Pages:
Author

Topic: Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism - page 4. (Read 11105 times)

legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 04:25:23 PM
#29
you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point.
individual vs. group conflict.
No, it's much simpler than that. You cannot punish someone for something in the future. Think of it as a version of the "grandfather paradox." By killing the future next Hitler before he even attempts an aggressive action, I've just made it impossible for him to do so, thus invalidating my reason for killing him in the first place.
See time travel paradox, raises with Many-worlds interpretation. which universe would be best? Tongue
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 04:21:02 PM
#28
One person cannot care for every tree in the forest. 

Bingo.

Pick a tree, care for it. Everybody pick a tree, forest happy.

You are that tree. Everybody care for their tree, everybody happy.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 04:18:39 PM
#27
same conclusion, different reason?
No, same reason, really. "No need to be an asshole."
"i like to make people happy" and "i don't like people to be angry at me", there is a difference.
Two sides of the same coin.

you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point.
individual vs. group conflict.
No, it's much simpler than that. You cannot punish someone for something in the future. Think of it as a version of the "grandfather paradox." By killing the future next Hitler before he even attempts an aggressive action, I've just made it impossible for him to do so, thus invalidating my reason for killing him in the first place.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 04:14:05 PM
#26
You're focusing on the forest, and ignoring the trees. Care for each tree, and the forest will prosper.
tired now. thinking about tree hugging. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
November 17, 2012, 04:13:32 PM
#25
One person cannot care for every tree in the forest.  We've been seeking some great leader to solve everyone's problems, a perfect king, when no such thing is achievable.  Everyone must help their self become a better person, nobody can make you hate or love but yourself.  We can help each other improve ourselves.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 04:10:52 PM
#24
Helping yourself is greed, where does that get us?  I'll tell you, greed creates a society ruled by sociopathic humans that seek power and control of their neighbors rather than peace and prosperity amongst all.  Greed creates a society that irresponsibly consumes resources from the earth, unsustainable, when alternative options are known, for the sake of the industry that stands.  Greed creates a society where humans judge and hate each other, where bribery and a valueless concept of debt rule the minds of the population.  Ego creates mental disorders as we know, it makes people question their abilities and self esteem.  Ego makes people run from their problems by escaping realty, and no matter how far or fast you run, you can never escape your problems.  If people didn't eat junk food every time they're upset, or watch tv to ignore their feelings, or shoot up heroin or drink alcohol to find a sense of happiness, people could confront their problems.  People can become one, solve the problems of the world.

When you buy a sub at subway, you are going there to get a sub, correct?  Why do you need to have a certificate to eat?  If your neighbor asks for some sugar, do you give it to him or sell it to him?  Why do we sell goods to other humans, to accumulate our personal wealth, when we are all neighbors?  What if we helped each other so humanity could progress as a whole?  So we could all have a share of a much greater wealth?

You're focusing on the forest, and ignoring the trees. Care for each tree, and the forest will prosper.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
#23
dank = atlas^-1 ?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 04:05:50 PM
#22
same conclusion, different reason?
No, same reason, really. "No need to be an asshole."
"i like to make people happy" and "i don't like people to be angry at me", there is a difference.

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before?
Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report?
have watched it, noticed the more peaceful world without murder?
Except, it wasn't. There was murder. What happened to that young lady, do you remember?

They arrested her "murderer," and then someone else came along and killed her. Only fools are certain.
you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point.
individual vs. group conflict.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
November 17, 2012, 03:58:42 PM
#21
Helping yourself is greed, where does that get us?  I'll tell you, greed creates a society ruled by sociopathic humans that seek power and control of their neighbors rather than peace and prosperity amongst all.  Greed creates a society that irresponsibly consumes resources from the earth, unsustainable, when alternative options are known, for the sake of the industry that stands.  Greed creates a society where humans judge and hate each other, where bribery and a valueless concept of debt rule the minds of the population.  Ego creates mental disorders as we know, it makes people question their abilities and self esteem.  Ego makes people run from their problems by escaping realty, and no matter how far or fast you run, you can never escape your problems.  If people didn't eat junk food every time they're upset, or watch tv to ignore their feelings, or shoot up heroin or drink alcohol to find a sense of happiness, people could confront their problems.  People can become one, solve the problems of the world.

When you buy a sub at subway, you are going there to get a sub, correct?  Why do you need to have a certificate to eat?  If your neighbor asks for some sugar, do you give it to him or sell it to him?  Why do we sell goods to other humans, to accumulate our personal wealth, when we are all neighbors?  What if we helped each other so humanity could progress as a whole?  So we could all have a share of a much greater wealth?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
#20
same conclusion, different reason?
No, same reason, really. "No need to be an asshole."

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before?
Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report?
have watched it, noticed the more peaceful world without murder?
Except, it wasn't. There was murder. What happened to that young lady, do you remember?

They arrested her "murderer," and then someone else came along and killed her. Only fools are certain.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 03:24:30 PM
#19
thats cheating! don't avoid the question, try again but this time your girl is home playing ludo. would you give them the icecream?
but awesome teaching your girl being nice to others, some people don't do that. Smiley
Well, way I see it, going through life pissing people off at you isn't a very happy lifestyle, and since my daughter's not there to see me give away "her" icecream (thus reducing her happiness, and thus mine), and since I know there are several other stores where I could get chocolate (if I don't just get her chocolate chip, instead) icecream, Yes, I'd let them buy the icecream. Again, this isn't because I want to increase total global happiness or some such, but because I don't want people pissed off at me, thus reducing my happiness.
same conclusion, different reason?

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before?
Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report?
have watched it, noticed the more peaceful world without murder?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 03:08:34 PM
#18
thats cheating! don't avoid the question, try again but this time your girl is home playing ludo. would you give them the icecream?
but awesome teaching your girl being nice to others, some people don't do that. Smiley
Well, way I see it, going through life pissing people off at you isn't a very happy lifestyle, and since my daughter's not there to see me give away "her" icecream (thus reducing her happiness, and thus mine), and since I know there are several other stores where I could get chocolate (if I don't just get her chocolate chip, instead) icecream, Yes, I'd let them buy the icecream. Again, this isn't because I want to increase total global happiness or some such, but because I don't want people pissed off at me, thus reducing my happiness.

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before?
Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 02:19:10 PM
#17
Quote
I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized.
depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy.
You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice.
say you are at the market, and your little girl likes chocolate ice cream(say it gives her 1 units of happiness), there is only one bottle left in the freezer, you take it, just before someone else is going to. the person that was gonna take it also have a child, but his/hers child just loves chocolate icecream(say 2 happiness). would you give the icecream to them? maximizing happiness. or would you keep it, as you are perfectly able to do without violating the NAP, but with the knowledge of there gonna be 1 less happiness in the world?
It wouldn't be up to me. Not my happiness, you see. Now, if I were to run into this situation, I would ask my daughter. "Dear, that little girl really likes chocolate. There's this chocolate chip (or whichever flavor she likes almost as much as chocolate) ice cream here, which I'll get you if you want to give her the chocolate, which will make her very happy. What do you say?" If she does decide that the other girl's happiness is important to her happiness, then I'll tell her how proud I am of her for being so nice to that other girl, further increasing her happiness.
thats cheating! don't avoid the question, try again but this time your girl is home playing ludo. would you give them the icecream?
but awesome teaching your girl being nice to others, some people don't do that. Smiley

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
#16
Quote
I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized.
depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy.
You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice.
say you are at the market, and your little girl likes chocolate ice cream(say it gives her 1 units of happiness), there is only one bottle left in the freezer, you take it, just before someone else is going to. the person that was gonna take it also have a child, but his/hers child just loves chocolate icecream(say 2 happiness). would you give the icecream to them? maximizing happiness. or would you keep it, as you are perfectly able to do without violating the NAP, but with the knowledge of there gonna be 1 less happiness in the world?
It wouldn't be up to me. Not my happiness, you see. Now, if I were to run into this situation, I would ask my daughter. "Dear, that little girl really likes chocolate. There's this chocolate chip (or whichever flavor she likes almost as much as chocolate) ice cream here, which I'll get you if you want to give her the chocolate, which will make her very happy. What do you say?" If she does decide that the other girl's happiness is important to her happiness, then I'll tell her how proud I am of her for being so nice to that other girl, further increasing her happiness.

It's not a zero-sum game, and being rationally self-interested doesn't mean being an asshole.

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 01:26:19 PM
#15
Quote
Are the poor people in Africa incapable of bettering their situation? If so, why? What is stopping them? What is stopping those who love them? If you care so much about their happiness, what is stopping you?
why should i care about their happiness? well im forced care if im a Utilitarian.
Well, as a utilitarian, I would expect you to act to increase global happiness as much as possible. So why aren't there more people out there helping those poor African kids?
just because you are a utilitarian, does not mean that the whole world are. to be honest i don't know where i stand.

Quote
I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized.
depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy.
You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice.
say you are at the market, and your little girl likes chocolate ice cream(say it gives her 1 units of happiness), there is only one bottle left in the freezer, you take it, just before someone else is going to. the person that was gonna take it also have a child, but his/hers child just loves chocolate icecream(say 2 happiness). would you give the icecream to them? maximizing happiness. or would you keep it, as you are perfectly able to do without violating the NAP, but with the knowledge of there gonna be 1 less happiness in the world?

Quote
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting?
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
November 17, 2012, 01:25:50 PM
#14



Mutually exclusive philosophies suck.
legendary
Activity: 892
Merit: 1013
November 17, 2012, 01:14:21 PM
#13

Nice one.

But utilitarianism is not that simple. When you think about it, in most cases it's more like rational egoism but expanded to group of people you are in contact with. You cannot possibly be able to optimize for sum of happiness on the planet (too little information, too little computational power).
in reality that is true. but this is philosophy it does not care about reality(we all know that it does not exist anyway: solipsism Wink ). it might be better to explain utilitarianism as: would you sacrifice your happiness if it maximizes a group's(or worlds) happiness.

A rational Egoist might also be nice to others because it makes him happy. I don't know about you, but when I see a smile on my daughter's face, it brightens my day right up.
True. I guess i might have described it a little bit too rough.

Rational egoism is based on human nature, whereas utilitarianism is just a nice idealistic concept. To be honest, not many people really care about sufferings of unknown people that are far away.


Though upbringing in society usually injects utilitarian values into human mind (and it is difficult to overcome them), thus it is person's best interest to do something good for society if it is not too expensive for him/her personally.
the pic says nothing about utilitarianism vs. rational egoism, only about value of human life...  a utilitarian does not necessarily against killing people(eg. he would have killed Hitler). In the push-a-button case, he might have rationalized it as: my extra happiness would outweigh the average happiness of a person(or indirect happiness caused by the now dead person), therefor it maximizes the global happiness.

With 1 million dollars, i can save 3 poor guy in africa from starvation during 100 years and still enjoy a few improvement in my own life. I'm afraid i would push it a few time ...
Now i voted i don't care, because in this exemple i'm in between...
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
#12
Quote
Are the poor people in Africa incapable of bettering their situation? If so, why? What is stopping them? What is stopping those who love them? If you care so much about their happiness, what is stopping you?
why should i care about their happiness? well im forced care if im a Utilitarian.
Well, as a utilitarian, I would expect you to act to increase global happiness as much as possible. So why aren't there more people out there helping those poor African kids?

Quote
I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized.
depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy.
You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice.

also would you make your life better and a higher cost of someone else?
And how would I do that without violating the NAP? Violating the NAP would make me quite unhappy.
would you violate the NAP, if you knew that the world would be a better place if you did? (if you knew that a person would with absolutely certainty would become the next Hitler, and you are able to kill that person before he has aggressed, would you?)
Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
November 17, 2012, 12:40:51 PM
#11
also would you make your life better and a higher cost of someone else?
And how would I do that without violating the NAP? Violating the NAP would make me quite unhappy.
would you violate the NAP, if you knew that the world would be a better place if you did? (if you knew that a person would with absolutely certainty would become the next Hitler, and you are able to kill that person before he has aggressed, would you?)
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
November 17, 2012, 12:07:10 PM
#10
In the push-a-button case, he might have rationalized it as: my extra happiness would outweigh the average happiness of a person(or indirect happiness caused by the now dead person), therefor it maximizes the global happiness.

If all you are concerned with is global average happiness, then you can ignore a little local unhappiness. This is "missing the trees for the forest," and if everyone does this, your "little local unhappiness" will be repeated everywhere, until the whole world is unhappy.

Make your life better, and perhaps those of the ones you love, and if everyone does this, the world will be happy.
No. *insert generic poor black people in Africa argument here*.

Are the poor people in Africa incapable of bettering their situation? If so, why? What is stopping them? What is stopping those who love them? If you care so much about their happiness, what is stopping you?

I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized.

also would you make your life better and a higher cost of someone else?
And how would I do that without violating the NAP? Violating the NAP would make me quite unhappy.
Pages:
Jump to: