Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 18, 2024, 3:54 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
#1
Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
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?
Reply
#2
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
So. . . vegetarian, then?
Reply
#3
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
No.
Reply
#4
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
(April 23, 2016 at 10:56 am)Evie Wrote: No.

Sorry, I just assumed that since. . . you know. . . animals feel pain.  My bad. Big Grin
Reply
#5
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
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
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#6
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
(April 23, 2016 at 6:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(April 23, 2016 at 10:56 am)Evie Wrote: No.

Sorry, I just assumed that since. . . you know. . . animals feel pain.  My bad. Big Grin

Eating meat doesn't hurt the meat.
Reply
#7
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
(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. Big Grin

Eating meat doesn't hurt the meat.

Eating baby corposes doesn't hurt babies either, but you probably wouldn't approve if I ate yours.
Reply
#8
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
I don't actually know what all those terms mean Big Grin I'll try and have a goosey and see how much I agree with. Some of them I recognise.

Buying the meat is the issue. What you do with it after that doesn't really matter.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#9
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
(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. Big Grin

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
Reply
#10
RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
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?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ethics of Neutrality John 6IX Breezy 16 1182 November 20, 2023 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Ethics of Fashion John 6IX Breezy 60 3752 August 9, 2022 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  [Serious] Ethics Disagreeable 44 3890 March 23, 2022 at 7:09 pm
Last Post: deepend
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 1843 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  What is the point of multiple types of ethics? Macoleco 12 1114 October 2, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics vulcanlogician 150 17933 January 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics vulcanlogician 69 8681 November 27, 2017 at 1:10 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  what are you ethics based on justin 50 16360 February 24, 2017 at 8:30 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics Edwardo Piet 18 3151 October 2, 2016 at 5:23 am
Last Post: Kernel Sohcahtoa
  The Ethics of Belief Pyrrho 32 7610 July 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)