TSR Philosophy Society (TSR PhilSoc)

It is not correct however, to argue that the fact that one cannot establish an objective, ‘independent scale’ of what persons value, renders utilitarianism possible.

All one need be able to do for utilitarianism is to be able to posit what others value and the relative strength of these preferences. We know intuitively that we would prefer to lose a glove relative to losing a hand, the absence of an objective scale of experience does not render it any less significant.

The point philosophically, is that understood correctly, in Mill’s hierarchy pleasure/pain and preferences accord exactly, hence why it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

by nature all persons prefer pleasure over suffering.

he simply demonstrates that an enjoyment of opera is more desirable than an enjoyment of one’s alcoholism.

I’ve already demonstrated how it will work in practise.

If we accept the premise of the utilitarian goal;

Mill is entirely correct, and in any case doesn’t draw on the Golden Rule, he states that logically followed it is identical to utilitarianism.

If you’re asserting that sacrifice has intrinsic value, then you’re clearly asserting a different thesis altogether

Further situation ethics isn’t an example of moral relativism, it offers the agape principle as an absolute ethical standard

as with the utilitarian rule.

What ‘underpins’ the Golden Rule is irrelevant,

Claiming that utilitarianism is “materialistic” is potentially misleading. Utilitarianism is based on the totality of human experience, and the resulting preferences thereof, within its scope lies any preference of a person for any conceivable object (material or non), the point is that it is preferable.

I know that you don’t agree with the utilitarian principle, but you criticised utilitarianism on the basis that you thought it was a ‘platitude with no practical applications’.

For ethics to be based on maximising pleasure only one thing is required- the acceptance that pleasure is ethically superior to suffering. For it to be practically possible to base ethical behaviour on maximising pleasure all one need is the possibility, however slight, of being able to speculate as to whether an action is more or less likely to bring more or less pleasure. This is a binary opposition, if it is possible in some circumstances to do so, then one can act ethically according to the principle of maximising pleasure/minimising harm, whether or not one finds the world so complex that one only feels capable of making such a decision very rarely to a very small extent, if one believe that it is impossible to ever speculate as to whether action will bring harm or suffering, then it is clearly impossible to ever take account of the suffering of others.

You must agree that the actual validity of an ethical theory is whether it is accurate in itself, working through an example is demonstrably of no benefit,

Such a system of ‘ethics’ would functionally be the same as any form of system for calculating the greatest good

Nevertheless it raises the problem of endeavouring to know the “say so” of God. Functionally, unless the will of God is known directly, in the situations in which we have to act, morality would practically have to be derived from a system of ethical assertions which constitute morality, which are assumed to be derived directly from God.

“Uh? Did you mean 'impossible'?”

“Well, we're back to whether these preferences are commensurable and transitive. If A > B and B > C then is A > C?”

“it becomes incumbent on the utilitarian to exactly delimit this scale, doesn't it? Such a hierarchy must be axiomatic, since it cannot be derived from pure utility. So what criteria will we use to formulate this hierarchy 'correctly'? Who will draw up the scale and what if some people prefer a different scale?”

“I don't think that's true unless you make 'pleasure' malleable to the extent where a sado-masochist's pleasure is somehow different from a philanthropist's.”

“He can assert it, but he can't demonstrate it, since it's entirely a matter of personal opinion. De gustibus non disputandum est, as the Latin saying goes.”

“No, you really haven't. You've just repeated yourself at length. You've refused to work through any examples, not given any guidelines about how it deals with any real-world systems.”

“What is that goal? A system of ethics without God? I certainly don't accept that.”

“I've already said that I don't accept that people's preferences have binding force at all. I believe we can subordinate individual preferences in order to pursue a higher goal. Because I believe that people are sinful, I don't consider their preferences to be an inerrant guide to what's good and noble. Rather the contrary.”

“He's talking nonsense though. For a start it's not what Jesus taught. Jesus did not teach "Love your neighbour as yourself" in abstraction. It was always subordinate to "Love the Lord your God with all your strength, soul and mind".”

“Of course it does. The whole thesis if Christianity is that Jesus gave up Godhood in order to rescue mankind. He gave up the greater pleasure for a lesser one. Surely no-one can believe that human beings are more valuable than God? That's the mystery of the Incarnation.”

“Yes, but agape is a sacrificial love.”

“No, not at all. Utilitarianism is about pleasure. It tries to appropriate other terms in order to cover up its cold, calculating heart. It always has to borrow from other philosophies in order to shore up its own flaws.”

“I don't think so. I simply think utilitarians want to dress up a shallow philosophy by equating it to a better (if still incomplete) one.”

“Then you've made it so woolly that it will baa soon. So, what of God's preferences? By what fiat did utilitarianism suddenly constrain God? “

“I thought I criticised utilitarianism on the basis that it relies on a calculus which can embrace atrocities. I criticised your version on the basis that I think that it's just platitudes and that you've refused to say how it might work in a specific example.

If you're now arguing that you only ever meant Golden Rule ethics, not classic utilitarianism, with its essential calculus, then I'll move on to address that.”

“I'm trying hard to be polite here, so bear with me. Very few real-world actions have a simple yes/no answer. The example I gave earlier has dozens of different benefits and costs. Even sitting and typing this message has a whole realm of possible outcomes, some of which would be of benefit and some not. It might help you understand if I type some more, but that means that I'll spend less time with my family. So it's hard to envisage that I can reduce each action to a simple benefit/cost. There will always be a spectrum, not black/white. This is a multi-factorial world and any attempt to reduce it to pleasure/pain is not only flawed, but stupid.”

“It was to show you that your system will involve a calculus and that you'll have to establish a scale. Once that becomes apparent to you, it will be much easier to show you why that calculus will support atrocities, if we take it to its logical conclusion.

If you deny that an atrocity can exist at all, then that would be a fruitful line of discussion. I believe that there are values outside hedonism which factor in our decision making. When trying to deal with earlier examples, you've used such principles while simultaneously denying them.”

“Au contraire. Working through examples is exactly how one can demonstrate incoherence. Bentham starts with a principle which claims to deal with all cases based upon its axioms alone and then shows how it works in practice. We can then demostrate that it does not disallow unethical scenarios like the "sadistic guards". So we show by example that the ethics presented are incomplete and/or incoherent.”

“I don't agree that it would be ethics at all.”

“I'm not getting very far in showing TCovenant that his belief system isn't an ethical panacaea.”