Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 23, 2016 at 10:34 am
Anyone else here interested in population ethics and utilitarianism?
Familiar with The Repugnant Conclusion and The Utility Monster as thought experiments?
I don't believe in the aggregation of utility unless the pain or pleasures of the experiences aggregated are identical.
I don't support average or total utilitarianism.
I am a consequentialist and I do believe that suffering in the long run is bad. I believe pleasure in the long run is good.
I prioritize minimization of suffering over maximization of pleasure.
Anyone else here familiar with this sort of thing?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 23, 2016 at 10:42 am
So. . . vegetarian, then?
Posts: 45889
Threads: 537
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 23, 2016 at 7:30 pm
As a younger man, I was seduced by Jeremy Bentham (shut up, vorlon) and I've never gotten over the notion that the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number is a valuable one, but I'm not sure that it can be implemented practically. I think UM is an insurmountable obstacle to practical utilitarianism.
That being said, I do think that an aggregate of 'greatest good' can be achieved, and suffering kept to a needful minimum, but never eliminated.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 3283
Threads: 118
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 24, 2016 at 1:36 am
(April 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm)Evie Wrote: (April 23, 2016 at 6:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Sorry, I just assumed that since. . . you know. . . animals feel pain. My bad. 
Eating meat doesn't hurt the meat.
Seriously?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 24, 2016 at 3:37 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2016 at 3:39 am by bennyboy.)
Okay, Evie.
You're not vegetarian, that's fine. So you in fact do not prioritize mimimization of suffering, since your meat-eating contributes to a great deal of suffering. If all humans died, in fact, there would very likely be a net reduction of suffering in the world, as animals don't naturally grow stacked in boxes a hundred feet high.
How about chocolate? Do you eat it? Drink coffee? Wear bargain-priced clothing? If you're on the wrong side of any of these questions, you are involved in human suffering, as well, as is everyone else here.
Now, I'm not being belligerent just to pick at you--I'm as guilty of causing suffering as you are, and maybe more so. But I'm curious how your ethical philosophies hold up under scrutiny in the real world: are they as pragmatic as words like "utilititarian" really make them seem?
