Utilitarian Bioethics

[Edwardo Piet]

Retributivism as opposed to utilitarianism seems much more "tribal" to me.

Retributivism simplified can be eye for an eye for example - although these days it's more civilized thank fuck. Especially when it has more utility in it! (which is a mix of retributivism and utilitarianism which is what we have at the moment in most societies at least I reckon).

Utilitarianism means that what's moral is what has utility, what is good, for the future. Nothing wrong with that definition, the ideal is fine. I mean what's the point in punishing without utility? i.e: What's the point in retribution when no good comes for it? What good is it on occasions when it makes things worse rather than better? It's only moral when it has utility in my view.

So yes, I'm a utilitarian, because I can't think of morality in any other terms other than utility - there's no point in a justice system if it makes things worse than better, if it doesn't have utility. Utility is the way otherwise it's a self-defeating justice system by definition! (the way I see it at least).

The way I see it, retribution is fine, on occasions when it has utility. When it doesn't however then it's no good in my view - this is why I think of myself as a utilitarian.

As I said before, the 'greater good' and utilitarianism are different things. I am a utilitarian who doesn't believe in the 'greater good'. I don't believe in killing a few in order to save many. I just believe utility is moral.

EvF

[Violet]

Does the 'Greater Good' have more value than the individual?

Only if you have defined it to.

I am personally disturbed by the idea. I do however, understand the benefits to mankind and the planet, if one could take compassion and empathy out of the equation... but who draws the lines in the sand? Who decides?

I can at times adhere to the idea (as i understand it). There are not necessarily benefits to anything... there need only be perceived benefits (wether they actually are or outweigh the negatives is questionable). Compassion and empathy are often the primary motivators for such a sacrifice as to be "for the greater good". As for who decides and/or draws the lines... that would be the individual.

Utilitarian Bioethics are becoming more and more influential in policymaking procedures and is being taught to most of the medical students in the world. Is this a good thing?

Yes, though I don't see how it should matter medically...

Frankly... 'the benefit of the majority' is a concept that few will understand to be the same thing

[Ashendant]

For the greater good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN9H3zAfYf8

[Rhizomorph13]

Yay, someone finally mentioned the Tau. They were my favorite race in Dawn of War right above the Necrons.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Do you agree with the ideas put forth by people like Peter Singer (concerning 'Applied Ethics') or the concept of Utilitarian Bioethics in general? Does the 'Greater Good' have more value than the individual?

I am personally disturbed by the idea. I do however, understand the benefits to mankind and the planet, if one could take compassion and empathy out of the equation... but who draws the lines in the sand? Who decides?

Utilitarian Bioethics are becoming more and more influential in policymaking procedures and is being taught to most of the medical students in the world. Is this a good thing?

Utilitarianism is concerned with the individual, it seems to me. It stands to reason that it, if it's good to advance the wellbeing of one individual, it's better to advance the wellbeing of several, even at the expense of one.

As for compassion, utilitarianism is just compassion distributed in a rational manner. Again, it takes our compassion to the logical conclusion: namely, that whilst we may be emotionally disinclined to harm someone, allowing the harm of more people is surely more morally reprehensible. Who decides is an important question, but the risk of a sinister Orwellian state is usually exaggerated. Besides, someone has to decide. Like it or not, in hospitals there are limited resources (e.g. organs), and the distribution of these resources must be decided on a utilitarian basis. There is no other practical way to decide what to do.

[Rhizomorph13]

Coin toss!

[tackattack]

@EvF- As someone who does believe in free will I see no sense in retributivism ether.

I am always wary of those who spout about "the greater good" and making sacrifices for it.

You can be sure that they will always exclude themselves from that sacrifice.

I know, a shame isn't it that self-sacrifice isn't taught in secular thought, they're far too pragmatic. It takes religion for that j/k .. I'll stop interjecting now

[Edwardo Piet]

Thanks for telling me tacky, I didn't know you didn't believe in free will either!

These two arguments against it put more simply what I've been trying to say on these forums for a long while regarding the matter (I feel it's relevant because I accept utilitarianism because I don't believe in free will - and more importantly, I reject retributivism):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ar..._free_will

---

In the free will debate, Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, the Basic Argument runs thus:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. So in order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

---

EvF

[tackattack]

You must have misread me me EvF I do believe in free will primarily because of my altruistic consequential and the importance of ultimate responsibility falling on the individual.

[ib.me.ub]

I believe Utilitarian Bioethics is a good thing. It may be the only way to reach a Utopian society, if that is actually possible!

Personally, I don't think the road to a more perfect society would be a nice one. I understand this will shock a few people, but.....

Genetic manipulation, chemical birth control, reproductive selection & selective culling should all be on the agenda.

Obvoiusly, this would have to be done in a controlled manner!

On a more personal level, it would't be a very nice thing to go through, or do. But, if we are to reach a Utopian society, I believe a geneartion or two will have to sacrifice themselves for the good of future generations!!!