 |
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:13
|
|
As the title tells, I'm something of an utilitarian. Greatest good for greatest number - the utility maximization - has always seemed to me to be the best way to conduct the society - and your own life, too.
Now, all people have their ideal society, their vision of what things should be like. Of course, this is most pronounced in utopians - communists, libertarians and like - who have a strong vision of a perfect society and would be ready implement some quite radical reforms for it to happen.
Of course, all people aren't utilitarians, and many of these utopists have other moral codes as basis of their utopia. The concept of natural rights as pronounced by Floyd and others, for example. That doesn't matter to me. I'm interested in how much good will the society bring, if implemented. Will the average happiness quotient, if something like that could be imagined, rise?
There are many things involved in this, naturally. Would there be much suffering in implementation of the society? Will the standard of living for most people improve? Considering much of people's happiness depends on their freedom of choice as pertaining to cars and houses and like, how much freedom will there be? Is the society stable against internal or external threats? What are the chances of utopia going horribly wrong, Soviet Union-style? What would be short-term and what would be long-term benefits? Things like those are all important parts of how good the society would be.
As mentioned, some people's ideal society might not lead to greatest good for greatest number, but be based on some other ideals and standards. If that's so, and you can admit, then feel free to do so. Won't be likely to make me value that utopia much, but hey, can't win them all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:13
|
|
See, I'm not interested in what the greatest good is, I'm interested in what is right and moral.
Now, I think laissez faire does bring the greatest good for the greatest number, but more importantly, it is right and moral. There's a distinction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970 time: 07:13
|
|
quote: See, I'm not interested in what the greatest good is, I'm interested in what is right and moral.
Now, I think laissez faire does bring the greatest good for the greatest number, but more importantly, it is right and moral. There's a distinction. |
Well, see, I think that what's right and moral is what brings greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, if you want to convince me that laissez faire is right and moral, prove it brings greatest good for the greatest number.
quote: In my Ideal society, the people of Finland will be taken out of their country. Finland will then be filled with very poor people from all over the world who might otherwise starve, thus saving a whole bunch of lives. The Finns will then be used as the world's slaves. This provides the greatest good for the greatest number because the bad of enslaving the Finns is outweighed by the Good of Saving all those poor people's lives, and the world's billions of peopel get the benefits of what the Finnish slaves would have to do- for instance, we could use them as guinea pigs for scientists to test new medicines on. It is quite probable that we may once again save enough people equal to the population of Finland from diseases cured. |
I don't know if this is anti-utilitarian argument or some kind of weird Finland-bash that seems to follow me around. 
In any case, bringing someone to Finland doesn't stop them from starving, and there are methods of testing medicines that don't require us to torture poor Finns. And anyway, this would be creating precedent allowing us to kidnap and slave entire nations, which would assuredly be negative enough an effect that all positive benefits would be cancelled. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Why, because my society is specially designed and pruned to accomplish this task.
The basic thesis that forms the framework for my society is that all people belong to several identity groups, ie groups of people who identify themselves as something or are identified by society as something. Men, Women, The Working Class, Citizens, Immigrants, Ethnic Eritreans, Asian-Americans, whatever. Power in society as it stands now is divided so that some of these groups have substantially more power, and thus have their interests looked after and their ideas propagated much more than others. Men, for instance, dominate society both culturally and practically when compared to women. What my society does is to attempt to create a constitutional framework whereby all groups have a say, a majority cannot dominate a minority, and power is shared as equally as possible between the groups relating to a certain set of identities as possible. In short, a pluralised version of Machiavelli's classical Civic-Republican model of government.
This model has many advantages. It ensures that no-one is trampled upon, while still redistributing power from those who have much of it to those who have little of it. It doesn't trample on liberties. It is not less democratic than most other models, in fact more so. By encouraging identity groups and citizen groups to become active in politics, it creates a more vibrant democratic scene than ever before. And it's efficient. It doesn't allow any one group to create a hegemony and siphon off society's resources, and it stops wasteful beuraucratic monoculture by bringing in fresh ideas from a wide variety of sources. It combats corruption by keeping everyone on their toes constantly, and by not having an elite group in the first place.
Long live New Pluralist Republican Post-Modern Feminism!
Read: Democracy and Difference by Anne Phillips 1993.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Paul Hanson
|
 |
Dilbert
Aug 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
My "ideal" society would go like this.
Firstly, everyone who posts on Apolyton, with the obvious exception of my good self, would be murdered in their sleep. If they decided to stay awake to avoid being killed, I will simply have them killed through sleep depravation. This will be done in order to rid the world of some rathre anally retentive and frankly, quite dull people.
Secondly, I will sit back and allow the world to run it's course. Elementary Hansonian Theory states that the world is inevitable working itself towards perfection, since time heals all wounds, physical, mental and metaphorical. This process cannot be speeded up or slowed down in any way, so all we can do is sit back and hope it comes in our lifetime.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|