Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
- WisdomNotStrife
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: September 25th, 2014, 7:37 pm
Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
If it's not that it's, oh, a school bus full of kids that has overturned, one of them injured and stuck, and a swarm of deadly bees heading their way.
Never have I seen utilitarianism applied to anything real, like the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1979 or, oh, nuclear power vs. coal.
Please explain.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
Utilitarianism is also against our basic biology, and is simply not how the vast majority of people view moral issues. On average, most parents favor their children over strangers, and this will always be the case. Even Singer admitted when he was assisting his ill mother that he was violating his utilitarian principles. But, the thing is, how can we base morality on a system that is so antagonistic to our human nature that very few people could ever follow it?
Utilitarianism is nonsense on steroids.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
If we can frame specific circumstances and make more obvious choices clear in our heads (for whatever reason you choose) then when something akin to this, although in reality much more intricate and complex, is brought to question in real life we have a basis on which to build an opinion and decide upon a course of action (which will inevitably fail in some way, but will at least pave a way for a better understanding if we review our choices and steps rather than adhere to some form of implanted idealism which is the obvious trap of Utilitarian thought if taken in an idealistic way).
Example: "I like cake. Should I eat cake all the time?"
First step consider the effects on the adjectives and verbs to start. Will I always like cake? Will eating cake all the time take away the pleasure of eating cake? Does eating cake benefit my body and health? How much is too much? Do other people want my cake too? Should I share my cake? How often should I share/eat my cake? Should I only eat cake if I have done X amount of exercise? Do I have diabetes? Will I get diabetes!?
To stop at the original question is stupidity. The point of its use is to expand it once the initial question has been answered.
As for the above hypothetiocal, I don't really think hotdogs are the best food in the world and I don't like people. I think cycling is good ... go figure!
I can only judge my decision on the initial data. If we were to look at a way of valuing the "crowd" then my answer may differ. I think we are much less sympathetic to "crowds" than indivduals? What do you think (not really asking for an answer just think about it).
Now it doesn't look so pointless a question does it? Just put the work in and play around with dilemmas that don't feel comfortable. Then when some actually real life dilemma occurs you just might act in a way you'll be happy with, or as least stand a better chance of recognizing you erred and try to amend your faulty assumptions.
And then you'll eventually die one day and I wish you to have this expression on your silly little human face
-
- Posts: 94
- Joined: September 28th, 2015, 12:57 am
Re: Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
So some will be based on the principle of utilitarianism by choosing the one that causes least suffering
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Utilitarianism never seems to be connected to real life
Or when you bicycle down a midnight road, to the crossroads, where the roads cross, and get the devil to tune up your guitar -- do you drop acid for the rest of your musical career afterward, or do you take steroids and inject anthropomorphid testosterone to win the French Tour de France?WisdomNotStrife wrote:Every time I see anything about utilitarianism it is being discussed/evaluated/analyzed in terms of some far-fetched scenario that somebody conjures up. You know, like a hot dog cart speeding down a hill with an individual bicyclist in its path followed by a large crowd. Do we save the bicyclist and put the many lives in the crowd at risk? Or do we let the cart hit the bicyclist and eliminate the risk to the crowd? Which choice maximizes aggregate pleasure and minimizes aggregate suffering?
If it's not that it's, oh, a school bus full of kids that has overturned, one of them injured and stuck, and a swarm of deadly bees heading their way.
Never have I seen utilitarianism applied to anything real, like the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1979 or, oh, nuclear power vs. coal.
Please explain.
Or when your mother makes two lunches for school: one for you, baloney sammich with pickled skunk extract, and one for your sister, oligarch-kaviar with baited steel hooks?
Or when you see a deadly meteor approaching our world, trying desperately to convince the nation to unite and not vote for Trumpf, but the only alternative to getting him into the office at that point is to vote in a conniving, lying, cheating, spineless Kuunt, who allows her husband to laugh in the face of promises made in holy matrimony, in order to hang on to power and money, money and the power?
Or when your every daily bread is laced full of miasma, growth hormones, impesticides, and chemicals that are or act like estrogen or estrogen-mimics?
Or when your gun backfires? Not even in a realistic place, like in a battle situation in your bedroom, but just in impossible places, like the shooting range, or in court, or during drug deal?
(ETC.)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023