Anti-Utilitarianism

[Edwardo Piet]

I am against utilitarianism. My objection to it is the same objection from the relevant Wikipedia article on the subject:

John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it were a single sentient entity, mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness.

I maintain that since everyone has separate consciousnesses then it makes no sense to aggregate utility. Such a calculation is nonsensical and inaccurate.

And, if we believe that we instead share a collective consciousness then if we truly shared such a consciousness 100%, we would all at most be able to experience the same identical amount of pleasure or pain. So there is nothing left to aggregate.

And with any differences in consciousness we have the problem of aggregating utility again.

I am not against Consequentialism, I am a Consequentialist myself. But despite Utilitarianism's popularity - which is irrelevant anyway, an appeal to popularity is not an appeal to rationality - I see the above objection as undefeatable.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[theVOID]

I am against utilitarianism. My objection to it is the same objection from the relevant Wikipedia article on the subject:

John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it were a single sentient entity, mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness.

Firstly, this is only applicable to one form of Utilitarianism, Pleasure Utilitarianism.

Secondly, Why specifically do you think that we cannot evaluate happiness? That we have separate consciousness is NOT an argument.

Thirdly, It's rather easy to see that you can calculate happiness in simple scenarios (how easy this is in the real world is a different issue) example: Bob, Tim and Sue are in a room, Bob and Sue are good friends, they both hate Tim, in return Tim hates them both equally, one of these people are going to be slapped, If Bob was slapped him and Sue are going to be unhappy, Tim is going to be happy, If Sue is slapped her and bob will be unhappy and Tim will be happy, If Tim is slapped both Bob and Sue will be happy but Tim will be unhappy - Which scenario is going to cause the most happiness?

Fourthly, evaluating collective happiness is in no way treating the people like a single entity, this is the biggest straw man used against Utilitarianism, It is no more treating people like a single entity than evaluating their preferences for ANY issue is treating them like a single entity, after all Happiness is a manifestation of preference. Just like we can meaningfully determine which political policy or fast food 'restaurant' is preferred by the most people we can determine which action will cause the most happiness. Case and point, take a group of 100 people, 80 who like olives and 20 who do not - the 80 who like olives dislike yoghurt and the 20 who dislike olives like yoghurt - they would all like a snack - You have two types of food you can give them, olives and yoghurt, you are only allowed to introduce 1 type of food into the room, which one will increase happiness for the most people? For this evaluation at which point did we consider these people to be a single entity?

I maintain that since everyone has separate consciousnesses then it makes no sense to aggregate utility. Such a calculation is nonsensical and inaccurate.

I maintain that is complete bullshit.

And, if we believe that we instead share a collective consciousness then if we truly shared such a consciousness 100%, we would all at most be able to experience the same identical amount of pleasure or pain. So there is nothing left to aggregate.

That would be true, but we don't share a collective consciousness.

And with any differences in consciousness we have the problem of aggregating utility again.

It's not really an aggregation as we are not trying to find a total, we are simply looking for a proportioned representation of preference.

I am not against Consequentialism, I am a Consequentialist myself. But despite Utilitarianism's popularity - which is irrelevant anyway, an appeal to popularity is not an appeal to rationality - I see the above objection as undefeatable.

They're some of the most poorly formed, vague and poorly explained objections to anything in philosophy, they deny basic abilities of statistics to determine how opinions on an issue are proportioned. Even if you deny that happiness is in any way a gauge of morality to deny that we can't evaluate happiness is a complete crock.

[Edwardo Piet]

Firstly, this is only applicable to one form of Utilitarianism, Pleasure Utilitarianism.

No, it is also applicable to pain or any utility that requires consciousness.

Secondly, Why specifically do you think that we cannot evaluate happiness? That we have separate consciousness is NOT an argument.

To experience feeling happiness requires individual feelers of such happiness. Every feeler experiences happiness separately because their consciousnesses are separate. They cannot be aggregated together. 1000 people with 1 point of happiness is just 1000 people separately experiencing a happiness of 1. It is not 1000 times better because not one of them experiences more than a happiness of 1. None experiences a happiness of any more. There is no more experienced happiness at all because such happiness requires an individual conscious of it. Any happiness that is aggregated is illusory because no one is there to experience that additional aggregated happiness, everyone only experiences their own.

Thirdly, It's rather easy to see that you can calculate happiness in simple scenarios (how easy this is in the real world is a different issue) example: Bob, Tim and Sue are in a room, Bob and Sue are good friends, they both hate Tim, in return Tim hates them both equally, one of these people are going to be slapped, If Bob was slapped him and Sue are going to be unhappy, Tim is going to be happy, If Sue is slapped her and bob will be unhappy and Tim will be happy, If Tim is slapped both Bob and Sue will be happy but Tim will be unhappy - Which scenario is going to cause the most happiness?

It depends how unhappy or happy any of the individuals are. My point is that the happinesses of different individuals being aggregated together makes no sense because no one is there to experience such aggregated happiness: Such aggregated happiness doesn't exist.

If 10,000 people experience a pain of 1, say a pinprick, that doesn't equate to a pain of 10,000 because it makes absolutely no sense to aggregate the 10,000 people experiencing the pinprick pain of 1 together. Every single person experiences a pain of 1. Not one, none experience any more than that. This is the same with aggregating any emotion, it makes no sense when you aggregate different individuals with separate consciousnesses.

Fourthly, evaluating collective happiness is in no way treating the people like a single entity, this is the biggest straw man used against Utilitarianism, It is no more treating people like a single entity than evaluating their preferences for ANY issue is treating them like a single entity, after all Happiness is a manifestation of preference.

It is exactly like doing that because happiness requires consciousness and consciousness requires individual consciousnesses which are separate. It makes no sense to aggregate them. As I explained above.

Just like we can meaningfully determine which political policy or fast food 'restaurant' is preferred by the most people we can determine which action will cause the most happiness.

False analogy since that is not a matter where the fact of separate consciousness is relevant (since happiness is dependent on consciousness and such consciousness is a matter of separate consciousnesses and therefore separate happinesses that can't be added together in any meaningful way).

Case and point, take a group of 100 people, 80 who like olives and 20 who do not - the 80 who like olives dislike yoghurt and the 20 who dislike olives like yoghurt - they would all like a snack - You have two types of food you can give them, olives and yoghurt, you are only allowed to introduce 1 type of food into the room, which one will increase happiness for the most people?

It's simply a matter of diplomacy and practicality to please the larger group, it is irrelevant to the matter of aggregating their happinesses. Let's say if we introduce the olives it will make one person with an olive allergy die very quickly guaranteed. Then it doesn't matter if there were an infinite amount of people who mildly disliked the yoghurts, it makes no sense to aggregate their dislike together, not one of them experience more than mild dislike, but the one person who will die from the olives is the only relevant thing. We prioritize things based on who suffer the most and who are the happiest and what is most practical and diplomatic, the aggregation of happinesses or preferences or sufferings makes no sense when they are all dependent on separate consciousnesses that can't actually be aggregated in reality.

I maintain that is complete bullshit.

I maintain your bullshit argument is a confusion and full of misunderstanding.

It's not really an aggregation as we are not trying to find a total, we are simply looking for a proportioned representation of preference.

You are not aggregating quantities of individual utility dependent on separate consciousnesses (e.g : emotions like pleasure and pain)? What are you doing then?

I am not against Consequentialism, I am a Consequentialist myself. But despite Utilitarianism's popularity - which is irrelevant anyway, an appeal to popularity is not an appeal to rationality - I see the above objection as undefeatable.

They're some of the most poorly formed, vague and poorly explained objections to anything in philosophy

Actually it makes complete sense. What use is there in aggregating utility that cannot be aggregated because such utility is dependent on separate consciousnesses?

they deny basic abilities of statistics to determine how opinions on an issue are proportioned.

Statistics based on an aggregation that makes no sense are false statistics.

Even if you deny that happiness is in any way a gauge of morality to deny that we can't evaluate happiness is a complete crock.

We can evaluate the happiness of individuals. Adding them up as if two equally happy individuals, say, is twice as good makes no sense. Why would it be?

[theVOID]

Firstly, this is only applicable to one form of Utilitarianism, Pleasure Utilitarianism.

No, it is also applicable to pain or any utility that requires consciousness.

Then perhaps you should rephrase the claim.

To experience feeling happiness requires individual feelers of such happiness. Every feeler experiences happiness separately because their consciousnesses are separate. They cannot be aggregated together.

We can make statements about individual atoms, molecules and neurological structures, consciousness is a neurological structure and thus there is no reason why it should be excluded. When we evaluate the colour of houses on a street we do not need to combine them into a mega-house, we simply need a comparative evaluation of the colours, consciousness is exactly the same.

1000 people with 1 point of happiness is just 1000 people separately experiencing a happiness of 1. It is not 1000 times better because not one of them experiences more than a happiness of 1. None experiences a happiness of any more.

Agreed, and in a circumstance where each person experiences h1 towards P is not the same as some people experiencing h1 towards p while an equal amount of people experience h2 towards P, in that circumstance the people who experience h2 towards P experience more happiness as a group, you satisfy MORE individuals.

There is no more experienced happiness at all because such happiness requires an individual conscious of it. Any happiness that is aggregated is illusory because no one is there to experience that additional aggregated happiness, everyone only experiences their own.

That DOES NOT mean we can't evaluate their happiness comparatively, you DO NOT need to experience aggregated happiness to make a factual claim about what other people are experiencing.

It depends how unhappy or happy any of the individuals are. My point is that the happinesses of different individuals being aggregated together makes no sense because no one is there to experience such aggregated happiness: Such aggregated happiness doesn't exist.

Yes it DOES depend how happy or unhappy they are as individuals and when you have that information there is NOTHING preventing an evaluation.

And again, you DO NOT need someone to experience the collective happiness to make comparative evaluations about what the individuals are experiencing. The experience of happiness is related to a certain type of neurological pathway, more happiness looks different than less happiness. Keep in mind our lack of ability to make highly accurate claims about these neurological pathways does not mean that it cannot be done in principle.

If 10,000 people experience a pain of 1, say a pinprick, that doesn't equate to a pain of 10,000 because it makes absolutely no sense to aggregate the 10,000 people experiencing the pinprick pain of 1 together.

Taking action P (pinprick) with x (severity) 1 towards a population of 10,000 causes more pain than taking P*X1 towards 5,000 people, not towards the individual, but in terms of the number of people experiencing P*X1.

If you had to inflict P*X1 towards either a group of 10,000 or 5,000 and wanted to know which choice would cause the least suffering (S) you can easily determine the answer. P*X1*10,000 = S10,000 vs P*X1*5,000 = S5,000, there are objectively more suffering experiences in the former.

Every single person experiences a pain of 1. Not one, none experience any more than that. This is the same with aggregating any emotion, it makes no sense when you aggregate different individuals with separate consciousnesses.

They DO NOT need to individually experience more than their own pain in order for some comparative claim to be made about the two opposing states of affairs!

It is exactly like doing that because happiness requires consciousness and consciousness requires individual consciousnesses which are separate. It makes no sense to aggregate them. As I explained above.

Happiness requires consciousness (it's an emergent property of consciousness) but EVALUATING two states of affairs with different quantities and/or qualities of happiness DOES NOT. You could hook the two groups up to a machine that can recognise certain activity on certain neurological pathways qualitatively in individuals and quantitatively as a group and that machine COULD tell you what group experienced a higher level of happiness by evaluating the quantitative/qualitative properties of these neurological pathways.

False analogy since that is not a matter where the fact of separate consciousness is relevant (since happiness is dependent on consciousness and such consciousness is a matter of separate consciousnesses and therefore separate happinesses that can't be added together in any meaningful way).

It IS NOT a false analogy, Happiness is an emergent property of consciousness and so is like and dislike! If you think you can't determine which action makes the most people happy because they are emergent properties of consciousness then you should also believe that we cannot make the same claims about which food the most people like, it is EXACTLY the same kind of evaluation.

It's simply a matter of diplomacy and practicality to please the larger group,

Pleasure IS happiness, if you can practically determine which action will cause the most pleasure you can ALSO determine which action causes the most happiness.

it is irrelevant to the matter of aggregating theri happinesses. Let's say if we introduce the olives it will make one person with an olive allergy die very quickly guaranteed. Then it doesn't matter if there were an infinite amount of people who mildly disliked the yoghurts,

Yes it does, a finite amount of pain on one hand is comparable to an infinite amount of pleasure on the other, you might be uncomfortable with the reality of the death of one person being outweighed by the pleasure of others but it's simply a fact of a comparative evaluation.

it makes no sense to aggregate their dislike together, not one of them experience more than mild dislike, but the one person who will die from the olives is the only relevant thing.

If that is the case you should believe that a man who needs to rape 10,000 women to live is the only important thing, because their pan for being raped is a more mild pain than his death, and we can't possibly evaluate their combined suffering because that's meaningless!

We prioritize things based on who suffer the most and who are the happiest and what is most practical and diplomatic, the aggregation of happinesses or preferences or sufferings makes no sense when they are all dependent on separate consciousnesses that can't actually be aggregated in reality.

They CAN be, as I have more than demonstrated already.

I maintain your bullshit argument is confused.

I've proved that emotions can be compared quantitatively and qualitatively and showed an ABSURD consequence of your ideas.

You are not aggregating quantities of individual utility dependent on separate consciousnesses (e.g : emotions like pleasure and pain)? What are you doing then?

Making a comparison, an evaluation between contrary options relative to their ability to bring about pain and pleasure. They way you've been using the term aggregate is abnormal, you DO NOT need to aggregate to compare.

[The Omnissiunt One]

What DvF says is right. It is nonsense to treat a thousand pinpricks as equivalent to, say, one third degree burn. Assuming, however, that one action will bring a certain amount of pleasure/desire fulfillment to one person, and another action will do the same for two people, it's not incoherent to desire that the second action be done, as we can coherently wish for as many people's preferences to be fulfilled as possible, without aggregating those preferences, assuming that the preferences are of roughly equal importance for each person.

[theVOID]

What DvF says is right. It is nonsense to treat a thousand pinpricks as equivalent to, say, one third degree burn.

Only because they wouldn't be suffering equally in an individual sense, were we to take one person experiencing third degree burns who reaches pain threshold x and another suffering from multiple and consistent pinpricks, say 100,000 of them, who also reaches pain threshold x they would be suffering equally.

If we were to take the say, 100,000 pinpricks and divide them amongst 100,000 people have we quantitatively reduced the amount of suffering inflicted? Of course not.

The question is not "can we compare pain quantitatively and qualitatively?" because we clearly can, the question is "is this a moral evaluation?".

I don't think pleasure/happiness does make for a valid moral comparison, but what happens when we evaluate the same thing in terms of desires?

A pinprick is something that thwarts a desire, our desire not to feel pain, and to a negligible extent. Suffering from 100,000 pinpricks is something that thwarts very strongly our desire to not feel pain, as does third degree burns, they don't just thwart our desires not to feel pain, they thwart out desires to have a properly functioning body and our ability to fulfil our other desires - Pain aside, a person suffering third degree burns will have an impact on their ability to fulfil other desires long term, a single pinprick is one that does not have this long term impact on the function of one's body or their ability to fulfil other desires over time, thus, while the pain might be quantitatively equal amongst the 100,000 single pinpricks and the third degree burn victim, the qualitative pain suffered by the person experiencing third degree burns will be something that also thwarts his ability to fulfil other desires - This is a situation where 1) Pain and pleasure can be quantitatively measured and the comparison is completely legitimate, AND 2) It would not be morally good to make one person suffer 3rd degree burns in terms of the potential thwarting/fulfilling of their desires.

Assuming, however, that one action will bring a certain amount of pleasure/desire fulfillment to one person, and another action will do the same for two people, it's not incoherent to desire that the second action be done,

And it is also perfectly legitimate to say that the second action is the one that caused more pleasure, which was exactly my point.

as we can coherently wish for as many people's preferences to be fulfilled as possible, without aggregating those preferences, assuming that the preferences are of roughly equal importance for each person.

Assume the preferences for each person ARE equal, action x causes pleasure for Bill, action y causes pleasure for Tom and Fred, it is completely legitimate to say that y causes more pleasure - This "consciousness barrier" is complete bollocks, experience can be comparatively evaluated.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then perhaps you should rephrase the claim.

I didn't say I was against all forms of Utilitarianism. But I think you're right, I probably should have made it clearer that I am not necessarily against any forms of Utilitarianism that don't aggregate any utility that cannot be aggregated meaningfully due to the consciousness barrier of individuals.

We can make statements about individual atoms, molecules and neurological structures, consciousness is a neurological structure and thus there is no reason why it should be excluded.

When we are aggregating things like pleasure, pain, preference, like or dislike it's different. It's different because those things require conscious experience. When we aggregate individuals' say, pain together we are aggregating a total of pain that doesn't actually exist. It doesn't actually exist because not one of the individuals experience any more pain than their own and that's relevant because experienced pain is the only kind of existent pain. Experienced pain is existent pain. Nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain. Because pain requires experience.

That DOES NOT mean we can't evaluate their happiness comparatively, you DO NOT need to experience aggregated happiness to make a factual claim about what other people are experiencing.

Experienced happiness is the only kind of happiness. Not one individual experiences more than their own, so when you aggregate them you are aggregating nonexperienced and nonexistent happiness.

The experience of happiness is related to a certain type of neurological pathway, more happiness looks different than less happiness.

If everyone experiences happiness the same, then each individual matters and should be cared about, but it makes no sense to aggregate them because, as I said, no one experiences any more than their own happiness, no one experiences anything close to the aggregate. Nonexperienced happiness is nonexistent happiness.

Taking action P (pinprick) with x (severity) 1 towards a population of 10,000 causes more pain than taking P*X1 towards 5,000 people, not towards the individual, but in terms of the number of people experiencing P*X1.

Not one individual experiences any more pain in the larger group. Not one=none. And not one experiencing more = no more existent pain because nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain.

They DO NOT need to individually experience more than their own pain in order for some comparative claim to be made about the two opposing states of affairs!

Individuals are all that suffer. There is no more suffering than the sufferers. To aggregate different sufferers' suffering together is to care about suffering that is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent.

It IS NOT a false analogy, Happiness is an emergent property of consciousness and so is like and dislike!

And any aggregated happiness is happiness that is experienced by no one in the group. And because it's not experienced by anyone it's not existent. Only the separate values of happiness for each individual exists, the aggregated total is a fantasy.

Pleasure IS happiness,

I know. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

if you can practically determine which action will cause the most pleasure you can ALSO determine which action causes the most happiness.

To any of the individuals yes. But to an aggregate that is not experienced by any individuals whatsoever and therefore not existent, no.

Yes it does, a finite amount of pain on one hand is comparable to an infinite amount of pleasure on the other, you might be uncomfortable with the reality of the death of one person being outweighed by the pleasure of others but it's simply a fact of a comparative evaluation.

See above. It makes no sense to aggregate individual pain, pleasure or preference together because that would be caring about pain, pleasure or preference that is nonexistent because it's nonexperienced.

If that is the case you should believe that a man who needs to rape 10,000 women to live is the only important thing, because their pan for being raped is a more mild pain than his death, and we can't possibly evaluate their combined suffering because that's meaningless!

Yes. If, truly, not one individual suffers any more than their own, combining them makes no sense because not one individual suffers more (besides the man). Caring about the aggregate of suffering is caring about nonexistent suffering because no one experiences the aggregate suffering, therefore it doesn't exist in reality because suffering needs to be experienced in order for it to actually exist.

They CAN be, as I have more than demonstrated already.

No, you haven't demonstrated it because you still insist on aggregating pain, pleasure or preference together when the aggregate is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent. If you concede that you're caring about non-experienced and non-existent pain then, fine, you've demonstrated that you can aggregate together a bunch of pleasure, pain or preferences despite the fact that it isn't experienced by anyone and therefore doesn't exist.

I've proved that emotions can be compared quantitatively and qualitatively and showed an ABSURD consequence of your ideas.

No you haven't proved it, you think you have, there's a difference. Your aggregation makes no sense in actual reality, you're just playing with numbers, see above.

As for 'absurd consequence', I don't care how absurd a consequence is if it actually makes rational and logical sense. You do appear to be committing the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Your appeal to what you consider absurd is not a rational argument. As for your actual argument, see above.

[...] They way you've been using the term aggregate is abnormal, you DO NOT need to aggregate to compare.

You're the one who has been aggregating, not me.

[theVOID]

the consciousness barrier of individuals.

Misnomer.

When we are aggregating things like pleasure, pain, preference, like or dislike it's different. It's different because those things require conscious experience.

No, they don't.

Firstly there is self-reporting about conscious experience.

Secondly, there are MRI scans and strong links in terms of both causation and correlation.

When we aggregate individuals' say, pain together we are aggregating a total of pain that doesn't actually exist.

IT DOES EXIST, it exists inside the brains of the individuals being examined. We DO NOT need to have some means to simultaneously experience all the pain to make statements about it in terms of quantity OR quality, just like we do not need to combine a group of houses into a single house to make statements about the average temperature inside.

It doesn't actually exist because not one of the individuals experience any more pain than their own and that's relevant because experienced pain is the only kind of existent pain and pleasure. Experienced pain is existent pain. Nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain. Because pain requires experience.

It does not fucking matter, ANY conscious experience can be evaluated, especially relative to OTHER experiences. I do not need to experience the pain of two other people simultaneously to know that punching one will cause more pain to one than slapping the other, I have three options, 1) Empathy, 2) Receiving their reports, 3) Neurological scans.

Experienced happiness is the only kind of happiness. Not one individual experiences more than their own, so when you aggregate them you are aggregating nonexperienced and nonexistent happiness.

And it DOES exist, INSIDE THEIR BRAINS. I do not need to be their brain OR experience in my brain what they experience in their brain in order to make meaningful claims about it. It is the same way we can tell by laughter how many people enjoyed a joke and how many did not, we can then use that data to make meaningful claims about which joke was better for the most people. We can ALSO look at how hard they laughed or how strongly they reacted against it for the Qualitative comparison.

If everyone experiences happiness the same, then each individual matters and should be cared about, but it makes no sense to aggregate them because, as I said, no one experiences any more than their own happiness, no one experiences anything close to the aggregate. Nonexperienced happiness is nonexistent happiness.

Again, it IS experienced.

Each individual DOES matter, they CONTRIBUTE to data used in the evaluation.

Not one individual experiences any more pain in the larger group. None=not one. And not one experiencing more = no more existent pain because nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain.

Oh for fucks sake, stop using the same exact straw man each time. For the LAST time:

I DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE PAIN BE COLLECTIVELY EXPERIENCED TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE DISTRIBUTION.

Individuals are all that suffer. There is no more suffering than the sufferers. To aggregate different sufferers suffering together is to care about suffering that is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent.

Let me make it REALLY simple for you.

Group 1 has 10 people suffering 1x.

Group 2 has 5 people suffering 1x.

Which group contains the more suffering individuals?

If you had to chose between group 1 or group 2 suffering 1x and wanted to know which choice would result in the least amount of suffering, which option would you chose?

At which point in this evaluation did the suffering cease to exist?

And any aggregated happiness is happiness that is experienced by no one in the group. And because it's not experienced by anyone it's not existent. Only the separate values of happiness for each individual exists, the aggregated total is a fantasy.

I'm fucking over this, it's like jamming chop sticks up my nose and into my brain whilst banging my head against a brick wall.

To any of the individuals yes. But to an aggregate that is not experienced by any individuals whatsoever and therefore not existent, no.

It DOES EXIST...

X Likes the experience of seeing red
Y likes the experience of seeing blue
Z likes the experience of seeing red

You can introduce either Red or Blue light into the room.

Which will be most in line with the preferences of the most individuals? RED
What is the ratio of people who would like RED to BLUE? 2:1
At which point did we attempt to aggregate their preferences into a shade or purple? NEVER.

This comparison is perfectly valid and is in principle NO DIFFERENT to evaluating ANY other conscious experience

Yes. If, truly, not one individual suffers any more than their own, combining them makes no sense because not one individual suffers more (besides the man). Caring about the aggregate of suffering is caring about nonexistent suffering because no one experiences the aggregate suffering, therefore it doesn't exist in reality because suffering needs to be in experienced in order for it to actually exist.

So here is a moral dilemma for you:

You have a man who is going to die an excruciating death with a suffering value of 10 unless he rapes 10 women - The individual experience of rape is less painful that the death this man will face, with a suffering value of 5. You have to make a decision about whether you will let this man out of his cell and into the rooms with the women.

What do you chose? Why?

If you chose to let the man rape the 10 women then not only are you WRONG, but you're fucking DANGEROUS, DELUDED and INSANE and should NEVER be elected into or given ANY form of power EVER.

No, you haven't demonstrated it because you still insist on aggregating pain, pleasure or preference together when the aggregate is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent. If you concede that you're caring about non-experienced and non-existent pain then, fine, you've demonstrated that you can aggregate together a bunch of pleasure, pain or preferences despite the fact that it isn't experienced by anyone and therefore doesn't exist.

I've already showed you WHY that's complete bullshit, the experience DOES exist and we CAN make meaningful evaluations.

No you haven't proved it, you think you have, there's a difference. Your aggregation makes no sense in actual reality, you're just playing with numbers, see above.

No, my argument makes perfect sense, your objection is what is complete bullshit.

As for 'absurd consequence', I don't care how absurd a consequence is if it actually makes rational and logical sense. You do appear to be committing the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Your appeal to what you consider absurd is not a rational argument. As for your actual argument, see above.

It isn't logical, your main objection, that for us to make meaningful comparisons about experiential phenomenon we need to experience all relevant experience ourselves is completely wrong, thus your assertion that because it cannot be done the evaluation fails is FALSE.

You're the one who has been aggregating, not me.

I've hardly used the term aggregate except in direct response to where you've misused it. A comparative evaluation of data in a larger context is completely legitimate and is commonplace in psychology and neuroscience.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, they don't.

If, say, pain or pleasure isn't experienced how would it be painful or pleasurable? Well, we could still consider unconscious, unexperienced pain or pleasure to still be pain or pleasure, however I don't care about non-experienced pain or pleasure since they effect no one.

IT DOES EXIST, it exists inside the brains of the individuals being examined.

My whole point is that it does exist to the individuals but the aggregate doesn't exist. The aggregate of pain or pleasure is experienced by not one individual, by none, no one. And because it's experienced by no one it doesn't exist. The aggregate doesn't exist.

We DO NOT need to have some means to simultaneously experience all the pain to make statements about it in terms of quantity OR quality,

My point is that we can't aggregate them. See above.

It does not fucking matter, ANY conscious experience can be evaluated, especially relative to OTHER experiences.

But they cannot be aggregated because the aggregation doesn't exist in reality.

And it DOES exist, INSIDE THEIR BRAINS.

To each individual yes. But no aggregated pain or pleasure exists.

Again, it IS experienced.

Again, yes, to the individuals but the aggregate is non-existent because it is non-experienced.

Each individual DOES matter,

Yes, that's what I said.

they CONTRIBUTE to data used in the evaluation.

Not if it's aggregated data, unless you're interested in nonsensical data. Nonsensical because it doesn't exist because it isn't experienced.

I DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE PAIN BE COLLECTIVELY EXPERIENCED TO MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE DISTRIBUTION.

If you aggregate properties together that require experience but those experiences can only exist separately and individually and fundamentally cannot be aggregated, that makes no sense.

Which group contains the more suffering individuals?

Besides the point. I'm not questioning the amount of sufferers, I'm saying that the quantity of sufferers cannot be aggregated because it makes no sense.

At which point in this evaluation did the suffering cease to exist?

Never. My point is that the aggregate suffering you believe in never existed and never exists. You're playing with numbers. You may like aggregating together the individual experiences of individual sufferers but it is still the case that not one, none suffers more than the individual suffering most, and it makes no sense to aggregate them because the aggregate would require an aggregated consciousness, it would have to be experienced by the aggregate rather than just the individuals, otherwise the aggregate pain doesn't exist, as it doesn't.

The aggregated pain is experienced by not one, none, no one. The aggregated pain therefore doesn't exist because experience is a prerequisite for pain. Got it?

I'm fucking over this, it's like jamming chop sticks up my nose and into my brain whilst banging my head against a brick wall.

And why are you so frustrated simply because I disagree with you?

It DOES EXIST...

The aggregate doesn't exist in reality. You're playing with numbers. See above.

[...]You have a man who is going to die an excruciating death with a suffering value of 10 unless he rapes 10 women - The individual experience of rape is less painful that the death this man will face, with a suffering value of 5. You have to make a decision about whether you will let this man out of his cell and into the rooms with the women.

[What do you chose? Why?

The greatest number of suffering is to the man. That's why I would choose to save the man if I was to choose the more moral option.

If you chose to let the man rape the 10 women then not only are you WRONG,

I'm not wrong.

but you're fucking DANGEROUS,

No, because saying what I think is the most moral is a matter of philosophical opinion and entirely different to whether I'd actually do it or not.

DELUDED and INSANE and should NEVER be elected into or given ANY form of power EVER.

Irrelevant to the fact that I'm right. Ad-Homs on top of your appeal to your own bewildered opinion that my points are absurd. On top of your committing of the Argument from Personal Incredulity. How relevant (!)

I've already showed you WHY that's complete bullshit, the experience DOES exist and we CAN make meaningful evaluations.

I never denied the individual experiences. See above. I denied and am denying the existence of aggregate experience (because no one experiences it), once again, see above.

No, my argument makes perfect sense, your objection is what is complete bullshit.

The aggregation makes no sense. It's based on nothing.

Why do we aggregate money and things like that together? Because with, say - to continue the example - money, we make the rules. We decide that when you get two one dollar bills together, that's worth two dollars.

It would be very possible for us to invent the rules so that money couldn't be aggregated together, but that would make money useless.

The difference with consciousness is, we don't make the rules, because, in reality, consciousness really is separate. Well, we can still make the rules and pretend that consciousness isn't separate, but why on earth would you want to do that if you're really trying to address the pain and pleasure that is actually experienced by conscious individuals that are fundamentally separate by nature and so it is nonsensical to aggregate them together?

It isn't logical, your main objection, that for us to make meaningful comparisons about experiential phenomenon we need to experience all relevant experience ourselves is completely wrong,

I never said we had to experience it ourselves. When did I say that? I say that the individuals suffer but the aggregate doesn't because the aggregate doesn't exist... so why should we aggregate the individual experiences?

[Edwardo Piet]

I've also got a parallel moral dilemma for you:

You have a choice between saving ten million women from being raped, each with a suffering value of 1000, or saving an infinite number of people suffering a pinprick each with a suffering value of 1.

What do you choose, and why?