I'm a utilitarian too. I'm not sure of which type, although preference utilitarian does seem logical to me. And outright "rule" utilitarianism I find illogical because ultimately if there is more utility in breaking a rule at some point, then it should be done so.

(July 25, 2010 at 11:13 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm a utilitarian too. I'm not sure of which type, although preference utilitarian does seem logical to me. And outright "rule" utilitarianism I find illogical because ultimately if there is more utility in breaking a rule at some point, then it should be done so.

Rule utilitarianism basically turns into act utilitarianism, because it says the rules can be broken in extreme circumstances (at least, that was my understanding), so, as you say, you may as well assess each situation individually. There is something to be said, though, for working out general principles which maximise utility most of the time, for things like murder and stealing.

Other forms of utilitarianism that I can think of include negative utilitarianism, which believes that minimising pain is more important than maximising pleasure. Again, there's some sense to this, as most people prioritise the avoidance of pain (arguably), but the logical conclusion is that the world would be better off not existing if all the pain in it consisted of a single pin-prick. So, some balance between pain and pleasure, or fulfilled interests and violated interests, seems sensible.

What would you say?

I'd say I'm mostly a negative utilitarian but I think that some frustrations are worth it in the long run of course, and mild suffering isn't worth eliminating the world and therefore also getting rid of pleasures, which are good of course.

I'd say, in short: I heavily prioritize minimizing of suffering in the long run over maximizing pleasure, but pleasure is good too.

(July 24, 2010 at 5:36 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: This is certainly more challenging...

My reply to this would be (and it's not easy... the difficulty of predicting consequences is a serious criticism of utilitarianism in general) that we have learnt from experience what sort of actions lead to what sort of consequences.

Omni, do you think there are advantages to making moral decisions using preference utilitarianism over using the Biblical commands to love one's neighbor as themselves and to treat others as you would have them treat you? If so, what are they?

Well sometimes treating how people as you would have them treat you isn't a good thing.

What if you're a masochist? Just because you like people to kick you in the bollocks doesn't mean you should treat them the same way.

(July 26, 2010 at 9:16 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well sometimes treating how people as you would have them treat you isn't a good thing.

What if you're a masochist? Just because you like people to kick you in the bollocks doesn't mean you should treat them the same way.

I understand your point. I guess I do not apply the principle in such a literal way nor do I think that is how it was intended to be applied, i.e., I don't think it was intended as a way of justifying hurting someone else even if you like to be hurt. I guess I look at it more like I should try to put myself in the other person's position and if I was in that position would I want to be treated in the manner that I am contemplating treating them (or have already treated them). If not, I conclude I shouldn't treat (or should not have treated) them that way.

The fact it's not literal and ultimately comes down to common sense shows that it's not so much as a 'rule' as a guideline. A guideline that isn't original to the Bible too.

(July 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The fact it's not literal and ultimately comes down to common sense shows that it's not so much as a 'rule' as a guideline. A guideline that isn't original to the Bible too.

I don't think I ever referred to it as a "rule" and I am not clear as to why this is even relevant to the question I asked (the last one directed to Omni). Even if the "guideline" I follow is not original with the Bible it is certainly still Biblical and my question still remains relative to the advantages of preference utilitarianism in making moral decision over the approach I follow.

Well all I mean is that it's available to anyone through common sense, and you have to use your natural common sense otherwise if taken literally the rule, guideline or whatever you want to call it, could end up being immoral.

So I mean it's nothing special so who cares if it's in the Bible.

(July 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well all I mean is that it's available to anyone through common sense, and you have to use your natural common sense otherwise if taken literally the rule, guideline or whatever you want to call it, could end up being immoral.

So I mean it's nothing special so who cares if it's in the Bible.

Ok...I understand your point...and I would certainly agree that one could follow the same guidelines as me and not be a theist. I'm still unsure of something though, EvF...are you trying to answer my question or are you merely objecting to the fact that I referred to my point of view as "Biblical" or something else? If you are trying to answer my question, then I don't get what your answer is. I'm not trying to be dense, although I may be doing that, I am just trying to understand what you are saying and how/if it relates to my question.