(Close to) No one truly believes in Utilitarian ethics
Utilitarian ethics is supposed to be the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people, but how many of you ACTUALLY live on the bare minimum and give all your money away to charity so that others can live on the bare minimum?
If you were a True utilitarian, you'd live in the shittiest apartment possible, take the bus or drive the cheapest car available, have only enough clothes that are acceptable for work. Never travel, not go to the cinema or pay for music, buy the shittiest phone and laptop. Etc
In conclusion many people claim to be utilitarian but few people when pressed actually live up to the claim. So maybe they should rethink their ethics?
If you were a True utilitarian, you'd live in the shittiest apartment possible, take the bus or drive the cheapest car available, have only enough clothes that are acceptable for work. Never travel, not go to the cinema or pay for music, buy the shittiest phone and laptop. Etc
In conclusion many people claim to be utilitarian but few people when pressed actually live up to the claim. So maybe they should rethink their ethics?
Comments (22)
From your profile:
"...I love having logical debates with people and its how I make friends, but I apply logic not just to philosophy but also psychology, socialising, entrepreneurship and life."
I noticed you have started a few discussion threads but never really engaged with people.
So, what is the point of that ?
But is it a 'True' misunderstanding. Or is it a Mere provocation from a Devil.
Or is the OP just playing silly buggers and is full of 'it...
As per other threads started: 'Stoicism is bullshit' and 'Economists are full of shit'...
Whatever, it does raise interesting questions acting as an entry point...
Thanks for the link to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demandingness_objection
At the end, there is a further link to
https://www.utilitarianism.net/objections-to-utilitarianism/demandingness
which forms part of the 'textbook' introduction to utilitarianism:
Quoting utilitarianism.net
As an example:
What is the best thing that can happen to mankind right now, that would benefit with the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people? Well, for arguments' sake, it is the saving of the environment.
The environment is (for argument's sake) being destroyed by humans. So to save the environment, humanity must be reduced in numbers, and kept constantly at a lower headcount than now.
For this, most of humanity must be destroyed and / or else not allowed to reproduce.
Therefore the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is to reduce the benefits to the greatest amount of people and to disallow them to practice their greatest biological benefit, which is reproduction.
Quoting idiom dictionary
Quoting Gitonga
Glad to see the engagement :smile:
This is the misconception of the century. Please consider the following, I beg you:
1. It is people who are polluting and poisoning the environment.
2. There is no stopping to it.
3. The poisoning and polluting can theoretically be reversed.
4. The amount of people that we have today can't reduce the poisoning and pollution to a level at which the environment could recuperate. No matter what.
5. The obvious is inevitable: only fewer people on the globe can pollute to a limit at which the environment can recuperate.
I don't generally like slippery slope objections, but antinatalism could be particularly skiddy, best watch out for that.
Quoting Gitonga
No one truly believes? What do you mean by "truly"? That what people believe about it is not actually true? That they are faking?
I am afraid that you don't even know what Utilitarian ethics is. And, most importantly, you didn't even care to explore the subject. Instead, you just took a statement that is attributed to it and judge a whole system and huge subject (33 million results in Google) based on an offhand, limited --and in fact, false-- interpretation of that statement. This shows total irresponsibility and lacks any philosophical perspective.
Quoting Banno
Of course, @Banno. In fact, I think you are quite lenient in your remark. For me, the content of this topic shows total irresponsibility --the person is talking about a subject without having any idea what it is really about-- and actually lacks any philosophical perspective.
I am not going to "state" (!) what it is. You have to get your feet wet! However, because maybe you cannot select among the million of references in the Web on the subject, I can suggest a few standard sources:
- Utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
- Utilitarianism (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp)
- The History of Utilitarianism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/)
And if you are wondering how I understood that you don't have any idea about the subject, it is because none of these references say that you have to give all your money and property to charity or something similar! This is your idea.
But I have said enough. I hope at least that it is not done it in vain.
You are talking about climate change and how it's not documented it's reversible by reducing the population. But that's not a refutation of my argument. My argument was that polluting and poisoning the environment can be reversed by reducing the human head count.
Please line up your ducks more carefully. I hate it when a Strawman, or in fact any, fallacy is used against my argument. Please spare me the trouble. Please do read what I write and respond to what I write, and not respond to something I did not write.
Admittedly, if he's such a miserable human being that the only way everyone is better off is for him to fully retreat from society then his idea would be accurate.
Morality leads to a greater utility then utilitarianism.