Poll: Utilitarian morality.

[CuddlyCombine]

This is directly influenced by a recent morality thread involving grenades and the hugging of. Props to that thread's creator. If you are getting bored of reading, just skip to below the picture of the smiley face.

Now, there are quite a few replies in said thread which deal with sacrificing oneself for the attention. As we all know, the modern media will venerate anyone who does anything slightly heroic, and you'll probably be invited to the talk show circuit by the next morning. It seems that society has grown so cynical and pessimistic that the mere thought of somebody doing something selfless will bring joy to all faces. If you're skeptical, look at the content on most main-stream news networks; generally, top-priority goes towards disasters or people who have survived disasters and are helping others survive disasters. There's something unifying and comforting in the thought that, at the worst of times, people can help each other.

There's no need to rant, though; this is just my opinion, and I like filling input boxes with brain-stew. I'll get to the main reason for why you're here.

Do you think that heroism, or, at the very least, philanthropy committed in the name of promoting self-interests is bad? Do you find it morally unjust, or is it completely acceptable if it reinstates or improves the status quo?

This is a pretty seasoned argument, but one a lot of people haven't really thought out. So, yeah. Poll included for those who must have numbers with their daily food intake.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I would rather have a dick give Six Million dollars to charity and boast about it for the rest of his life, then not to have him donate at all in the first place. And so would everyone else

 

[RatRace123]

Does the name Oprah ring any bells?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Does the name Oprah ring any bells?

Zing.

 

[ottenni]

They are still acting charitably. Better than people sitting at home grumbling about how they wouldn't be caught whoring out to the man. Even if they are selfish they are still doing something.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I would rather have a dick give Six Million dollars to charity and boast about it for the rest of his life, then not to have him donate at all in the first place. And so would everyone else

I second that Pimping choice. Let them brag, at least the money will be useful.

 

[S.R.S.]

I would rather have a dick give Six Million dollars to charity and boast about it for the rest of his life, then not to have him donate at all in the first place. And so would everyone else

True, True. But then again something about musicians flying first class to Haiti and getting what ever THEY want just doesn't sit right either. (The Hope for Haiti concert).

 

[JayDub147]

Hold on; are you saying that Utilitarianism is concerned with self-interest? I'm pretty sure that it is not.

For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

And in answer to your original question: yes, it's perfectly fine. If you help others, and it happens to help you too. If you were someone who only helped others when it benefits you, however...

 

[DoctorNick]

I would rather have a dick give Six Million dollars to charity and boast about it for the rest of his life, then not to have him donate at all in the first place. And so would everyone else

Essentially this, while it would be nice if people would give because, you know, it's the right thing to do and all of that I'll be more than happy to settle for people donating just to look good as long as donating is still being done.

I suppose the only time it becomes a problem is when it's detrimental to others. What I mean is lets say there is a disaster in x-town 20 miles away and 'Mr. Polishing My Narcissistic Image Man' demands to have a couple days off to go and volunteer in recovery efforts! Think about that for a second, there are probably already plenty of people there to help and he will be turned down, but by demanding to be let off to go help he:

A) Makes himself look 'good.'
B) Probably not actually have to do anything anyway.
C) Dump his workload onto his coworkers who kept working.

So, mister coughed-up-20-mil-now-put-me-on-Oprah man is MUCH preferable to miss I-'volunteered'-to-help-Katrina-victims lady who doesn't actually do anything and is an inconvenience to others.

 

[The Skip Master]

To do something selfishly is still doing something.

i say let them go ahead.

 

[Maze1125]

I have to wonder what this topic has to do with Utilitarianism...

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Hold on; are you saying that Utilitarianism is concerned with self-interest? I'm pretty sure that it is not.

For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

No, I'm saying that there seems to be a lot of support for utilitarian morality; that is, if the ends justify the means, it's all O.K.

But thank you for linking to Wikipedia.

I have to wonder what this topic has to do with Utilitarianism...

See above. I don't know if I can make it more basic.

 

[Maze1125]

if the ends justify the means, it's all O.K.

That's not Utilitarianism at all.

Utilitarianism is about maximising happiness.
In fact it has a sub theory called Rule Utilitarianism, which pretty much says that the end does not justify the means.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I said I'd describe it with my point of view, but then I decided it's all dependant on certain factors, too boring and long winded to explain.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

If you're doing a charitable act just to fulfill your selfish needs then why do it at all?

 

[dududf]

Well all charitable acts are actually selfish acts.

I'd rather have some selfish charity acts then no charity at all...

 

[CuddlyCombine]

That's not Utilitarianism at all.

Utilitarianism is about maximising happiness.
In fact it has a sub theory called Rule Utilitarianism, which pretty much says that the end does not justify the means.

While I applaud you for reading me the Wikipedia definition, note that said definition is very convoluted. I understand if you're feeling confused.

Anyway, to paraphrase you in a manner which (hopefully) is clear enough, the consequences of an action are viewed as being more important than the steps taken to achieve an outcome.

For example, you evict a bunch of villagers from their land because you're building a dam on the local river; said dam supplies power to a major metropolis. Utilitarian action.

My apologies if this is too confusing. Oh, and I don't mean to sound patronizing.

 

[Daniel Cygnus]

I would rather have a dick give Six Million dollars to charity and boast about it for the rest of his life, then not to have him donate at all in the first place. And so would everyone else

Ding! We've got a winner. At least some good is being done rather than no good.

 

[Dancingman]

Hell I don't like it but as long as the charity gets done and someone gets helped in the end that needed it, I'm okay about it.

 

[Poofs]

it is okay
very few people actually donate for sincere reasons