a better place by creating a master race. Once you accept util, it simply turns such judgements into empirical questions - of fact and probabilty, rather than of personal judgement (or rather, of personal judgement of what the facts and probabilities are, rather than personal judgement of what the facts and probabilities are plus how much justice/natural rights/emotional response should weigh in).

So it's very easy to level arguments from ignorance against util - we don't know for certain that indiscriminate murder or genocide will make the world a worse place, so maybe they're good things to get into. But once you get even faintly scientific about it, it seems clear that we have a wealth of evidence to show that indiscriminate murder and genocide cause a lot of people to lose a lot of happiness, and very little evidence that they cause equal or greater happiness. Also, genocide at least uses huge amounts of resources, which we have a lot of evidence to show can do very good things for humanitarian goals.

(I use similar reasoning to reach a relatively pacifistic viewpoint incidentally - even if, say, Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, the amount of money effort and lives spent on the war could probably have fixed most of the problems in African countries that don't have tyrannical governments - and you'd have indirectly reduced the number of terrorists by giving them a US that was far harder to demonise. Again it's a case of picking the low hanging fruit first - humanistic reasons for military campaigns would sound a lot more convincing if we weren't ignoring the plight of so many more people)

Incidentally, I don't think you can have it both ways as an argument against util - either the current US system is basically shown by evidence to be about the most welfare-generative model you could have, in which case thinking about it from a utilitarian perspective is unlikely to make it change much (though it would hopefully prompt at least minor improvements), or the evidence is strongly against it being as effective as alternatives, in which case if you're supporting it for even vaguely utilitarian reasons you should want to change it too.

Arepo wrote:That said, util is emphatically not a methodology - it's just an arrow pointing towards a goal.

I’m confused by that, to be honest. I understand (or at least I think I do) the goal of utilitarianism, but in brief time that I’ve tried to understand it, I’ve come across Bentham’s “felicific calculus”, which, of course as I’m sure you know, is the analysis based on certain rules, i.e., a methodology. Apart from that, there seems to be an analysis in utilitarian philosophy in some respects regarding, as you’ve stated, the contemplation of facts and probability. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant when you said utilitarianism is emphatically not a methodology.

Then I can't say much without knowing what the supposed rebuttals are. If you're just saying that people have argued against those points, I don't really see a problem. Creationists haven't argued against just about every generalised claim about evolution scientists have ever made, but that doesn't make their arguments equivalent. If you're saying that people have offered solid evidence/logic based grounds for accepting P8, then I'm deeply sceptical, but if I saw the arguments, and they seemed sound, I'd accept P8. The Jim Crow laws you're also talking about seem like good reason for me to be sceptical - if the same arguments were made back then, but we now live in a world where getting rid of them seems to have done a lot more good than harm, the arguments were evidently unsound. So we'd need extra evidence to accept the same arguments now...

I’m sure you’ve heard variations of some of those supposed reasons for not legally recognizing same-sex marriages, but I’ll identify some of them here for the sake of continuing the dialogue:

For starters, there are the wholly absurd reasons like, “They can’t procreate!”, which is easily rebutted by their inconsistent position that they wouldn’t prohibit marriage between, say, opposite-sex infertile couples or, say, opposite-sex octogenarians.

But then, there are other articulated reasons that aren’t as easy to brush off (not to say that they’re valid at all, just that it requires a bit more effort to refute). For example, the decaying of the traditional nuclear family that purportedly has been the backbone of human civilization…yada yada… There’s also the allegation that the children who are reared by gay parents will suffer emotional hardship, and that the optimal environment for the psychological well being of a child is in an environment with one man and one woman…blah blah blah… Gay marriages impact and diminish the value of traditional marriages…etc.

On the one hand, Ryan said that beliefs aren’t invalidated under utilitarianism. Once again, perhaps I’ve conflated what Ryan actually meant by that, but if I take what he said at face value, there is essentially an impasse amongst the two opposing sides, which (all things being equal) may result in the erosion/elimination of a lot of the rights that I’ve pointed to thus far in this thread. This raises some serious red flags for me.

On the other hand, you’ve suggested that the reasons that the anti-same-sex marriage folks articulate can and will be subject to at least some amount of scrutiny to presumably test their validity. But even then, you’ve acknowledged that the possibility remains that there could be instances where the rights that I had previously discussed may be trumped (again, all things being equal), which again raises the red flag as far as I’m concerned.

But on the other other(?) hand, I also note that you’ve suggested that those rights that I’ve mentioned may be preserved (again, all things being equal), but if that’s true, I don’t see the need to “re-invent the wheel” so to speak. Yes, I hear what you saying about there being a reason/rationale for taking the appropriate actions under utilitarianism, and that that’s a hallmark trait of utilitarianism, but then again, there is also a healthy body of reasoning in those numerous court decisions that have supported those constitutional rights that I’ve discussed above.

Arepo wrote:Incidentally, I don't think you can have it both ways as an argument against util - either the current US system is basically shown by evidence to be about the most welfare-generative model you could have, in which case thinking about it from a utilitarian perspective is unlikely to make it change much (though it would hopefully prompt at least minor improvements), or the evidence is strongly against it being as effective as alternatives, in which case if you're supporting it for even vaguely utilitarian reasons you should want to change it too.

Well, for starters, I’m not opposed to utilitarianism per se. Indeed, I think the individuals in the Executive and Legislative branches of US gov’t especially in the recent past would’ve done well to incorporate more utilitarianism into their actions rather than succumbing to their latent and patent imperialistic and/or self-preservation tendencies.

Nevertheless, I don’t necessarily agree that wholesale changes are required either for the reasons that I’ve mentioned previously.

Arepo, I have a question for you. I note that you’ve said before that utilitarianism can and should be applied to all decisions. Are you adverse to limited applications of utilitarianism? In other words, where utilitarianism is used to supplement rather than override. To me, that seems to have more appeal from a practical standpoint even if it means that there's a "disingenuous" component to it. Additionally, Rome not being built in a day and all that, the partial or supplemental approach may be more palatable to the populace. Yea/nay?

meathead wrote:

Arepo wrote:That said, util is emphatically not a methodology - it's just an arrow pointing towards a goal.

I’m confused by that, to be honest. I understand (or at least I think I do) the goal of utilitarianism, but in brief time that I’ve tried to understand it, I’ve come across Bentham’s “felicific calculus”, which, of course as I’m sure you know, is the analysis based on certain rules, i.e., a methodology.

Hmm, I should have said 'util is emphatically not necessarily a methodology'. There's no shortage of utils out there who do claim that we should think in terms of increasing happiness (me, for eg). I suppose that's the hub of the act/rule divide. That said, rule utils don't forego util thinking altogether, they just restrict it to devising rules of thumb.

I'm not sure it's fair to call Bentham's calculus a methodology. Look at the components of it:

Wikipedia wrote:1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:

7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

IMO Bentham is simply describing in 1-3 and 7 (with some inaccuracy) what happiness actually means. Denying his criteria doesn't necessarily mean rejecting any particular behaviour - it means saying (for eg) that whatever happiness is, it isn't something that can be more or less intense within a single individual. So denying that particular eg just seems like redefining happiness. Points 4-6 are a little different, but here I think he's just describing what modifying happiness means - again without including or excluding any particular behaviour.

I should add that I do actually believe that we can best attain the goals of util by persuading people to think like utils. It's quite easy to think of realistic examples of people's intuitions causing preventable harm. But on that point I differ from several self-identifying utils (this guy[heads up – for some reason I got a virus warning from my browser when I clicked that link. I know the blog's legit, so hopefully he'll fix the problem shortly] for eg explicitly argues against it), so I won't argue for it here.* I just want to show that util is a very versatile ethic – by which I mean the only one that doesn't rely on hazy assertions that – when you try to clarify them – always turn out to be meaningless or trivially false.

* Once you accept happiness as a goal, the question of how to create it becomes 'simply' empirical. Obviously we don't, and may never, have precise enough social sciences to remove all doubt, but in principle at least, any disagreements about method – whether they're about leftwing/rightwing/libertarian politics, or the ways of thinking most conducive to actually increasing overall happiness – have correct and incorrect answers.

I was talking to Ryan a couple of rights ago, and while he sees himself as centre (broadly libertarian), I see myself as quite far left. But if you ask either of us about these views, they're subordinate to the same goal. So in any particular political disagreement we have, at least one of us simply has their facts wrong. I find it incredibly refreshing to have political discussions where you both recognise this, since it means you have no more reason to get angry at the other person, no matter how different their views, than you have when disagreeing over the answer to a mathematical sum.
Got to cut this short since I've been rambling again. Will abuse the gay-bashers later.

[ETA] I should postscript all this with the caveat that not all utils agree on the goal, either - preference utils technically have a different goal to hedonistic utils, though in practice few situations clearly differentiate between them.

Well that's right. When chatting to Arepo the other day, we were discussing to what extent I agree with libertarian politics. I think libertarianism is right about the power of private enterprise and a free market to get things done. Futhermore, people tend to be happier when they can make choices about their lives, rather than having to make forced moves.

Arepo and I discussed the the idea of national ID cards in Britain. Most libertarians say that we're freeer from government without this centralisation of information. And then everything rests on the question of whether freedom is a good thing. Whereas in our discussion, there's only one question: How will happiness be maximised. So we're not so much debating anymore as jointly finding out what the probabilities are of particular outcomes. What's the likelyhood of this system being used by corrupt police. What's the likelyhood of the UK becoming a dictatorship? And, ultimately, will happiness be greater with these cards or without them.

The good thing about using happiness as the measure is goodness, is that we know it's good because we can feel it for ourselves! On the other hand, if you suppose that happiness and suffering did not exist, would liberty be any use?

Arepo wrote:Once you accept happiness as a goal, the question of how to create it becomes 'simply' empirical. Obviously we don't, and may never, have precise enough social sciences to remove all doubt, but in principle at least, any disagreements about method – whether they're about leftwing/rightwing/libertarian politics, or the ways of thinking most conducive to actually increasing overall happiness – have correct and incorrect answers.

For what it’s worth, I accept the worthiness of maximizing happiness as a goal in theory. But it seems to me that there is a significant subjective component to what happiness is and how happiness can be maximized. For example, on the issue of anti-gay legislation that's been bandied about in this thread, the general populace and elected officials of Utah, which is dominated by Mormons, may embrace anti-gay legislation because those kinds of laws conform to their views of how happiness could be maximized. I think such laws do more harm than good, but those folks in Utah obviously would demur. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that I can envision them applying the felicific calculus to support their dumb views. Particularly where polarizing social issues are concerned, I just don’t see how utilitarianism can work be the best practical alternative.

Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying that utilitarianism is useless either. In fact, I can think of many instances where utilitarianism-like thinking has been used in the past, and can be used in the future. And as I’ve said before, I think many members of the executive and legislative branches of gov’t in both the state and federal levels would do well to incorporate utilitarianism thinking into their thinking and their actions. But I, myself, would hesitate in saying that utilitarianism is practical and reliable in all instances.

I'm short on time these days. I'll try to reply to the other stuff by you and Ryan later when I get a chance.

Arepo wrote:I was talking to Ryan a couple of rights ago, and while he sees himself as centre (broadly libertarian), I see myself as quite far left. But if you ask either of us about these views, they're subordinate to the same goal. So in any particular political disagreement we have, at least one of us simply has their facts wrong. I find it incredibly refreshing to have political discussions where you both recognise this, since it means you have no more reason to get angry at the other person, no matter how different their views, than you have when disagreeing over the answer to a mathematical sum.

RyanCarey wrote:Well that's right. When chatting to Arepo the other day, we were discussing to what extent I agree with libertarian politics. I think libertarianism is right about the power of private enterprise and a free market to get things done. Futhermore, people tend to be happier when they can make choices about their lives, rather than having to make forced moves.

Arepo and I discussed the the idea of national ID cards in Britain. Most libertarians say that we're freeer from government without this centralisation of information. And then everything rests on the question of whether freedom is a good thing. Whereas in our discussion, there's only one question: How will happiness be maximised. So we're not so much debating anymore as jointly finding out what the probabilities are of particular outcomes. What's the likelyhood of this system being used by corrupt police. What's the likelyhood of the UK becoming a dictatorship? And, ultimately, will happiness be greater with these cards or without them.

It certainly would be refreshing to have those kinds of discussions without the usual rancor. But in my view, utilitarianism seems to have similar problems with, say, communism or libertarianism. Both sound good in theory, but it would take very unique (perhaps unrealistic) sets of circumstances for them to work on a large scale.

To be clear, I'm not saying that utilitarianism should fall by the wayside or anything of that sort. In fact, I think there's merit in incorporating it more and more into our way of thinking. It's component of selflessness is quite attractive especially for someone like myself who's lived under the GWBush regime for the past eight years. Nevertheless, I do have some reservations against its universal implementation for the reasons that I've mentioned before.

The good thing about using happiness as the measure is goodness, is that we know it's good because we can feel it for ourselves! On the other hand, if you suppose that happiness and suffering did not exist, would liberty be any use?

Well, I myself don't necessarily prioritize liberty over happiness or vice versa.

Also, do you have any particular historical or current example in mind? Because that sounds rather extreme.

I think you are completely misunderstanding utilitarianism. It tells you what is better. It does not tell you how to get it. If you decide to limit the power of the government so they don't abuse, you are being a utilitarian. If you limit your own power to prevent your successors from abusing the power, you are being a utilitarian. If you limit your own power to prevent yourself from becoming corrupt and abusing it, you are being a utilitarian. If you decide that making decisions based on cost/benefit analyses will result in your making of costly errors and start making decisions based on rights and justice, you are still a utilitarian.

A utilitarian government isn't one that makes its decisions based on cost/benefit analyses. It's just one that's made to result in happiness. It doesn't matter if it bases its actions on a line of dictators, a democracy, or capitalism.

Not working is an attribute of the means. Utilitarianism is the ends. It can't "not work" any more than colorless green thoughts can sleep furiously.

So it tells you what is better, not how? Fair enough. But as I've said before, whose standards do we utilize in determining what is better? And as I've said before, I used the example of the state of Virginia where they at one point thought they were promoting the greater good, i.e., maximizing happiness, among its citizenry by prohibiting interracial marriages. A more contemporary example is the issue of gay marriages that backward hicks and bible thumpers like to outlaw because that allegedly would increase happiness. And of course, these are only the tips of the iceberg compared to the numerous polarizing social issues that we face today.

If utilitarianism is simply intended to promote the maximization of happiness without the hubris or naivete of being a panacea, then so be it. Let's maximize good. No problemo. But if it is presented as being the cure-all, I'm inclined to disagree.

You use your own standard. It happens to be similar to a lot of other people's standards, all of which we call utilitarianism. It is not a cure-all. You can show that, in all probability, you should be earning as much money as you can and donating it to the best charity you can find. You can also eliminate huge numbers of charities for what's best (donating to hungry families in your community is not a good idea), but you still have to find which is best, and don't even try using felicific calculus for politics.

Well, the problem with ideology is that when you take it to the extreme, it can lead people to violence, dictatorship and/or policy that no longer helps people.

But if there's anything that utilitarianism isn't, it's ideological. For utilitarians, we'll implement what's practical: what will help the world to become a happier place.

Now, those social issues become non-issues as we become more utilitarian. As we recognise the suffering off humans without autonomy, we abolish slavery. Utilitarianism confirms the view that as people become tolerant, gay marriage must become legal. As for how much of our energy we should devote to lobbying, it's a tough call!

DanielLC wrote:It happens to be similar to a lot of other people's standards, all of which we call utilitarianism.

I disagree with this sentiment for a couple of reasons:

1) Util is quite particular in it that it says consequences are the *only* important thing, and also says that all consequences are theoretically comparable. Most people use a lot of consequence-based reasoning in their lives, but they might still feel that other things are important besides. This is usually the source of dispute between the non-util moral philosophers I've read - almost all agree that happiness/preference satisfaction is a good thing, but they claim that other things matter too, and in ways which we cannot compare.

2) I think it's counterproductive. I still consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, and I lot a lot of sympathy for atheist writers who repeatedly tried to make me one of them by definition. We're at risk of browbeating Meathead the same way here, and I'd much rather he continued to think that util was basically ok with one or two exceptions (psst - we'll beat them out of him in time ) than that util was so general as to be irrelevant to everyday life and that people who self-identify as utils are aggressive proselytisers who never let go once they've got their claws in...

I didn't mean to say that he was a utilitarian. Let me try it again.

If you are a utilitarian, you still have to decide what's better on your own, you just have a similar idea as other utilitarians.

I've had an epiphany. It seems that my problem was that I've approached this thread (and utilitarianism for that matter) from a wrong angle so to speak. Unless I'm mistaken, utilitarianism is an ethical theory that essentially states that once people accept the notion of maximizing happiness, presumably everything else will flow 'naturally' in a manner of speaking, and that the final product almost by definition will be 'good' as opposed to other ethical theories where it is unknown whether the final product will be any 'good' and/or where the basis of those other ethical theories may be essentially intellectually disingenuous...or something like that. There's a bunch of other things that I believe I've misattributed to utilitarianism, but the short end of it is that it makes sense to me why you annoying proselytizers :p are trying to browbeat me into maintaining that it all becomes empirical even for those super polarizing issues like gay marriage, segregation, etc.

Essentially, I need to start over. I'll have to start trouble some other way.

Utilitarianism just states that maximizing happiness is better. It doesn't say that it's better if people except that. The difference is only theoretical, as, if we didn't think accepting utilitarianism helped everything flow 'naturally', we wouldn't have bothered becoming utilitarian.

Rest assured, I am aware that greater acceptance of utilitarianism by people and its anticipated conclusions are rationales in support of utilitarianism, but that that is not a tenet of utilitiarianism itself. The reference to the people was merely to relate it to the issue in this thread.

I'm not sure if I've understood your epiphany. Can you elaborate on it? (for eg, what did you think before that you've changed your mind about? What things did you misattribute to it?) Should we consider you browbeaten?

daniellc wrote:Utilitarianism just states that maximizing happiness is better.

Just in case you (Meathead) haven't gathered, this isn't strictly true. Utilitarianism's defining points are something like:

1) Exclusivity - that one thing (which Daniel and I happen to agree is happiness, but some utilitarians don't*) is good (and its negation bad), and no others are - except with reference to this thing.

2) Aggregation - that you can theoretically add and subtract amounts of this thing.

3) Consequentialism - that the thing must be recogniseable as a consequence in itself. For eg, (for most utils) it doesn't matter by which of multiple routes you've gained this thing, except in that you might have gained/lost more of it en route.

4) Universality - that anything which is capable of experiencing the thing is weighted equally to all others when adding and subtracting amounts of it.

* The most common alternative given by utilitarians is satisfaction of preferences.

(ideas above shamelessly culled, with some editorial input, from this essay)




I should have thought of a better word than 'thing'.

[ETA: looking back I see I've already warbled on about this. Never mind, my keyboard needed the exercise]

Arepo wrote:I'm not sure if I've understood your epiphany. Can you elaborate on it? (for eg, what did you think before that you've changed your mind about? What things did you misattribute to it?) Should we consider you browbeaten?

Damn it. I had a decent response (or so I led myself to believe), but it evaporated somehow, and is now part of cyber-wasteland.

Alrighty. I'll have to be brief since I don't have much free time like I used to:

The difference is that I previously began with a macro approach to utilitarianism if you will as opposed to a micro approach. I thought to myself that it really shouldn't make a difference either way in the same way that 4 x 5 = 5 x 4. If it's wrong one way, then it has to be wrong the other way...or so I thought.

So, in my macro approach, I noted that utilitarianism was supposed to universal application, which I took to mean that it basically can and should supplant all other systems like political systems, ethical systems, economic systems, etc. As a result, I thought utilitarianism was quite unrealistic to say the least.

But then, I started thinking about just myself and my own ethical system. In started thinking about my own actions and how utilitarianism could apply to my own life. Then, it kind of hit me that that's really the beginning of it all. Once I accept utilitarianism, then that's it. Of course, it would be nice if society at large had accepted utilitarianism, but that shouldn't affect my own decision to accept utilitarianism. And if I do that, then I can deal with the world and myself as I see fit in accordance with utilitarianism. Maybe the society I live in will accept gay marriage, ban segregation, and so forth. Maybe it won't. But that shouldn't affect my personal decision to apply utilitarianism in my life, and my decision to continue to promote its 'virtues'. In other words, those other things that I mentioned don't refute the legitimacy that is utilitarianism.

Maybe that makes sense. Maybe it doesn't. In any event, I've got to run now.

Oh, and by the way, I haven't been browbeaten yet. I'm still putting utilitarianism to the test, but I would be remiss if I didn't add that utilitarians certainly are a pushy bunch. :p

meathead wrote:The difference is that I previously began with a macro approach to utilitarianism if you will as opposed to a micro approach. I thought to myself that it really shouldn't make a difference either way in the same way that 4 x 5 = 5 x 4. If it's wrong one way, then it has to be wrong the other way...or so I thought.

So, in my macro approach, I noted that utilitarianism was supposed to universal application, which I took to mean that it basically can and should supplant all other systems like political systems, ethical systems, economic systems, etc. As a result, I thought utilitarianism was quite unrealistic to say the least.

So was your view something like, 'If I accept that maximising happiness should be my overall aim, then I must also accept that maximising happiness should also become all of my smaller aims'?

I'm still putting utilitarianism to the test, but I would be remiss if I didn't add that utilitarians certainly are a pushy bunch. :p

Yeah? Well lawyers are all w...ait, not that kind of forum

One thing, though - it sounds odd (to me at least) to speak of 'testing' something so epistemologically fundamental as ethics. It's a bit like saying you'll test the scientific method, ie. it can only 'work' or 'fail' self-referentially. To get around the problem you might just see (as many moral philosophers do) whether its conclusions conflict with your intuition enough to reject it - but would you think like that about science?

Hehe, it's interesting to hear how things are coming along meathead. I don't think there's anything wrong with testing utilitarianism. In-fact, I wouldn't have it any other way.
If we all only adopted ethical systems once we put them up to scepticism to see that they made sense, the world would be a nicer place

I'm all for analysing it and comparing the analysis to that of other ethical systems... it's just that 'testing' makes it sound like something that could be falsified by moving objects around, to see if they end up where you expected they would. But that's what you do with predictive theories, and whatever else normative ethics might be, it's not predictive.

Arepo wrote:Yeah? Well lawyers are all w...ait, not that kind of forum

Most people love their lawyers. Hard to believe, but true.

And it’s rather obvious that lawyers are ubiquitous. Indeed, you swing a dead cat around, and you’ll find yourself hitting a few dozen lawyers at a time. Utilitarians on the other hand are not nearly as ubiquitous. So, it is proven, yes proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people love lawyers than utilitarians.

Statistics are awesome, aren't they?

Arepo wrote:So was your view something like, 'If I accept that maximising happiness should be my overall aim, then I must also accept that maximising happiness should also become all of my smaller aims'?

As an analogy, I’ll compare it to the “think globally, act locally” phrase, and particularly the way it’s used in the environmental movements. Of course, there’s this global aim to make the world cleaner, safer and so forth, but that individual acts ‘locally’, i.e., what he/she can do. The global aim overall might be an uphill battle, but that doesn’t deter the individual from doing what he/she can do. And so, when I looked at utilitarianism in that way, looking at it how it may be applied to my own life only, it became evident that utilitarianism can work for me even if the world around me didn’t progress as fast as I would like in achieving the goals of utilitarianism. Hope that makes sense. Frankly, I just blame it all on this anti-lawyer talk. Philistines. The lot of you.

One thing, though - it sounds odd (to me at least) to speak of 'testing' something so epistemologically fundamental as ethics. It's a bit like saying you'll test the scientific method, ie. it can only 'work' or 'fail' self-referentially. To get around the problem you might just see (as many moral philosophers do) whether its conclusions conflict with your intuition enough to reject it - but would you think like that about science?

Heh – No, Ryan’s got the right idea. I suspect it's not much different than when you or anyone else here was first exposed to utilitarianism.


I have to log off now because, sadly, I can't bill for any of this time.

meathead wrote:
And it’s rather obvious that lawyers are ubiquitous. Indeed, you swing a dead cat around, and you’ll find yourself hitting a few dozen lawyers at a time. Utilitarians on the other hand are not nearly as ubiquitous. So, it is proven, yes proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that more people love lawyers than utilitarians.

Statistics are awesome, aren't they?

Hehem. What are your sample group sizes?

Heh – No, Ryan’s got the right idea. I suspect it's not much different than when you or anyone else here was first exposed to utilitarianism.

Oddly enough, most of the stories here are along the lines of 'I'd basically decided it for myself and then someone told me its name'. Which is a bit worrying in that a) it doesn't sound like we've ever really contemplated the alternatives, and also in that b) it suggests that relating to people and/or persuading them of it when they haven't had that experience is going to be difficult.

As far as a) goes though, as I've said I view it as about on a par with the scientific method - we can't ever claim to know its, validity but when you stop and look at any alternative it just seems nonsensical.*

b) isn't going to go away though. Academics have been deadlocked over the issue for at least the last 150 years since Bentham proposed it, and it doesn't really seem like much progress has been made. Most normative ethics papers seem to use one of two approaches: either 'if we accept ethics system a, then our conclusion should be a1' or 'if we look at all popular ethics systems and ignore that they flatly contradict each other and so most of them are obviously wrong (even if we don't know which ones) then conclusion g seems to offend none of them, or at least not too seriously.' Both forms have some obvious and potentially very serious problems...

* (I'm talking specifically about my - IMO quite modest - version, which is basically just the claim that the only thing worth considering a 'good' is conscious wellbeing. Others claim that there's a sense in which we have a positive duty to increase wellbeing, but they can defend themselves )