 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Clicking on this thread is like going to California.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
I believe that the goal of life is life itself.
Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible. All that helps this goal is good. Everything that goes against this goal is bad.
But it seems that I am not a true utilitarian after all.F.E. Utilitarians speak about spreading happiness, in general. My goal is the betterment of the conditions of the human race, not including animals, etc.
I know that many of you have doubts about utilitarianism. I had my doubts as well. You're are free to ask questions, counter my arguements, and present your own theories.  |
I agree with almost all of that. The more happiness, the better. Although I think the needs of the individual has to come in somewhere, so would not always follow whatb is best for society, but in the most part, I agree.
About farting in public, I think the utilitarian point of view would be to generally allow it. It is more of a benefit to the individual to expell it than it is to society not to have the smell IMHO. I guess it just depends on what you believe creats more happiness. However, since that does affect the rights of others, what would be the Libertarian point of view? In some case, would what's best for society be more what's best for the individual than the Libertarian point of view, since Utilitarianism means you can affect gthe rights of others?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
The biggest problem I have with Utilitarianism is trying to define happiness. What counts when trying to maximise happiness, and what does not?
One could argue discomfort is less harmful then the smell since the smell affects many people, and discomfort just affects you.
It's very difficult with utilitarianism to look at a moral problem without coming up with opposite arguments and having both equally valid under the presuppositions of utilitarianism.
Also, it can be time-consuming to calculate the greatest good for each moral situation. Sometimes you don't have that time available, but still have to decide.
One response to these criticisms is to modify utilitarianism with deontological maxims, or rules to regulate what is moral. These rules are designed to maximise happiness, so that they remain consistent with other forms of utilitarianism. This approach is called Rule Utilitarianism.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 11-01-2003 at 17:32
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Illyrien
|
 |
Kingdom of Denmark
Apr 2001 time: 06:25
|
|
"Therefore it would be best if as much people as possible would be as happy as possible for the longest time possible"
Well, it is a beatiful though, the only problem with it is this: Is it okay to rape a woman, if you get more pleasure out of it then her suffering... afterall this act does produce more happiness then is lost.
I dont believe it. I believe that the rights of the individual outweights anything else. This is why I am a liberalist (well, I think the term is Libetarian on these boards).
GePad
"the well-being of the whole of humanity always takes precedent"
That just raises 1 questions. What is best for Humanity??? Since such a best does not exist (unless you are a Red, who tend to believe that it does, and that they alone know what it is), we should not try force "a best for Humanity" on people.
Last edited by Illyrien on 12-01-2003 at 08:23
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|