Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j99w46m wrote

Reply to comment by DJ_Jonezy in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 13, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

>Well for many ancient people, the answer was simple: if something upsets the gods, it's bad. If it pleases them, it's good.

Maybe, though non-theological ethical philosophy did start in "ancient" times (e.g. see the Ancient Greeks), not all religions had/have gods (e.g. Animism, Buddhism), plenty of people (maybe the majority?) today claim their morality stems from their religion, and of those who don't only a fraction utilise ethical theories to make judgements, rather relying on their intuitions and what their society expects.

>Stuff about Kant

I couldn't find the relevant passage where he lays out his thought experiments about lying, so I can't confirm what you said. I also can't remember whether he used them as examples of or arguments for his categorical imperative framework. And I can't remember anything to do with kittnes lol. In any case, it's strange of you to bring up Kant but not mention the categorical imperative. I get that it's complicated (rules vs. duties, how to resolve conflicts, etc.), and I'm not entirely convinced Kant had fully thought it all out himself, but the way you treat him still feels unfair.

>Jumping to utilitarianism

You started by asking "what actually makes something 'bad' or 'good'", then jumped pretty much into stating your version of utilitarianism. It's fine to be a utilitarian, but you shouldn't pretend you actually made any arguments for why it is correct.

>Stuff about conservatives

I personally think you're right that conservatives, as with almost everyone in society, don't spend much time thinking carefully about ethical theories when making moral judgements, and instead react with their gut combined with the usual psychological biases (in-group vs. out-group, familiarity, confirmation bias etc.). At least the religious can appeal to their scripture, even if it's only when convenient to what they already think. But I don't know if widespread adoption of utilitarianism would help society or mankind. I don't think anyone has ever adopted a life solely governed by utilitarian ideals, because to do so would be nigh impossible; are you familiar with the common criticisms of utilitarianism? Oh and any conservative watching your video will identify what you say they say as strawmen.

2

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9b4o1v wrote

Thanks for the feedback mate!

Yeah the thing about people viewing morality through the lens of religion is admittedly very oversimplified, so I'll probably add some clarification in a text box.

And yeah I made the thing about the kitten up lol. Although I did mention the categorial imperative, so you might've read over that?

True, I was thinking about making a case for (act) utilitarianism although I wanna keep the video succinct.

You don't think the adoption of utilitarianism would help society? And the only criticisms of it I'm familiar with are that people could use utilitarianism to justify terrible things (like the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and that it's hard to quantify how much utility something has. Feel free to provide more though.

2

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j9bkacm wrote

Some criticisms of utilitarianism: it implies you shouldn't vote; it deals poorly with unlikely (with hard to quantify probability) but potentially devastating events (e.g. people have used it to argue we should pump loads of money into businesses dubiously working on solutions to the potential AI apocalypse); it implies you should spend all of your time working for as much money as possible and give almost all of it away to charities with the largest marginal impact on reducing human suffering (so probably sorts of foreign aid like the stuff recommended on GiveWell), retaining only enough to scrape by on; it implies enslaving masses and hooking them up to neverending drugs to keep them constantly in a state of ignorant unthinking bliss is good; it implies if the resources to make someone stop suffering are more efficiently spent elsewhere, then that person should be killed. There are defences of course.

2

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9bnpry wrote

a) How does it imply you shouldn't vote?
b) How is that the fault of utilitarianism? That just sounds to me like a consequence of capitalism
c) I think you're referring to effective altruism there, which yes, is founded in utilitarianist principles. The point of effective altruism (and utilitarianism as a whole) is to produce the most good possible (which may involve working a lot to donate to charity, but Peter Singer warns against spreading yourself too thin, as it may actually affect your ability to spread goodness. "Secure your own mask [in the event of an emergency on a plane] first before assisting others" is a good analogy)

2

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j9cckkd wrote

I should let you know that I am not anti-utilitarian, far from it. I'm just providing some devil's advocate arguments which are important to reckon with.

a) In an election of substantial size, the likelihood your vote will make a difference is beyond miniscule. Therefore your time would be better spent elsewhere.

b) and c) I edited my post to add more critiques and changed the order, so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the problem of needing to devote your life to making money and then giving it all to charity, then there are a few counterpoints to your defences. Firstly, it's not great for an ethical theory to say "it's not my fault I don't work, it's the global economy's fault". Alternative approaches like virtue and deontological ethics purport to provide answers as to how to live in this unjust world without being asked to do the impossible. Secondly, a utilitarian will only be able to sit back and enjoy their life once humanity lives in a utopia; until then, they must give up their lives toiling away for the betterment of any who suffer, assuming that the suffer the utilitarian feels from toiling is less than the difference they can make to others' lives, a fact which does not depend on any economic system. Thirdly, Singer's defence of one's own wellbeing as a tool to help spread goodness might be seen more cynically as an excuse for not doing more. Singer is a great philanthropist, but he only gives away around 40% of his wealth, not 90%. He isn't surviving on the bare minimum, which he could achieve by living in the cheapest possible accommodation, eating the cheapest foods, using next to no utilities, moving to a country with the cheapest cost of living while maintaining enough sanity and geographical connection to continue bringing in income. If you pressed him, I expect he would admit that taking care of his family to a decent standard of living comes first.

2