What Human Rights?

[ignoramus]

what he said.

[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.

[The Barefoot Bum]

@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 meant to say people will want to be happy (if I did say it, that's not what I meant): I mean that observably, people do in fact want to be happy; it's seems, however, that some people have difficulty doing so, and others find happiness in the must unusual things. The same is true of suffering

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.

 

I think we have to remember that Bentham and Mill's original utilitarianism was definitely a metaphysically normative system: it contains the principle that one should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. I think this metaphysical norm contradicts the underlying spirit of their philosophy, and I think we can dispense with it. 

Descriptively, every person actually does what he or she wants to do. Emotionally, we evolved to be social, so empathy logically precedes the system: we seek the greatest good for the greatest number not because we ought to, but because that's how our brains generally work. Normally, this is how things work. I do nice things for strangers not because I ought to, but because I like it: it gives me pleasure, both immediately and rationally: I know I'm happier in a generally cooperative society.

But as is the case with any other normative system, a person with very low empathy will not find the logical arguments at all compelling. People with high empathy have to make the (slightly) difficult choice of deciding between harming a perpetrator of harm to others, by denying him this pleasure, or allowing him to hurt others; both offend our empathy, and we have to choose. Then, by extension, a rational person without empathy has to decide between fulfilling his primary desires at the risk of retaliation (from his own perspective) of others.

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.

I'm not sure that this is strictly true, that people prefer (at a basic level) simpler, less nuanced systems. A lot of intellectual and ideological production since the relatively recent abandonment of hunter-gatherer economics has gone into convincing people that these "simpler" systems -- which just so happen to (among other things) justify the privilege of the ruling class du jour, what a coincidence -- are actually true, and the penalties for violating them are severe. If people wanted simpler systems just for the sake of simplicity, there would be no need of hell (or prisons).

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.

No argument there! 

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we have to remember that Bentham and Mill's original utilitarianism was definitely a metaphysically normative system: it contains the principle that one should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. I think this metaphysical norm contradicts the underlying spirit of their philosophy, and I think we can dispense with it. 

Agreed entirely.   

Descriptively, every person actually does what he or she wants to do. Emotionally, we evolved to be social, so empathy logically precedes the system: we seek the greatest good for the greatest number not because we ought to, but because that's how our brains generally work. Normally, this is how things work. I do nice things for strangers not because I ought to, but because I like it: it gives me pleasure, both immediately and rationally: I know I'm happier in a generally cooperative society.

But as is the case with any other normative system, a person with very low empathy will not find the logical arguments at all compelling. People with high empathy have to make the (slightly) difficult choice of deciding between harming a perpetrator of harm to others, by denying him this pleasure, or allowing him to hurt others; both offend our empathy, and we have to choose. Then, by extension, a rational person without empathy has to decide between fulfilling his primary desires at the risk of retaliation (from his own perspective) of others.

Indeed, it's always the exceptions that bend these systems near to point break, but we can certainly handle those situations.  

I'm not sure that this is strictly true, that people prefer (at a basic level) simpler, less nuanced systems. A lot of intellectual and ideological production since the relatively recent abandonment of hunter-gatherer economics has gone into convincing people that these "simpler" systems -- which just so happen to (among other things) justify the privilege of the ruling class du jour, what a coincidence -- are actually true, and the penalties for violating them are severe. If people wanted simpler systems just for the sake of simplicity, there would be no need of hell (or prisons).

Catering to a market, nevertheless, I doubt that all of that ideological and intellectual work is actually the reason that people subscribe to those systems.  As our resident apologists find endless ways to remind us, it's rarely the argument they present that compelled them to fealty.  Seems to be a case of accepting first, rationalizing later...and the rationalizations aren't all that important.  Tear them to shreds and the acceptance persists. Perhaps I'm wrong, it's a -stroooong- possibility, but I'd stand by the statement even after the above considerations. Im not sure that "simpler for the sake of simplicity" really gets at what I was trying to express. I;d say that the simpler systems don;t appeal to us on -those- grounds, but something altogether less -intellectually- complicated. The simpler systems appeal to our simpler natures (I know you don't like the word, I don't mean it in an overarching way, only saying that there's some part of us that immediately suggests that we cave someones head in when they slap us on the face).

[The Barefoot Bum]

Catering to a market, nevertheless, I doubt that all of that ideological and intellectual work is actually the reason that people subscribe to those systems.  

Perhaps. Still, it's curious that so many intelligent, hard-working people would have put so much effort into something that comes more or less automatically.

[The Grand Nudger]

Curious perhaps, but hardly undemonstrable or undemonstrated...lol, eh? It's something we seem to do, for whatever reason (if there even -is- a reason). My morality is overwhelmingly automatic (I won't deny a few refined and learned flourishes here and there)....but here I am in this thread, eh, complicating it beyond any need or utility......

[Mudhammam]

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.

The original point was whether or not disagreement between peoples regarding the morality of actions suggests that objective goods do not exist --- meaning that moral statements are just opinions with no truth value --- or if rather there are competing beliefs wherein some can truly be wrong to the exclusion of others. The only purpose of clarifying the semantic difference was that you seemed to misunderstand the distinction I was making in my response to the idea of relativism. If you can see that, it makes no difference to me whether you choose to call something an opinion or a belief, though I think the latter has connotations not attached to the former.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and again, regardless of which term you or I prefer to use, moral opinions or beliefs can have truth values - according to both of us.  Calling them by either term doesn't change that.  Moral relativism, as comprised of opinion or belief, is not void of truth value in any specific instance by use of either term, nor do either terms or a mistake or what is regarded -as- a mistake by any person using either term (or opposed to it's use) imply or demonstrate that the objective goods don't (or do) exist. Call them fleeflarps if you like. I'm -sure- that you could fill fleeflarp with whatever connotations you desire........but it's all so pointless.

[IATIA]

The original point was whether or not disagreement between peoples regarding the morality of actions suggests that objective goods do not exist --- meaning that moral statements are just opinions with no truth value --- or if rather there are competing beliefs wherein some can truly be wrong to the exclusion of others. The only purpose of clarifying the semantic difference was that you seemed to misunderstand the distinction I was making in my response to the idea of relativism. If you can see that, it makes no difference to me whether you choose to call something an opinion or a belief, though I think the latter has connotations not attached to the former.

Truth is a funny word. In some respects, even 'truth' can be subjective.

The 'truth' is that murder is immoral, but that is in our society today.

There may be a society in which murder is not immoral and their 'truth' would be different than ours.

[Mudhammam]

Truth is a funny word. In some respects, even 'truth' can be subjective.

The 'truth' is that murder is immoral, but that is in our society today.

There may be a society in which murder is not immoral and their 'truth' would be different than ours.

You're saying that the claim "murder is immoral" is a statement that is both true and false. In other words, the word truth as you're using it is meaningless