It's always easier to critique something if you commence by misunderstanding it.

The demandingness objection is one of the common critiques of utilitarianism.

In conclusion many people claim to be utilitarian but few people when pressed actually live up to the claim. So maybe they should rethink their ethics? — Gitonga

From your profile:
"...I love having logical debates with people and its how I make friends, but I apply logic not just to philosophy but also psychology, socialising, entrepreneurship and life."

I noticed you have started a few discussion threads but never really engaged with people.
So, what is the point of that ?


But is it a 'True' misunderstanding. Or is it a Mere provocation from a Devil.
Or is the OP just playing silly buggers and is full of 'it...
As per other threads started: 'Stoicism is bullshit' and 'Economists are full of shit'...

Whatever, it does raise interesting questions acting as an entry point...


Thanks for the link to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demandingness_objection
At the end, there is a further link to
https://www.utilitarianism.net/objections-to-utilitarianism/demandingness
which forms part of the 'textbook' introduction to utilitarianism:

The aim of this website serves as a textbook introduction to utilitarianism at the undergraduate level. It provides a concise, accessible and engaging introduction to modern utilitarianism. The content of this website aims to be understandable to a broad audience, avoiding philosophical jargon where possible and providing definitions where necessary. — utilitarianism.net

Utilitarian ethics indeed does provide for some self-contradictory situations.

As an example:

What is the best thing that can happen to mankind right now, that would benefit with the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people? Well, for arguments' sake, it is the saving of the environment.

The environment is (for argument's sake) being destroyed by humans. So to save the environment, humanity must be reduced in numbers, and kept constantly at a lower headcount than now.

For this, most of humanity must be destroyed and / or else not allowed to reproduce.

Therefore the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people is to reduce the benefits to the greatest amount of people and to disallow them to practice their greatest biological benefit, which is reproduction.

um poverty is worse? And we don't need to reduce the number of people to save the environment

how have I misunderstood it?

so you agree with my statement that few people who ascribe to utilitarianism actually live by it?

what do you mean silly burgers? Also I've replied to everyone here.

More or less, yes. There are variations on utilitarianism that are less demanding, and proponents of those probably often comply with them on that front. But there are other even more absurd consequences of utilitarianism (and consequentialism more generally) that many adherents would not want to own, but don't cause them to reject the theory, because all the alternatives they can think of seem even worse.

what do you mean silly burgers? — Gitonga

to play ˈsilly buggers (with something) (British English, informal) behave in a stupid and annoying way: Stop playing silly buggers and answer the question. — idiom dictionary

Also I've replied to everyone here. — Gitonga

Glad to see the engagement :smile:

And we don't need to reduce the number of people to save the environment — Gitonga

This is the misconception of the century. Please consider the following, I beg you:

1. It is people who are polluting and poisoning the environment.
2. There is no stopping to it.
3. The poisoning and polluting can theoretically be reversed.
4. The amount of people that we have today can't reduce the poisoning and pollution to a level at which the environment could recuperate. No matter what.
5. The obvious is inevitable: only fewer people on the globe can pollute to a limit at which the environment can recuperate.

@god - and even the elite/illuminate or whatever they Believe This! We need no more than 1 Billion so we can live reasonably with environment! The Catholic Church (no birth control) must be destroyed. The people who don’t believe in birth control should be the First to GO.

First to GO — Trey

I don't generally like slippery slope objections, but antinatalism could be particularly skiddy, best watch out for that.

Topic: (Close to) No one truly believes in Utilitarian ethics

Utilitarian ethics is supposed to be the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people, but how many of you ACTUALLY live on the bare minimum and give all your money away to charity so that others can live on the bare minimum? — Gitonga

No one truly believes? What do you mean by "truly"? That what people believe about it is not actually true? That they are faking?

I am afraid that you don't even know what Utilitarian ethics is. And, most importantly, you didn't even care to explore the subject. Instead, you just took a statement that is attributed to it and judge a whole system and huge subject (33 million results in Google) based on an offhand, limited --and in fact, false-- interpretation of that statement. This shows total irresponsibility and lacks any philosophical perspective.

I've never read any scientific research that suggets the only way that climate change is reversible is to drastically reduce the population. But if you have any peer reviewed journal articles that explicitly say so, i'd be happy to go through them if you drop the link below

I like how you say i have no clue what it is without stating what it is

It's always easier to critique something if you commence by misunderstanding it. — Banno

Of course, @Banno. In fact, I think you are quite lenient in your remark. For me, the content of this topic shows total irresponsibility --the person is talking about a subject without having any idea what it is really about-- and actually lacks any philosophical perspective.

↪Alkis Piskas I like how you say i have no clue what it is without stating what it is — Gitonga

I am not going to "state" (!) what it is. You have to get your feet wet! However, because maybe you cannot select among the million of references in the Web on the subject, I can suggest a few standard sources:

- Utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
- Utilitarianism (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp)
- The History of Utilitarianism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/)

And if you are wondering how I understood that you don't have any idea about the subject, it is because none of these references say that you have to give all your money and property to charity or something similar! This is your idea.

But I have said enough. I hope at least that it is not done it in vain.

I've never read any scientific research that suggets the only way that climate change is reversible is to drastically reduce the population. But if you have any peer reviewed journal articles that explicitly say so, i'd be happy to go through them if you drop the link below — Gitonga

You are talking about climate change and how it's not documented it's reversible by reducing the population. But that's not a refutation of my argument. My argument was that polluting and poisoning the environment can be reversed by reducing the human head count.

Please line up your ducks more carefully. I hate it when a Strawman, or in fact any, fallacy is used against my argument. Please spare me the trouble. Please do read what I write and respond to what I write, and not respond to something I did not write.

And if you are wondering how I understood that you don't have any idea about the subject, it is because none of these references say that you have to give all your money and property to charity or something similar! This is your idea. — Alkis Piskas

Admittedly, if he's such a miserable human being that the only way everyone is better off is for him to fully retreat from society then his idea would be accurate.

Not always. Depends on if you're doing anything impactful or not. A million dollars toward people who are stuck in only maintaining the same cycle and increasing the degeneracy is exponentially worse than a few thousand toward someone who's actually working to break it. Of course, everyone thinks they are, due to ingrained teaching, reinforced by penalty of negative emotion, per ego and peer (dis)approval, which is taught to come before if not replace self-worth completely ensuring it never really has a chance to develop. That's why the world is in such dire straits. But how long will it last? I suppose modern human value and virtue can be likened to an ever-increasingly dull game of hot potato.

Utilitarian ethics is supposed to be the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people — Gitonga

Morality leads to a greater utility then utilitarianism.