(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.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
