(July 26, 2010 at 1:14 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(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.

If we don't take the Golden Rule literally, so that EvF's criticisms would no longer apply, there is very little difference between this principle and preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism takes others' interests as seriously as one's own, which is basically putting oneself in another person's shoes. 'If I were that person, I wouldn't like to be kicked in the bollocks (continuing the example )' is the same as, 'That person's interest in not being kicked in the bollocks is as important as my interest in it.'

Of course, by questioning the 'advantages' of one moral system over another, you are presupposing some set of moral principles by which we can judge which is better. That's the trouble with such things... it often boils down to a battle of what Daniel Dennett calls the 'intuition pump'. From Wiki: 'An intuition pump is a term coined by Daniel Dennett for a thought experiment structured to elicit intuitive answers about a problem.' This would apply to your thought experiment with Joseph, where you (I suspect) tried to undermine PU (as preference utilitarianism shall henceforth be known, because it's a bugger of a phrase to type) by pointing out that it would sometimes allow slavery and murder. Intuition pumping isn't a rational way to go about things, though.

(July 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Ok...I understand your point..[...]

Well I was just trying to point out the point that you now say you understand, that's all. I'm not objecting to anything really.

@ TOO

What about the problem of the 'utility monster' and the 'repugnant conclusion'? Those two got me thinking :S

I would answer it by saying that I would prioritize it so the priority is on alleviating of those who suffer the most. But I don't know a label for that.... because I'm not a full out negative utilitarian I just try to prioritize.

(July 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: If we don't take the Golden Rule literally, so that EvF's criticisms would no longer apply, there is very little difference between this principle and preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism takes others' interests as seriously as one's own, which is basically putting oneself in another person's shoes. 'If I were that person, I wouldn't like to be kicked in the bollocks (continuing the example )' is the same as, 'That person's interest in not being kicked in the bollocks is as important as my interest in it.'

Fair enough.

(July 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Of course, by questioning the 'advantages' of one moral system over another, you are presupposing some set of moral principles by which we can judge which is better.

You sound like me. (I have said similar things to others here.) I agree that it could be taken that way but that is not where I was going. I was really only asking for an answer from your point of view and not some overarching set of moral principles (and you have provided the answer...so thanks for that).

(July 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: That's the trouble with such things... it often boils down to a battle of what Daniel Dennett calls the 'intuition pump'. From Wiki: 'An intuition pump is a term coined by Daniel Dennett for a thought experiment structured to elicit intuitive answers about a problem.' This would apply to your thought experiment with Joseph, where you (I suspect) tried to undermine PU (as preference utilitarianism shall henceforth be known, because it's a bugger of a phrase to type) by pointing out that it would sometimes allow slavery and murder. Intuition pumping isn't a rational way to go about things, though.

I guess one difference I see is that PU appears to rely so much on knowing the results that one can conclude different things depending on when the decision is made. The approach I take allows each behavior to be judged on its own, so to speak. So regardless of the ultimate result, x vs not x in my hypothetical, I could still judge x as being bad (let's assume x was A murdering his neighbor...to avoid an unnecessary disagreement, (I think we both agree that would be bad.)) while recognizing that some of the ultimate results are good.

Having said that, I do want to say that I realize that such compartmentalization of such moral decisions/judgements is not limited to a view such as I take. I would guess that one could hold to PU and compartmentalize like I would (and maybe you even do this too when it comes down to practice). Consequently, my comment in the previous paragraph is really limited to our discussion and your position as you presented it.

Any thoughts on this?

---

(July 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well I was just trying to point out the point that you now say you understand, that's all. I'm not objecting to anything really.

Ok...thanks for clearing that up.

(July 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Ok...I understand your point..[...]

Well I was just trying to point out the point that you now say you understand, that's all. I'm not objecting to anything really.

@ TOO

What about the problem of the 'utility monster' and the 'repugnant conclusion'? Those two got me thinking :S

I would answer it by saying that I would prioritize it so the priority is on alleviating of those who suffer the most. But I don't know a label for that.... because I'm not a full out negative utilitarian I just try to prioritize.

With regards to the utility monster objection, I think PU would be immune, because the desire for further pleasure could be counted as a single, finite interest, and therefore would be outweighed by others' interests. Also, I would question whether it is in fact possible to have an indefinite amount of pleasure in real life. Obviously, the utility monster is hypothetical, but if it's based on an incoherent or implausible idea, it's undermined as an objection. Anything can be demonstrated absurd if applied to abstruse hypothetical scenarios. So, it doesn't really impact on my beliefs.

As for the repugnant conclusion, I'm not sure that pleasure and pain can be taken cumulatively, as these phenomena occur solely within the bounds of an individual's consciousness. Therefore, a million pin-pricks are preferable to one third-degree burn. Only with comparable interests would numbers play a significant part. For me, fewer people who are happier is preferable. Of course, it could then be asked whether it's better to have one supremely happy being rather than more who are less happy, but still very happy. This is a difficult question, and my feelings on the matter aren't very logical, but I'd say yes, up to a vague point which I'm not really sure of.

I agree 100% with your post except I only think 1 individual a lot happier is better if those who are less happy are not miserable or suffering a lot. If they are then they are certainly the priority for me and need their happiness balanced.

(July 26, 2010 at 3:08 pm)rjh4 Wrote: I guess one difference I see is that PU appears to rely so much on knowing the results that one can conclude different things depending on when the decision is made. The approach I take allows each behavior to be judged on its own, so to speak. So regardless of the ultimate result, x vs not x in my hypothetical, I could still judge x as being bad (let's assume x was A murdering his neighbor...to avoid an unnecessary disagreement, (I think we both agree that would be bad.)) while recognizing that some of the ultimate results are good.

As I said, I don't think knowledge of the future is necessary. We can make general principles for our life based on overwhelming evidence that certain things promote interests, while others don't. PU is very much for ethics in practice, rather than an entirely theoretically defensible system.

Quote:Having said that, I do want to say that I realize that such compartmentalization of such moral decisions/judgements is not limited to a view such as I take. I would guess that one could hold to PU and compartmentalize like I would (and maybe you even do this too when it comes down to practice). Consequently, my comment in the previous paragraph is really limited to our discussion and your position as you presented it.

Any thoughts on this?

Probably I wouldn't consider far-off possible consequences in each situation; you're right. One difference between the Golden Rule, which is compartmentalised to each situation in its immediate state, and PU, which isn't, is that PU provides a workable system for governments and the running of large organisations, with an eye on the long-term. For the individual, though, the conclusions of both philosophies would be much the same.

Besides the small article on Wikipedia, where else are there some good readings on PU?

(July 26, 2010 at 6:07 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Besides the small article on Wikipedia, where else are there some good readings on PU?

Peter Singer's Practical Ethics is the work which most comprehensively sets out PU. As he's the leading proponent of PU, his other books might also be good (though I haven't read them), like The Expanding Circle. Animal Liberation is also very good on the specific topic of our treatment of animals, which he deals with in Practical Ethics too.