Submitted by contractualist t3_yhhoib in philosophy
bildramer t1_iuh9iyw wrote
That's, like, "watermelons vs. the color red" - what are you even talking about?
An utility function is little more than a mathematical abstraction that captures already existing preferences. Saying someone "values utility" is tautological. Arguably, being consequentialist is tautological. Perhaps confusingly, "utilitarianism" usually means "you should value other people's values equally", sometimes without the "equally".
Many people have a strong preference for freedom. That's just a fact, something that has to be incorporated whenever you try to calculate someone's preferences/utility function correctly. Keeping these ideas in mind, your post makes little sense.
>Second, utility arises as part of an amoral biological process of evolutionary adaptation. Something amoral cannot create something moral.
That makes "moral" a completely useless word, then. It can't refer to anything, since the planet was 100% amoral at some point in the past.
contractualist OP t1_iuharvw wrote
This post deals with meta-ethics, on what grounds morality itself. I don't agree that its obviously utility to the point of tautology. I make that case herein my "utility coach" thought experiment. There I argue that freedom's value exists beyond utility.
I also address the basis for morality here. Happy to hear your thoughts so I can address them in future posts.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments