What Human Rights?

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't know, you'd have to explain the opinion in greater detail, same as you would with a statement of belief - to me, that is-.  It's like asking me whether or not the statement "I believe in Steve" is wrong.  

It may be...who/what's Steve......

Let's say we are not speaking in terms of any definite standard of art, but only by means of the level of pleasure or displeasure each of us took away from the experience.

The distinction I'm trying to make is one in which you believe something to be true to the exclusion of contrary claims versus recognizing an opinion of it that happens to be yours but on no basis that you should expect absolute consensus or even agreement.

I think that people are capable of having beliefs that happen to be theirs, but not on any basis that they should expect absolute consensus or even agreement, whilst I think people can hold opinions upon a basis which they just might expect -some- consensus and agreement.  There's nothing stopping a person from holding their own opinions to the exclusion of contrary claims - but theres nothing preventing them from changing them when confronted with contrary claims, beliefs are in a similar position.  As I said, not sure why we're still on about this because either word we choose to use we'd have been discussing the same relationship between the same concepts in the same context.  

It was a semantic objection that led and will lead -nowhere-. You can call that my opinion or my belief, up to you.

@Barefoot, I'm a big fan of utilitarianism myself. Though I'd caution against claiming that the statement "people will want to be happy" doesn't flirt with the notion of objective moral principles. I'd go another way with it. Utilitarianism strives to provide a situation in which the widest opportunity for well-being is present, regardless of whether or not any given individual wants happiness. Gotta make allowances for those who consider happiness or well-being to be some other [x] than you or I, and for those who don't find happiness to be desirable or motivating in some particular scenario. Also have to make mention of those who -aren't- looking to avoid suffering, in toto, but only in some specific instance or example.

As you said, no magic bullets. I think that's what many people find offputting about utilitarianism, leading to the common crack "utilitarianism is a moral system fit only for machines and factory owners." It doesn't (or at least doesn't have to)make the grand proclamations of other systems with their one size fits all in every situation for all time sort of claims. A utilitarian morality provides us with an environment in which we are all as free to search out our own meanings and happiness and goodness, or even their opposite - really, whatever it is that moves us, whilst safeguarding the capacity for others to do so as well. So, if you're really, really into hurting things, a utilitarian system might say -go find some ants- rather than moralize endlessly over their personal tastes. It demands that the person not hurt other people only insomuch as it acknowledges that this might prevent that other person from doing the same thing the tormentor has done. Namely, seeking out their happy place (or whatever we'd call that...lol). Of course, they could seek out a person who likes to be hurt. Perhaps a strange notion to either of us, but not alien to human beings and not a uniformly negative influence on their happiness, well-being, freedom, etc -within those stated limits-.

Juxtaposed against a system which makes statements such as "hurting people is just wrong, period" -for whatever reason-, it's easy to see why people prefer the simpler, less nuanced system (even if I can't agree with them). Utilitarianism acknowledges that human relationships and human beings are varied and complicated, and perhaps this isn't a sufficient level of reduction to satisfy those who yearn for a life of black and white moral statements. Judging by the prevalence of religious moralities in this world I'd say that most people prefer the reductive, rather than the acknowledging. The trick, I suppose, would be to convince them that utilitarianism can also provide more (or as much) of "whatever" for -them- than their current systems, while allowing more of "whatever" for others than their current system. Ala, it costs you nothing and they gain much.

Applying utilitarianism to a specific example, say, people charged with capital offenses - we might say.....if you stop executing them, you will still be able to incarcerate them, you will still be able to prevent them from repeating their crimes, and it will cost you less than it does to execute them - meanwhile, the world would be a place in which fewer people are executed in error (which could just as easily be you as it was them). So, costs "you" nothing, they gain much, and accomplishes the task at hand - which is shielding society from the predations of murderous douchebags in hoodies -or- judges robes....lol.