Now, disregarding the above and assuming that utilitarianism is what philosophy ought to be, then isn't the problem now to create a calculus that would be able to determine what would be the optimal utility to all people (the greatest good principle). Is this something that will be possible in the future or another hopeless dream? — Posty McPostface

Used to be a consequentialist, still have some leanings towards it. Consequentialist theories like utilitarianism are seductive because their aim is to make the best-possible-world in terms of good. It's hard to argue why we ought not do that.

Utilitarianism, historically, was meant to be applied to systems of government more than individual people. Most consequentialists including utilitarians held/hold that for individual actions, it's better to not actively try to calculate the best aims but to live life naturally and intuitively, only applying consequential calculus in more extreme situations. Similar to the paradox of hedonism, it's argued that the best consequences come about generally when we're not obsessively pondering the consequences. Governments, on the other hand, have to deal with statistics, numbers, amounts, etc which are a lot easier to work with, generally. Does the military bomb a civilian settlement to eliminate radical terrorists? What are the consequences? No one individual is responsible for this decision, at least not usually.

The criticism that there is no calculus that could be applied (and therefore utilitarianism/consequentialism is false) fails to work. It is clear that a lesser headache, say, is better than a terrible migraine. We clearly know this because we take pain medication. Experiences can be roughly measured by intensity and duration, and while we don't have precise mathematical measurements for them, this is not different than other perceptual difficulties - we have a hard time estimating the length of objects without a ruler, for instance, but that doesn't mean there is no actual length.

So in general the utilitarian would argue that normal experiences are intuitively ranked without much worry. When things get hairy or we're talking about governments, that's when it says we have to start estimating the comparative value of alternate courses of action. Sometimes it's easy, but sometimes it's not. Things get super hairy when you're a pluralist in terms of value - how do you calculate the value difference between values?

Sometimes the value difference is obvious. In which case, there's not much of an issue. Othertimes it's a lot harder. This difficulty, perhaps even real-life impossibility, is not really an argument against consequentialism. It just adds in another layer of non-ideal circumstances.

Yeah; but, aren't other theories like Rawl's justice as fairness superior because instead of making a single ownership type government like a techno-utopia where they own the supercomputer that churns out what is the best for all according to some unknown truths? For example, Rawl's leaves the ethical decision-making process to the individual, not a supercomputer.

And, I'm leaving 'ethics is good and good is utility' as a given here.

The utilitarian rejoinder would be, whatever works. Utilitarianism is not an absolutist position. Whatever government maximizes utility is what we ought to have.

Therefore emotivism and intuitionalism with the theory of good being culturally dependent and relative, meaning in some sense postmodernism?

I think the net has real potential to apply utilitarian calculuses that would have constituted mere thought experIments in yesteryear's philosophy textbooks. For example, Democracy Earth has developed a blockchain app that allows for exciting new ways of voting and garnering votes.

"...people, in general, don't even know what they themselves want"

"...isn't the problem now to create a calculus that would be able to determine what would be the optimal utility to all people (the greatest good principle)."

One theory is that what they want is what they are prepared to pay for; and that free exchange between well-informed individuals will result in optimal utility. So I make smartphones which make people happy, as proved by the price they are prepared to pay me for them. If too many people jump on the bandwagon of selling smartphones then people will have had enough of them and the price will go down and some of us will have to move on to producing something else, such as kipper ties or sonnets or landmines. Eventually everyone will be paying just as much as they want for exactly the things they most like.

There are notorious problems with this view which I will leave to others to explore if they wish.

Well, the most straightforward rebuttal is the fact that we are still not yet at such a point where wants are satisfied in whole and complete if that is possible at all. One common rebuttal to utilitarianism uses the extreme example of a heroin addict who knows what he wants but can't get it or can get it and constantly uses it.

Then there's the issue that the starting premise of economics that wants are insatiable or relentless, which is the whole premise of the existence of the current economy nowadays. So, then even wants are impossible to determine by a person, let alone a machine. In other words, how do we even know that utility has been maximized? Only in extreme examples as the hedonistic heroin addict is utility thought to be maximized. Then there's the whole issue with particularly subjective measures about bias and favorability of one individual's welfare over another, which outright nullifies the greatest good principle.

Anyway, I much prefer ethical theories of Rawl's veil of ignorance due to not trying to objectify ethics in some sense, and instead refer back to the individuals and group of individuals together in making moral judgments. It also seems much more democratic than the utilitarianism government of-'knows whats best for you and don't argue with us'.

Good points. The theory depends upon actors being rational and well-informed. We are not rational when addicted and as you say we are all irrational to some degree. But it's not easy to get away from 'someone knows best.' We both know the addict has a false idea of what is best for him. But on what authority do we make this judgement on his behalf? Rawls suggests that behind the veil of ignorance we would rationally make certain judgements about the distribution of welfare and opportunities, leading to the maxi-min principle. Well, maybe some would think like that and some would not. Some might be prepared to take the chance. Some might point out that there is no veil of ignorance. We know who we are and what is best for us in our current situation. There are appalling examples of groups of individuals jointly making ethical decisions that stink. I would say that we do need governments. And looking around at the options I would rather live under a broadly utilitarian regime than one that believes, for example, it was installed by God to do His will or that some group that I happen to belong to needs to be eradicated for the sake of national purity.

assuming that utilitarianism is what philosophy ought to be, then isn't the problem now to create a calculus — Posty McPostface

The felicific calculus would be a fine thing indeed. Here it seems someone has tried for a modern version: in Lander, South Carolina.

Therefore emotivism and intuitionalism with the theory of good being culturally dependent and relative, meaning in some sense postmodernism? — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure what you mean. Utilitarianism does not entail emotivism and intuitionism (the two aren't compatible, either).

I remember reading that a long while back and being engrossed by the possibility of reducing morality to a set of calculations. Now it largely just seems like a fantasy that can't cash out in real life and doesn't cover all our moral beliefs.

Well, I view utilitarianism as the only ethical theory that appeals to a scientific method to derive ethical judgements and moral decisions. Possibly, due to the time and era when utilitarianism was envisioned. My personal hope is that one day we could work out such a calculus.

However, the economy doesn't get mentioned enough nowadays. The economy is a vehicle where utility is calculated and distributed among rational agents for their benefit. The starting premise of neo-liberal or conservative free-market ideology is that enlightened self-interest is what increases utility for all participants of the economy.

What are your thoughts about viewing utilitarianism as the workings of the economy nowadays? It's the closest example that comes to my mind although incomplete in the ramifications of utilitarianism as the economy itself isn't a rational actor working on behalf of the participants. Governments to a large extent do that with policies and rules imposed on market activity.

The felicific calculus would be a fine thing indeed. Here it seems someone has tried for a modern version: in Lander, South Carolina. — mcdoodle

That's certainly interesting, although I think we might have to derive the calculus when dealing with the coming advent of artificial intelligence. Interesting times to be around in.

I'm not sure what you mean. Utilitarianism does not entail emotivism and intuitionism (the two aren't compatible, either). — darthbarracuda

What I meant to say is that the ethical judgements and moral sentiments about circumstances or states of affairs originate from a sense of emotivism and rather vague non-linguistic intuitions, which are relative due to being shaped by cultural elements and such. How do you even begin to model that?

Well, I view utilitarianism as the only ethical theory that appeals to a scientific method to derive ethical judgements and moral decisions. — Posty McPostface

In what way is utilitarianism more 'scientific' than other approaches? I was just talking to someone yesterday, oddly enough, who has attempted to model - in a very simplified way - virtue ethics. That seems entirely possible. Nor does Kantianism seem beyond (grossly simplified) analysis. If we are going to develop machines that become quasi-independent, as it looks like we are, then some sort of modelling of ethics would be a good idea, even if philosophically we may always say to ourselves, there is a remainder - an excess - whenever one tries to examine analytically an ethical judgment.

In what way is utilitarianism more 'scientific' than other approaches? I was just talking to someone yesterday, oddly enough, who has attempted to model - in a very simplified way - virtue ethics. That seems entirely possible. Nor does Kantianism seem beyond (grossly simplified) analysis. If we are going to develop machines that become quasi-independent, as it looks like we are, then some sort of modelling of ethics would be a good idea, even if philosophically we may always say to ourselves, there is a remainder - an excess - whenever one tries to examine analytically an ethical judgment. — mcdoodle

Well, utilitarianism, to the best of my knowledge, was the first ethical theory to appeal to an analytic method, such as a calculus of utility, to determine what actions are right. I might have made a stretch towards claiming that utilitarianism appeals to a scientific method, maybe perhaps an algebra of sorts or rather a formalized system? I agree about the AI part.

I've been thinking a lot lately about utilitarianism and how to accurately determine the 'goodness' of an action therefore I have decided to spend my Christmas break (I'm in year 8) to try and solve this problem. I present the Joel Bingham utility equation: U=HSP-HSN where U is utility H is hours affected
S is one to ten severity P is amount of people affected in a positive way and N is amount of people affected negatively.
If the answer comes out positive it causes more good than bad if it's negative it causes more bad than good. In my opinion this is one of the best ways to determine wether an action should be taken or not according to utilitarianism

If you are utilitarian, please let us know why and what would you say in regards to the above. — Posty McPostface

One man's opinion about the utility and happiness of the many, is another man's hell on earth.
How to judge?

Let's look at the recent history of gay marriage in the US. So, the Supreme Court decided by fiat that individual federal and state (provincial) marriage laws must be applied equally to all adults - gay or straight. That effectively legalized gay marriage everywhere in the US. Although support for gay marriage is increasing (in polls, majorities in 52 states support it. 38 oppose), many people still oppose. As indicated, at least 38 states would maintain prohibitions if they could.

And yet, gay people make up +- 5% of the population. What if it was 10 years ago when many fewer people supported gay marriage? The law criminalizing marriage between black and white people in Virginia was overturned in 1969 - the year I graduated from high school. The case before the US Supreme Court was the most wonderfully named legal case in human history - Loving vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia. What about in the 1830s in the US? There was overwhelming support for slavery and the economy of many areas depended on slave labor.

The essence of an honorable democratic nation is not majority rule, it is majority rule with liberty and justice for all. With fairness. Where the voices of minority populations are heard and considered. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism are moral bull shit.

One man's opinion about the utility and happiness of the many, is another man's hell on earth.
How to judge? — charleton

Well, as far as I am aware, utilitarianism is normative primarily. So, what's best for the general population is entailed to include what is best for the individual.

The essence of an honorable democratic nation is not majority rule, it is majority rule with liberty and justice for all. With fairness. — T Clark

I agree; but, simply think egalitarianism could encompass what you are saying. It assumes the same and even more. Utilitarianism is inherently egalitarian.

Well, as far as I am aware, utilitarianism is normative primarily. So, what's best for the general population is entailed to include what is best for the individual. — Posty McPostface

That is blatantly not the case ever.
Not unless you live in a socialist utopia.
Even if you could make that judgement, which I doubt.
There are very few cases where such utility for the individual and the community is clear cut. and even more difficult when judging the community's good against some real harm for the individual.

The law criminalizing marriage between black and white people in Virginia was overturned in 1969 — T Clark

That is quite a sobering thought.
Utilitarianism might suggest that the harm to the bigoted 99.5% who thought miscegenation was bad, overruled a handful of those wishing to marry another race.

That is quite a sobering thought.
Utilitarianism might suggest that the harm to the bigoted 99.5% who thought miscegenation was bad, overruled a handful of those wishing to marry another race. — charleton

While I'm certain 99.5% of Americans did not think marriage between the races was wrong, certainly not in 1969, the general principle you're recognizing is what I was trying to get across. To me, any set of rules that isn't fair isn't moral, no matter what the total aggregate benefit is.

Did you not consider I might be agreeing with you? In the states were it was still illegal I wonder what a poll would have discovered. Probably more in support than we would be comfortable with.

Did you not consider I might be agreeing with you? — charleton

My intention in the post was to acknowledge that we agreed and then add an additional comment.

In the states were it was still illegal I wonder what a poll would have discovered. Probably more in support than we would be comfortable with. — charleton

Here's a link that answers your question:

https://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PRRI-AVA-same-sex-marriage.pdf

I was talking about cross-racial marriage in 1969.
Not same sex marriage in 2014-5

I was talking about cross-racial marriage in 1969.
Not same sex marriage in 2014-5 — charleton

Here's a link:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/2-public-views-on-intermarriage/pst_2017-05-15-intermarriage-02-02/#

appeals due to its pragmatic and normative attitude towards ethical and moral judgments — Posty McPostface

Pragmatism with respect to morality doesn't sound appealing to me, and I wouldn't trust anyone who thought it was.

disregarding the above and assuming that utilitarianism is what philosophy ought to be, then isn't the problem now to create a calculus that would be able to determine what would be the optimal utility to all people (the greatest good principle) — Posty McPostface

It would, but ironically, philosophy would be cut from the calculus, as it has little to no practical utility. In this way, utilitarianism as philosophy is self-undermining.

as it has little to no practical utility. — Thorongil

That is a very doubtful statement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-philosophy-the-most-practical-major/246763/