Live data from Hacker News

Why I am not a utilitarian

fakenous.net

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#41
post #32
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the support of human civilization they are probably a bit boned anyhow. :)

Sure, but that doesn't really help to justify killing them. Can I walk around and kill random people? I mean sooner or later they will all die for one reason or another, I am not really changing the outcome for anyone...

No, but the people in this case are not random, their death somehow saves billions, which means it very different from killing random people on the street.

In fact, we make far worse moral calculations than that frequently. Eg, if you've ever supported a war, you've agreed with killing completely innocent children, often in horrible ways, for the sake of whatever benefit the war might have had for the side you support. And there have been plenty wars fought for reasons other than self-defense. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for instance.

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#42
post #10

Most ‘don't be utilitarian’ arguments are really ‘don't be a stupid utilitarian’. If a course of action where you do some amount of harm to mitigate a larger amount of harm would clearly result in a worse world, then you are NOT actually summing up all the resulting negative utility in your so-called-utilitarian calculations. It is in fact the case that we do often do bad things for more important goals. We kill peop…

> Most ‘don't be utilitarian’ arguments are really ‘don't be a stupid utilitarian’ Someone being a "stupid utilitarian" a subjective judgement. > then you are NOT actually summing up all the resulting negative utility in your so-called-utilitarian calculations Well that's the trick isn't it. What's the correct calculation? There is no objective answer to this. You can change the calculation to suit your opinion.

Throwing out utilitarianism in ethics because you can't exactly calculate which actions precisely correspond to the brightest futures is a lot like throwing out mathematical modelling in engineering because you can't exactly calculate which arrangements of atoms precisely correspond to the most optimal bridges.

I'd be more open to questions about how a rational person might figure out what the best things to do are in the face of uncertainty, if the article's examples didn't include things like should we torture Jewish people for the enjoyment of Nazis? The right intervention to that is much more baseline, of actually stopping to think about what one is saying.

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#43
Most if not all these supposed dilemmas are the author missing to account for the aftereffects.

Organ harvesting: How bad is the fear in every healthy person for risking to be harvested? Healthy people are much more that people in need organ transplants. How that fear condition their life. Is range generated? With what effects on in need organ transplants?

Framing the innocent: If the action from sheriff comes out and don't get punished what's the effect in people that that fear to be framed for no reason? What's the effect for people losing trust in justice? If you need just a temporary guilty just fake it as long as you find the real criminal or you improve the situation with other means. Obviously situations abstracted from the context and for others lines of actions lead to absurd solutions.

Deathbed promise: Considering the aftereffects of this case are so complex that giving a clear response is quite complex at best.

Sports match: Just save the person and let the other people know that they helped to save a person in need. Gratification will be much more that annoyance for short interruption and memories for that extraordinary events will be good too. If the person was just experiencing a little distress for the latest minutes of mood landing just let him experience it. Utilitarianism let you balance different situations.

Cookie: If we are talking about cookies who care. If we are talking about reward we can balance two things: - a gentle act toward a mad person can have much bigger effects - letting people know that good people get rewarded can generate more good people and more good with time

The Professor and the Serial Killer: Professor do good mainly with his work and with his personal life. Charity is only a small part. How being a lawyer would affect this total outcome? These more money he earn come from somewhere. What's the total effect?

Excess altruism: An altruist get joy from helping others so giving the cookie to Sue the total pleasure is maximized.

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#44

The gist of the argument is that utilitarianism provides unintuitive responses in certain cases therefore, we should default to deontology. The utilitarian edge-cases are not unfamiliar to me, however deontological systems suffer from failures too. Perhaps the author is not familiar with the nuts and bolts of deontology? Deonological failures present themselves as conflicts of duty or moral dilemmas. It's not difficu…

The author is Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, so would be very familiar with "the nuts and bolts of deontology".

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#46
Another thing (usually) not discussed in such articles is that a group may benefit more from different types of thinking, which balance each other out naturally. I’ve lost a link to the video about it, but it shows how a group of behaviors A and B is unstable and leads to either all-A or all-B, which then heavily underperform because of their traits. But if you add enough C proportion into this group, it eventually stabilizes, or cycles more effectively (depending on a definition of it). So you may be or not be foo/bar-ian, but in a sense of a system you live in, it may produce different results than if everyone were acting like that.

This simulation was indeed very simplistic and cannot represent or predict reality, but neither can you. Until you test it, you won’t figure out if it’s beneficial or not to someone, everyone, anyone. Watching these dilemmas in isolation does nothing to your understanding, whichever philosophy you use.

We don’t build our way to our goals, we explore the insanely complex network of possibilities and choose (and stick to) those which worked good enough. It’s like an edge of a fractal, sometimes a little change converges to nothing different, sometimes it turns everything upside down.

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#47
People love to point out utilitarianism is bad by using reductio ad absurdum. However, the point to utilitarianism to me is not to have some kind of mathematical function to calculate utility, and to follow it slavishly. Rather, it is to be pragmatic and to not be anti-utilitarian.

There are many cases where the "ethical" course of action makes many people miserable and where a simple, pragmatic, utilitarian solution would be beneficial. You don't have to go to extreme examples like the trolley problem or shooting down planes with terrorists in them. Just look at organ donations, for example. Here in Germany, it is opt-in. Why can't we just make it opt-out, or like in the US: when you get a drivers license, you have to decide yes or no?

I would consider myself somwhat utilitarian, but I have no problem reconciling most of the mentioned problems with common sense. Sometimes, it is by questioning the set-up:

> b. Framing the innocent > You’re the sheriff in a town where people are upset about a recent crime. If no one is punished, there will be riots. You can’t find the real criminal. Should you frame an innocent person, causing him to be unjustly punished, thus preventing the greater harm that would be caused by the riots?

The real problem here is that people are going to riot if their sense of justice is not satisfied. You're not just a sheriff but also a philosopher - the solution is to change society!

Most of the problems are variations of the classic "one person suffers greatly so many can have shallow pleasure". I don't know anybody who really proposes integrating over utility without any weight like this. Instead, most people would weight the injustice much greater than the pleasure. I maintain for example, we could radically reduce CO2 emissions and redistribute wealth to reduce poverty if we were willing to accept a couple percent GDP degrowth. That means on average, you might have to wait 2-3 years to get a new phone or a new car, and you might have to take a less than ideal job for a couple of years. But your inconvenience would be more than compensated by the increased utility for all.

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#48
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those unrealistic scenarios make it easier to see the problems without having to deal with all the real world complications. Many of the examples just try to point out that utilitarianism allows you to treat one group as badly as you want as long as you overcompansate their suffering by just making another group happy enough. It's a stupid idea in its pure form.

A utilitarian would absolutely say that causing one group severely negative utility is worth a corresponding positive utility in another group. However, they'd also say that these are useless examples to apply knee-jerk aesthetic analysis to, because they're practically impossible. The aversions we have to this kind of inhumane utility juggling are because we instinctually recongize the second order and knock-on effe…

[deleted]

Re: Why I am not a utilitarian

#50

I hate this type of article. "Let's condense a philosophical idea that people have spent centuries developing into one sentence and then wrote several paragraphs attacking that sentence."

It can't possibly be wrong because people thought about it for centuries? Lots of such theories are wrong.

I think it is good to point out the flaws in a short and concise way. An achievement, really. It is more difficult to be short and concise than to write long articles.

Post reply on HN