Poll: Utilitarian morality.

[Agayek]

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.

The way I see it, as long as the act itself is just, intentions don't matter in the slightest.

I'm firmly of the belief that the What (which, to me, includes the How) is the only meaningful aspect when it comes to moral considerations. Who and Why mean absolutely nothing.

This seems kinda odd to me, because I'm usually firmly in the Deontological camp. Deontology would declare the actions described in the OP as wrong, because the "hero" is using the people they are saving as a means to the end of fame/wealth/power. I'm almost universally opposed to Utilitarianism, which is why I'm so surprised when I say that I have to support such action.

As long as the "hero" did not intentionally, or through their own negligence, create the conditions for which their heroics become possible/necessary, it is an ethically just action, regardless of why they did it.

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.

Yes it is. Utilitarianism, in its base form, is essentially "Do whatever it takes to make the most people the happiest." In essence, anything is admissible so long as it increases the majority "happiness".

That's one of my main complaints about the theory. Utilitarian ethics state that it is ethically permissible to murder an innocent man if it saves a thousand, a hundred, or ten other men. If that isn't "ends justifying means", I don't know what is.

 

[Maze1125]

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.

Yes, it is very confusing, which is why I'm guessing you're getting it completely wrong.

Yes, destroying a village to power a metropolis would be a good action from a Utilitarian view.
But that is not because of the ends, it is because of the total happiness.
If the unhappiness caused by the action is greater than the happiness caused by the end then that action is not a good Utilitarian action.

In Utilitarianism the ends do not automatically justify the means. Each time an action is taken, the ends and the means are compared and then judged.

And I'm didn't get any of this from the Wikipedia page, because I've actually studied it, and so didn't need to. Maybe you should try that.

Oh, and when you go to patronise someone, maybe you should make sure it isn't you who needs to be patronised first.

 

[benoitowns]

Ulitarianism is a naive ideal that can't and shouldn't actually work. Capitalism FTW.

 

[Maze1125]

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.

Yes it is. Utilitarianism, in its base form, is essentially "Do whatever it takes to make the most people the happiest." In essence, anything is admissible so long as it increases the majority "happiness".

That's one of my main complaints about the theory. Utilitarian ethics state that it is ethically permissible to murder an innocent man if it saves a thousand, a hundred, or ten other men. If that isn't "ends justifying means", I don't know what is.

If the goal the action is to increase happiness, and succeeds, then yes, Utilitarianism would automatically say it was moral.
And so, in that specific case, Utilitarianism would say the ends justify the means.

But if the goal of the action is something other than simply increasing happiness, as is the case with the situation this thread is about, then Utilitarianism does not automatically judge that action to be moral even if it does succeed.

For example:

If I killed an innocent man to save thousands, Utilitarianism would say that was good. And that the ends justified the means.
But if my goal was to save an innocent, but to do so I had to sacrifice a thousand people, Utilitarianism would say that was wrong and that the ends did not justify the means.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Yes, it is very confusing, which is why I'm guessing you're getting it completely wrong.

Yes, destroying a village to power a metropolis would be a good action from a Utilitarian view.
But that is not because of the ends, it is because of the total happiness.
If the unhappiness caused by the action is greater than the happiness caused by the end then that action is not a good Utilitarian action.

Er... while your logic is unassailable, I don't quite see what you're getting it. Utilitarianism states that the ends will justify the means; obviously, if you're negating an end result by achieving it through drastic measures, it's not a utilitarian action.

In Utilitarianism the ends do not automatically justify the means. Each time an action is taken, the ends and the means are compared and then judged.

That's the thing. No theory is complete without factoring in the human element. As I said above, an action which disregards the means of achieving something as long as the end is beneficial is utilitarian. If somebody's killing thousands to save one person, that's not a utilitarian course of action. See?

Anyway, the purpose of this thread isn't to discuss definitions. If you'd like to view all the intricacies of utilitarianism, I'd be happy to give you access to an academic database.

This seems kinda odd to me, because I'm usually firmly in the Deontological camp. Deontology would declare the actions described in the OP as wrong, because the "hero" is using the people they are saving as a means to the end of fame/wealth/power. I'm almost universally opposed to Utilitarianism, which is why I'm so surprised when I say that I have to support such action.

I've had similar crises, and my morals claw at me as a result. Whether to lie to a good friend to salvage their relationship with another, or fulfill my duty and be honest, etc. My personal qualm with utilitarianism lies in my idealistic nature; I guess I'd rather people helped each other out of the 'good of their heart' instead of for the fame and fortune. Though, one wonders, is fame an evolutionary response to encourage acts of good? I had a professor a few years ago who touched on that...

 

[Agayek]

If the goal the action is to increase happiness, and succeeds, then yes, Utilitarianism would automatically say it was moral.
And so, in that specific case, Utilitarianism would say the ends justify the means.

But if the goal of the action is something other than simply increasing happiness, as is the case with the situation this thread is about, then Utilitarianism does not automatically judge that action to be moral even if it does succeed.

For example:

If I killed an innocent man to save thousands, Utilitarianism would say that was good. And that the ends justified the means.
But if my goal was to save an innocent, but to do so I had to sacrifice a thousand people, Utilitarianism would say that was wrong and that the ends did not justify the means.

That's just it though. As long as the "final happiness" side of the equation is greater than the "initial happiness" side, it doesn't matter what you do to achieve that end. I'm not saying that it's an automatic judgment, but that it does judge some, from my perspective, heinous actions to be permissible.

Like from my perspective, in the example of "kill one innocent to save a thousand", it is always and shall forever be the correct ethical decision to let those thousand die. It is not an easy choice, but it is the "right" one. The act of murdering an innocent is simply wrong. Period. No matter what the end result may be.

Utilitarianism only accounts for the final tally, and it ignores the rest. That's why I have such a problem with it.

 

[Maze1125]

Er... while your logic is unassailable, I don't quite see what you're getting it. Utilitarianism states that the ends will justify the means; obviously, if you're negating an end result by achieving it through drastic measures, it's not a utilitarian action.

There are two ways of applying moral theories.

1. Attempt to follow them, and have your actions be moral with in that theory.
2. Judge actions based upon that theory.

Generally, the two go together, but they don't have to.
With Utilitarianism, if you do do the two together then you will have a situation where the ends always justify the means. But if you only apply one of them, that is not necessarily true.

For example take the "Kill one to save a thousand situation."
If you apply 1 to that situation, you would kill the one, if you then also apply 2, you would find you action was moral and that the ends justified the means.
But, if you didn't apply 1, you might let the single person live and the thousand die. If then, in this case, you applied 2, you would find that ends did not justify the means.

So, back to your original scenario.
No-one in your concept is trying to maximise happiness, they have goals, but those goals are not Utilitarian. So they are not applying 1.
So, given that 1 has not been applied, if you apply 2, you may, or may not, find the ends justifying the means. But you can't say for sure either way.

 

[bigorexia]

An act utilitarian would say that the only thing that would matter would be the consequences of a given action. So if you gave to charity and it benefited more than it hurt, an act utilitarian would say you made the "right" choice. Intention has no bearing in utilitarian ethics.

 

[Agayek]

I think that when something that is usually seen as a selfless act is done for self-interest, it stops being selfless by definition. So, for example, if someone jumps on a grenade (saving the lives of others) just to be made a hero by the media later, then he/she is not really heroic because he/she wasn't motivated by a desire to help others, just a desire to be famous. I think intention plays a key role in morality, and intention has no place in consequentialism/utilitarianism.

Intention has little-to-no place in any of the major schools of ethics.

Deontology - The act, in and of itself, must be moral. Why does not matter. For example, telling a white lie to spare someone's feeling is an immoral act according to Immanuel Kant, the most prominent Deontologist.

Utilitarianism - The ends must be moral/bring about greater happiness. As you said, why does not matter.

Rights' Ethics - There are moral rights each individual is entitled to. Violations of any of these are unethical, regardless of why they were violated.


Those are all the major theories I can remember off the top of my head. I know there are a handful more big ones, but I can't remember for the life of me.