In my readings, utilitarianism doesn't do a very good job of explaining how happiness and human welfare fully manifests itself in the world. If the state's ethical aim is to ensure some kind of "overall happiness in a society", then it's bound to fail every time because I would disagree that happiness is the foundation of moral conduct.

Utilitarianism is a system of morality. Classical utilitarianism claims that what is good ultimately comes down to what is pleasurable and what is bad ultimately comes down to what is painful/not-pleasurable. The question of whether it is a good system of morality is up for debate. I honestly think it fails.

The state is actually where we can find much of the criticism of utilitarianism and what its tenets imply. The utilitarian conception of rights appears to leave rights in a much weaker state. Rights only have an instrumental application to utilitarianism. This leads to an awkward scenario where you only have the parameters of rights you have because not having them would lead to less happiness. In other words, your freedom of speech is not based on any innate principles about the relationship between man and the state, but based on potentially messing up and inadvertently causing more pain than happiness. Utilitarianism holds that if your speech is ever deemed too hurtful and obviously so, that it should ban it because there is no moral reason not to ban it and every moral reason to ban it.

all right, understood! thanks so much!

If you can, try to find a book called Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.The book is political and he argues for a libertarian minimal state, but a part close to the beginning deals with classical utlitarianism.

THE PROBLEM IS IN INADEQUATE DEFINITIONS

Utilitarianism made the same mistake that Aristotle did - deeming 'happiness' as an 'end-goal' in life, when it is not - it is a potentially suicidal value (and it has been for the last 2500 years).

A better 'end-goal' would pertain to broader survival (which will inherently bring happiness). In our case, given the universe that we have 'just awakened to', the 'end-goal' actually involves 'work' (which will bring happiness - so Utilitarianism and Aristotle both failed to adequately define 'happiness' rendering both of their views and conclusions vague and nebulous - in other words, weak and useless).

What is this 'work' that will, if not bring happiness, then will bring a justified feeling of satisfaction? It is this: the endeavor to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe.

The current problem lies in the failure to adequately define 'happiness', where most people have the erroneous notion that it is indulging in useless, hedonistic activities, or worse - in inducing envy (which leads to all kinds of evils, war not among the least).

Reviewing the fact that utilitarianism seeks the ultimate option that maximizes the overall happiness in society, Is there any place for morality? — musimusis

Utilitarianism is a moral theory. That we ought to maximize happiness (and minimize suffering) is a normative prescription.

I agree. A view of genetics as our moral foundation is based on two contradicting elements: we are selfish animals that prefer group working.

utilitarianism seeks the ultimate option that maximizes the overall happiness in society — musimusis

The assumption, given the words ''maximize'' and ''overall'' is that happiness can be quantified in a justified manner. This isn't the case. That even before we come to agree on what ''happiness'' has to do with morality.

Per utilitarianism good is what makes us happy. Its apparent simplicity and appeal to our subconscious instincts (''happy'') makes the idea sound reasonable. However I think the issue is far more complex than that. If good is only about happiness then a serial murderer on a killing spree is good since he's doing what makes him happy. This clearly shows there's more to being good than just happiness.

Another problem is the ''maximize'' and ''overall'' terms. It assumes we can quantify happiness in a meaningful practical way. I don't think that's possible. Also it commits the fallacy of appeal to majorit e.g. in ancient times the Carhthaginians performed child sacrifices and I'm willing to bet that the majority of Carthaginian folks thought the practice was at least acceptable. Yet child-sacrifice is unimaginable to modern sensibilities.

It's my hypothesis that morality is a rather novel meme that perhaps is only a few thousand years old. That's why morality is, at present and perhaps for a couple of thousand years ahead, engaged in the battle between ''what is'' and ''how it ought to be''. No surprise here. After all a cursory glance at nature shows that it is ''amoral'' - unconcerned by human concerns such as morality.

Per utilitarianism good is what makes us happy. Its apparent simplicity and appeal to our subconscious instincts (''happy'') makes the idea sound reasonable. However I think the issue is far more complex than that. If good is only about happiness then a serial murderer on a killing spree is good since he's doing what makes him happy. This clearly shows there's more to being good than just happiness. — TheMadFool

Some of us might be willing to bite the bullet and accept that the serial murderer's apparent happiness is "good" - at least, it's intrinsically good for the murderer. It's bad for everyone else.

Good feelings are good feelings. Bad feelings are bad feelings.

Another problem is the ''maximize'' and ''overall'' terms. It assumes we can quantify happiness in a meaningful practical way. I don't think that's possible. Also it commits the fallacy of appeal to majorit e.g. in ancient times the Carhthaginians performed child sacrifices and I'm willing to bet that the majority of Carthaginian folks thought the practice was at least acceptable. Yet child-sacrifice is unimaginable to modern sensibilities. — TheMadFool

The use of thresholds and priorities are helpful when "calculating" utility. Scanlon, I believe, argues that welfare ought to be measured in terms of resources. I prefer to measure utility based on freedom. The happy man can take care of himself. Those who are worse off typically are those who are not able to fulfill needs.

Even though utility can be ambiguous, if you get a large enough gap it becomes quite clear when there is a difference in utility.

Also, re the Carthaginian child sacrifices: the Utility Monster is a direct consequence of classical, positive utilitarianism. Negative consequentialists avoid this, although they have other issues they have to deal with themselves.

After all a cursory glance at nature shows that it is ''amoral'' - unconcerned by human concerns such as morality. — TheMadFool

Yet saying nature is "unconcerned" nevertheless anthropomorphizes it, in the same way calling genes "selfish" or predators "merciless" ascribes some sort of agency to a non-agent (or is it a non-agent...?).

No matter how hard we try, we will never be able to fully describe nature in a way that isn't tainted by human values. And if teleology is a real aspect of reality, then it stands that we might actually be coherent in calling some things in nature legitimately malignant or harmful.