(March 2, 2011 at 1:30 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I am against utilitarianism. My objection to it is the same objection from the relevant Wikipedia article on the subject:
Wikipedia Wrote:John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it were a single sentient entity, mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness.
Firstly, this is only applicable to one form of Utilitarianism, Pleasure Utilitarianism.
Secondly, Why specifically do you think that we cannot evaluate happiness? That we have separate consciousness is NOT an argument.
Thirdly, It's rather easy to see that you can calculate happiness in simple scenarios (how easy this is in the real world is a different issue) example: Bob, Tim and Sue are in a room, Bob and Sue are good friends, they both hate Tim, in return Tim hates them both equally, one of these people are going to be slapped, If Bob was slapped him and Sue are going to be unhappy, Tim is going to be happy, If Sue is slapped her and bob will be unhappy and Tim will be happy, If Tim is slapped both Bob and Sue will be happy but Tim will be unhappy - Which scenario is going to cause the most happiness?
Fourthly, evaluating collective happiness is in no way treating the people like a single entity, this is the biggest straw man used against Utilitarianism, It is no more treating people like a single entity than evaluating their preferences for ANY issue is treating them like a single entity, after all Happiness is a manifestation of preference. Just like we can meaningfully determine which political policy or fast food 'restaurant' is preferred by the most people we can determine which action will cause the most happiness. Case and point, take a group of 100 people, 80 who like olives and 20 who do not - the 80 who like olives dislike yoghurt and the 20 who dislike olives like yoghurt - they would all like a snack - You have two types of food you can give them, olives and yoghurt, you are only allowed to introduce 1 type of food into the room, which one will increase happiness for the most people? For this evaluation at which point did we consider these people to be a single entity?
Quote:I maintain that since everyone has separate consciousnesses then it makes no sense to aggregate utility. Such a calculation is nonsensical and inaccurate.
I maintain that is complete bullshit.
Quote:And, if we believe that we instead share a collective consciousness then if we truly shared such a consciousness 100%, we would all at most be able to experience the same identical amount of pleasure or pain. So there is nothing left to aggregate.
That would be true, but we don't share a collective consciousness.
Quote:And with any differences in consciousness we have the problem of aggregating utility again.
It's not really an aggregation as we are not trying to find a total, we are simply looking for a proportioned representation of preference.
Quote:I am not against Consequentialism, I am a Consequentialist myself. But despite Utilitarianism's popularity - which is irrelevant anyway, an appeal to popularity is not an appeal to rationality - I see the above objection as undefeatable.
They're some of the most poorly formed, vague and poorly explained objections to anything in philosophy, they deny basic abilities of statistics to determine how opinions on an issue are proportioned. Even if you deny that happiness is in any way a gauge of morality to deny that we can't evaluate happiness is a complete crock.
.
