The Main Point of Utilitarianism

[Artsu]

When it comes to utilitarianism, people often focus on the idea of happiness, or utility. Common criticisms include that this is too vague, hard to define and measure, or too dry and limited in scope.

But I would say that the main point of utilitarianism isn't this, but rather is the idea of selflessness. Utilitarianism doesn't say do what makes YOU happy, it says do what makes you, and the other person, and the other person etc. happy. You have a far greater awareness of your own happiness, and have more control over it, so naturally you focus more on it, but it's about realising that your experiences are just as valuable as anyone else's, except insofar as these experiences are different in kind.

Utilitarianism also has a future-focused component. It says to look at the consequences of the action you are about to perform. What is likely to happen when you do it, from the immediate term to the long run? What will it do to people as a whole, and one would suppose, to the planet as a whole, although people are likely given a much higher value than (non-human) animals for example.

Then when it comes to what it is we are trying to achieve for ourselves and others, we can have a look at the term happiness. Happiness basically means feeling good, so utilitarianism is aiming to move towards states of feeling good on a global scale. It seems a bit circular to say doing good is about feeling good, but what it gets at is the importance of experience itself in any moral equation. If an action never changed anyone's experience at all, could it be judged as good? Not in utilitarianism.

Selflessness is key, I think, in any moral system. This is to be done with wisdom, however. You do, after all, have the greatest consciousness of your self.

[Artsu]

When i say you have consciousness of your self at the end, i simply mean that there is a set of experiences comprising [your] consciousness at any moment, and a different human has a different, though perhaps overlapping, set of experiences. (These experiences are associated with a willing force which can, for instance, move a human body.)

I am not suggesting at this stage in the discourse that there is or isn't a unified, coherent "self".

[Leo Gura]

The problem is that your use of the notion of "good" is a relative one. No two living organisms will agree on what good is because ego defines good as "that which improves my survival". So good is different for everyone. This is an existential problem.

There is an Absolute Good, but it cannot be limited to any philosophy or any attachment to life or positive feeling.

[Artsu]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that your use of the notion of "good" is a relative one. No two living organisms will agree on what good is because ego defines good as "that which improves my survival". So good is different for everyone. This is an existential problem.

There is an Absolute Good, but it cannot be limited to any philosophy or any attachment to life or positive feeling.

We can zoom out entirely and suppose: what does the All judge to be the measure of goodness? And then go by that.

If your relative notions contradict the all, then adjust your lens.

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Artsu said:

We can zoom out entirely and suppose: what does the All judge to be the measure of goodness? And then go by that.

That is this.

But you can't handle it.

[remember]

either two directional absolute or consensus.

which makes it a three directional absolute.

utilitarianism contains a paradox in how it solves itself.

[wwhy]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that your use of the notion of "good" is a relative one. No two living organisms will agree on what good is because ego defines good as "that which improves my survival". So good is different for everyone. This is an existential problem.

1. cells (e.g red blood cells)
2. the living organism (e.g Leo)
3. the family (e.g baby and mama shark)
4. the group (e.g village, team, country)
5. the species (e.g human beings, cows)
6. kingdoms (e.g animal kingdom, plant kingdom)
7. all living organisms
8. all things (e.g something, nothing)
9. ??

So, if utilitarianism does not work on level two because ego, what about on higher levels above the living organisms ego?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Artsu]

Utilitarianism is related to the commandment to love thy neighbour as thyself.

The hedonic calculus can be solved by following God.

That means one should align one's life with the will of God, we also have free will.

Of course this means loving God completely.

This gets to the ethics of intention. Do not go against love or truth in your heart. Follow the 10 commandments in essence. These arent actions, they are the result of evil intentions. Adhere to the truth, seek wisdom.

When do utilitarians ever talk about this stuff? Do they even follow their own philosophy? How?

Btw this gets at those increasing levels of zooming out as mentioned. God knows all our reality, so he is the highest authority.