Utilitarianism's Triumph

Shawn

The triumph of utilitarianism has not been widely discussed by modern day philosophers, in my view. The advent of the field of economics, has been almost a definitional success of utilitarianism for governments to satisfy the needs and demands of their representative populations. Indeed, the single greatest representative field of education in the government or governments are students of economics. Their analysis govern which proposal gets accepted or analyzed inofwhich pro's or con's decide which become implemented in society. The field of economics in tandem with the Industrial Revolution has transformed the lives of many people around the world.

As and American, I often hear about keeping up with the Joneses, and running the rat race, and experiencing the American Dream. It's not often that a field of science has arisen from the Philosophical Radicals of Bentham and latter John Stuart Mill all the way from England. Bentham and John Stuart Mill had a profound influence on the development of the United States. Sadly, the birth of socialism from the Philosophical Radicals in England found no welcoming from the United States. It seems that selfishness and greed prosper more than anything else nowadays instead of Bentham's liberalism.

Money can do a lot nowadays, such as purchase food, clothing, and shelter for an individual, I think that when governing ethical decisions, we are in a state of want. A utilitarian calculus can solve the Trolley Dilemma with an effective appraisal of who is of greater value than the other. Yet, philosophy or the questions of philosophy aren't things that can be solved like an equation on a piece of paper with a calculator during a test at college. Yet, some utilitarian might quip, that the calculus of solving these problems is deficient or not quite refined enough. My short response would be that what utilitarianism deals with are not questions; but, the normalization of values attained through cognitive appraisal of their axiological value in a system of intersubjective relationships structured society, with the power nexus being money.

Although, the distribution of money through taxation is a subject fraught with disagreement, it is commonly accepted that it is a necessity of life to enjoy the public goods that we take for granted every day. It might be said that the flourishing of science has been found in the greatest regard from a government that believes that every citizen has inalienable rights (which Bentham thought somewhat strange, and J.S Mill thought correct).

Concluding, I would like to bring two points up for analysis, as to whether the reader thinks utilitarianism has been a philosophy that has been neglected by philosophers, and instead (literally) personified by economists been ennobled? Is there any discrepancy between the two, and has utilitarianism perhaps attained the greatest prestige of any school of thought from within the field of philosophy?

Deleted User

Concluding, I would like to bring two points up for analysis, as to whether the reader thinks utilitarianism has been a philosophy that has been neglected by philosophers, and instead (literally) personified by economists been ennobled? Is there any discrepancy between the two, and has utilitarianism perhaps attained the greatest prestige of any school of thought from within the field of philosophy? — Shawn

So, I'll address this, but I'll keep it quick and you can tell me what you think. As far as a base level ethical framework, Utilitarianism, I hold, should be one of the primary starting points when alayzing any ethical dilemma. And as far as its presitige, it inarguably dominates the theoretical ethical landscape. There isn't a single philosophical framework that I know of that doesn't incorporate a good deal of utilitarian ethics. Period. As far as it being the ONLY metric by which to calculate ethics, I would say that has the potential to do more harm than imaginable, and has been used by tyrants in the past to justify their atrocities. However, economics is not a utilitarian practice, fundamentally, and never should be. Very few people are motivated by anything short of greed, and greed is not an evil. In fact, praxiologically, it is going to be difficult for anyone to make the case that they aren't motivated almost exclusively by what has been termed "greed," which I would, in that specific sense, regard as irrational self-interest, or self-interest with a disregard to people's rights. Greed is what motivates coal miners to keep the lights on, ford workers to produce vehicles, and grocers to supply food. It's the greed that isn't associated with production that needs to be critical analyzed (Washington), as well as the greed that is associated with violating rights; which I hold, a Free Market would address naturally on its own through competition. Economics is an exercise in self-attained material success, motivated by greed, propelled by labor. So, the two are fundamentally different, utilitarianism and economics. One operates in the domain of ethical analysis, the other operates in the domain of individual attainment.

But, just as a side not, it is a great boon to society that socialism, as we've known it to emerge in the world thus far, hasn't gained much in the way of popularity. Its proponents have a lot more theorizing to do before they have a workable system that doesn't involve forcing people to abide by rules they don't set for themselves regarding the allocation of property via their own labor. Socialism, as we've know it to emerge, is a perfect exercise in Utilitarianism gone murderously awry, and why Mills, although I love him as a thinker, has a few points taken off of his character analysis as far as I am concerned.

Glad to speak more about any of this at any length.

-G

Shawn

As far as a base level ethical framework, Utilitarianism, I hold, should be one of the primary starting points when alayzing any ethical dilemma. — Garrett Travers

There is a fundamental dilemma here about utilitarianism having a criteria upon which one can assign values onto consequentialist outcomes of behavior or outcomes of behavior. Again, selfishness and greed rears its head here as a primary intrinsic motivator for attributing these axiological values on relationships...

There isn't a single philosophical framework that I know of that doesn't incorporate a good deal of utilitarian ethics. Period. As far as it being the ONLY metric by which to calculate ethics, I would say that has the potential to do more harm than imaginable, and has been used by tyrants in the past to justify their atrocities. However, economics is not a utilitarian practice, fundamentally, and never should be. — Garrett Travers

Economics seems to be a field that developed after utilitarianism became a more abstract field dealing with the quantitative ascriptives of numerical values onto outcomes. Given that interpretation, I would think that ever more latter fields like game theory or what used to be called a calculus of utility would be of merit in describing it as an extension of what one would call Bentham's or Mill's hedonic calculus, no?

Very few people are motivated by anything short of greed, and greed is not an evil. In fact, praxiologically, it is going to be difficult for anyone to make the case that they aren't motivated almost exclusively by what has been termed "greed," which I would, in that specific sense, regard as irrational self-interest, or self-interest with a disregard to people's rights. Greed is what motivates coal miners to keep the lights on, ford workers to produce vehicles, and grocers to supply food. It's the greed that isn't associated with production that needs to be critical analyzed (Washington), as well as the greed that is associated with violating rights; which I hold, a Free Market would address naturally on its own through competition. Economics is an exercise in self-attained material success, motivated by greed, propelled by labor. So, the two are fundamentally different, utilitarianism and economics. One operates in the domain of ethical analysis, the other operates in the domain of individual attainment. — Garrett Travers

In as much as greed is a motivating factor, I think the more appropriate term here is rational self-interest. I believe, that rational self-interest is what mandates a rational process or deliberate process of transactions and trades between individuals to reach a consensus of interests at an agreed value of exchange towards a unit of value, being money. I also think that given the assumption that people desire to be happy rather than sad, that the system is self-sustaining, as long as demand is governed by expectations in accordance with realistic outcomes. But, more philosophically, there's a point to be made of greed that philosophy cannot address with a hedonistic calculus, without making reference towards our inherent natures.

Deleted User

There is a fundamental dilemma here about utilitarianism having a criteria upon which one can assign values onto consequentialist outcomes of behavior or outcomes of behavior. — Shawn

I don't know what this means. You mean to say it is hard to evaluate outcomes?

Economics seems to be a field that developed after utilitarianism became a more abstract field dealing with the quantitative ascriptives of numerical values onto outcomes. Given that interpretation, I would think that ever more latter fields like game theory or what used to be called a calculus of utility would be of merit in describing it as an extension of what one would call Bentham's or Mill's hedonic calculus, no? — Shawn

Yeah, like I said, it's a really good metric that is, as far as I can tell, at least useful in any ethical scenario one can find themselves in, which is why it is present in some fashion or another in every ethical epistemology that I can think of.

In as much as greed is a motivating factor, I think the more appropriate term here is rational self-interest. I believe, that rational self-interest is what mandates a rational process or deliberate process of transactions and trades between individuals to reach a consensus of interests at an agreed value of exchange towards a unit of value, being money. I also think that given the assumption that people desire to be happy rather than sad, that the system is self-sustaining, as long as demand is governed by expectations in accordance with realistic outcomes. But, more philosophically, there's a point to be made of greed that philosophy cannot address with a hedonistic calculus, without making reference towards our inherent natures. — Shawn

Yes, that's exactly right. However, to speed the calculus along, I'd reiterate that it is ESSENTIAL that people differentiate rational self-interest, greed predicated upon productivity and a respect for individual sovereignty, and that of actual greed, self-interest predicated upon the labor of others and a disregard for individual sovereignty. Other than that, 100% agree.

Shawn

There is a fundamental dilemma here about utilitarianism having a criteria upon which one can assign values onto consequentialist outcomes of behavior or outcomes of behavior. — Shawn

I don't know what this means. You mean to say it is hard to evaluate outcomes? — Garrett Travers

What I mean is that when devising a calculus, the process of assigning values on qualitative outcomes demands an ethical framework to designate those quantitative values onto. I hope that makes better sense. The fact that one must engage in denoting what human behavior ought to do in certain scenarios is where consequentialism runs into a dead-end and we have to pick or choose an ethical system in accordance with human nature, to designate these values into those desired outcomes. As far as utilitarianism goes, it seems that it all boils down to hedonistic slant of desired outcomes for the greatest amount of good principle.

What do you think?

Deleted User

↪Shawn

What I mean is that when devising a calculus, the process of assigning values on qualitative outcomes demands an ethical framework to designate those quantitative values onto. I hope that makes better sense. The fact that one must engage in denoting what human behavior ought to do in certain scenarios is where consequentialism runs into a dead-end and we have to pick or choose an ethical system to designate these values into those desired outcomes. — Shawn

Yes, stated beautifully. So, for this dilemma I draw your attention back to me saying that Utilitarianism as a base ethical methodology is great, but it isn't the only one. What I have found is that most of the world's ethical frameworks are compatible. So, for instance , if you want to determine if a given action is ethical, you might ask this series of questions, however the scenario is not limited to these, just an example: Am I being sufficiently stoic in this scenario? Is what I plan to do predicated on a rational assessment of the situation, or on my emotions? Will my actions produce better results for all involved if I entangle myself? Is what I plan to do the expression of a universally symmetrical principle? Would the situation require force on my part to see my actions executed?

Do you see what I am saying? Instead of merely relying on that singular framework, which in most cases is not sufficient to be totally relied on, draw from as many as possible, so that it is clear you are making as rational attempt as possible. Unfortunately, the future is always going to be a mystery, thus a true evaluation of outcomes requires one evaluate them only after actions have been taken.

Paine

However, to speed the calculus along, I'd reiterate that it is ESSENTIAL that people differentiate rational self-interest, greed predicated upon productivity and a respect for individual sovereignty, and that of actual greed, self-interest predicated upon the labor of others and a disregard for individual sovereignty. — Garrett Travers

You are working some kind of prosperity gospel where the material interests of some are legitimate, but the desires of others are not.

Deleted User

You are working some kind of prosperity gospel where the material interests of some are legitimate, but the desires of others are not. — Paine

That is correct. Different things need to be differently emphasized. The material interests of some ARE legitimate as compared to others. Just as the sexual, interpersonal, or political interests are different from others. It's quite self-evident when you begin assessing the actions of individuals. There's no gospel to it, if your economic interests involve you employing other people in an involuntarily manner - such as you would see in politicians - or disregarding their rights to obtain wealth - such as you would see with criminals and thugs - then you and I are not the same.

Paine

↪Garrett Travers

Recognizing there is a similarity is not the same as condoning bad behavior.
I don't get what identity has do with it.

Deleted User

Recognizing there is a similarity is not the same as condoning bad behavior.
I don't get what identity has do with it. — Paine

I don't know what you think you're reading. I said nothing about condoning bad behavior. Nor have I said anything about identity. I'm saying that when it comes to the idea of greed, it is a blanket term that covers people that do not belong under that banner. And when you identify just what it is that differentiates greedy people from rationally self-interested people, then you can closer approximate the source of the issue, just as you can when you clarify details on any topic of interest; which happens to be essential.

Shawn

So, for this dilemma I draw your attention back to me saying that Utilitarianism as a base ethical methodology is great, but it isn't the only one. What I have found is that most of the world's ethical frameworks are compatible. So, for instance , if you want to determine if a given action is ethical, you might ask this series of questions, however the scenario is not limited to these, just an example: Am I being sufficiently stoic in this scenario? Is what I plan to do predicated on a rational assessment of the situation, or on my emotions? Will my actions produce better results for all involved if I entangle myself? Is what I plan to do the expression of a universally symmetrical principle? Would the situation require force on my part to see my actions executed?

Do you see what I am saying? Instead of merely relying on that singular framework, which in most cases is not sufficient to be totally relied on, draw from as many as possible, so that it is clear you are making as rational attempt as possible. Unfortunately, the future is always going to be a mystery, thus a true evaluation of outcomes requires one evaluate them only after actions have been taken. — Garrett Travers

Much to your surprise, I find it somewhat puzzling that when it comes to the calculus of utility, that the only question (according to utilitarianism) we ought to ask is "What's best for myself?", when presented with new situations or outcomes that we need to deal with in life or even in the marketplace.

I find this perplexing that such a simple hedonistic calculus that leaves one to ask "What's best for me?" can be so effective at governing human relations and behavior.

Does utilitarianism make the hoi polloi happy?

Deleted User

Does utilitarianism render ethics useless? — Shawn

No, its one of the most sophisticated epistemologies there is. It furthers ethics, provides it more clarity. Again, I defer you to the multifarious ethical frameworks that can be drawn from in a given scenario, as exampled in the above series of questions I listed.

Paine

↪Garrett Travers

You just made a distinction between people who are greedy or not by your lights.
I am reading what you are writing. You say it is okay for some to want stuff. It is less okay for others.
I am not having a problem with reading what you are saying. My reference to bad behavior was not a claim about what you meant to say. It was an observation upon the limits of what you said.

Shawn

No, its one of the most sophisticated epistemologies there is. It furthers ethics, provides it more clarity. Again, I defer you to the multifarious ethical frameworks that can be drawn from in a given scenario, as exampled in the above series of questions I listed. — Garrett Travers

But, it seems that these things tend to take care of themselves, no? I mean, I gave an example of game theory assigning values to outcomes that are desirable or non-desirable.

So, instead of appealing to multifaceted ethical frameworks, it seems that utilitarianism sidesteps them by assuming that humans don't necessarily need to be watched over by Bentham's desire for government to oversee all activities of human interaction. Of course, this means that the whole thing is self-reinforcing.

Deleted User

You say it is okay for some to want stuff. It is less okay for others. — Paine

No, I'm not. I'm saying there is a difference between greedy people, which everyone hates, and that of the rationally self-interested, those who come by their wealth without disregarding rights and employing people only by way of voluntary contract.

My reference to bad behavior was not a claim about what you meant to say. — Paine

That seems pretty clear. It was clear that I didn't condone any behavior one way or another. I simply drew emphasis to an essential distinction that should be made by people when they bring up the term "greed."

Deleted User

So, instead of appealing to multifaceted ethical frameworks, it seems that utilitarianism sidesteps them by assuming that humans don't necessarily need to be watched over by Bentham's desire for government to oversee all activities of human interaction. Of course, this means that the whole thing is self-reinforcing. — Shawn

Oh, I see. Yes, I would agree. At the end of the day, any ethical framework is going to be the responsibility of the individual to employ. Generally speaking, humans tend to their own affairs well enough without oversight, or at least well enough to get along. If I'm understanding what you're saying properly.

Shawn

Oh, I see. Yes, I would agree. At the end of the day, any ethical framework is going to be the responsibility of the individual to employ. Generally speaking, humans tend to their own affairs well enough without oversight, or at least well enough to get along. If I'm understanding what you're saying properly. — Garrett Travers

I had a brainfart and forgot to mention that ethics inside of utilitarianism is devoid of personal bias and judgement.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, I think that what makes utilitarianism so important is its effectiveness at harnessing human greed, self-interest, and what Keynes called animal spirits to manage a flexible equilibrium between the marketplace and the consumer.

Aren't we all modern day utilitarian's?

Deleted User

↪Shawn

Fundamentally, yes, I would say. However, I have very stron utilitarian bias. Most people don't realize that utilitarianism is fully coherent ethical epistemology that is reliable. One of only a very few that are as structurally sound as what it is. Which is why it will never go away.

Shawn

Most people don't realize that utilitarianism is fully coherent ethical epistemology that is reliable. — Garrett Travers

But, the epistemology is mostly driven by what? Hedonism?

Deleted User

↪Shawn

It depends on whether or not the actions of a specific agent in a given scenario will produce effects for those beyond the agent. At a base level, utility is predicated on the well-being of the agent involved, don't think I'd use hedonic as means to characterize such thing, even if utilitarianism is a more sophisticated extension of Epicurian thought. But, more people involved in consequences shifts the focus from the individual. Now, if you mean to say that, even in the case of multitudes being involved, we're still looking at the maximal hedonic pleasure that can be achieved for all, then I'd say you're on to something to consider. So, yes, I can consider hedonism to be a primary driver in its own way.

Joshs

↪Garrett Travers

As far as a base level ethical framework, Utilitarianism, I hold, should be one of the primary starting points when alayzing any ethical dilemma. And as far as its presitige, it inarguably dominates the theoretical ethical landscape. There isn't a single philosophical framework that I know of that doesn't incorporate a good deal of utilitarian ethics. Period.

Do you think this is true of post-marxist, postmodernist and phenomenological philosophies as well? And what about Nietzsche’s relentless critiques of utilitarianism? I guess what I’m wondering is if utilitarianism is a big enough umbrella ( isnt consequentialiam an even bigger umbrella?) to cover political and ethical positions extending to the far left as well as the right.

— Garrett Travers

↪Garrett Travers

However, economics is not a utilitarian practice, fundamentally, and never should be. Very few people are motivated by anything short of greed, and greed is not an evil. In fact, praxiologically, it is going to be difficult for anyone to make the case that they aren't motivated almost exclusively by what has been termed "greed," which I would, in that specific sense, regard as irrational self-interest, or self-interest with a disregard to people's rights

I’m sure you would agree that utilitarianism and ethical philosophy in general is based around an understanding of concepts like rationality , motivation, emotion and hedonism. Such notions are obviously involved in notions
like greed, self-interest and distinctions between the rational and the irrational, and between rationality and emotion.

I bring this up because, given your professed respect for
the scientific method, I wonder what you feel is the relevance of the latest ideas in cognitive neuroscience for the ethical philosophy. For instance, many segments of contemporary psychology have all but abandoned the classic distinction between the rational and the irrational that you seem to uphold , and the opposition between the affective and the cognitive in the wake of research by people like Damasio, Panksepp and the predictive processing community. Among those who accept the implications of this research, it seems libertarian political views are a rarity. Is this just coincidence? Are these science theories politically motivated or is it the case that political views shift in parallel with the evolution of psychological models?Should we expect that utilitarian models originating 300 years ago should survive intact when the psychological assumptions they are based on have changed significantly in recent years?

Deleted User

I’m sure you would agree that utilitarianism and ethical philosophy in general is based around an understanding of concepts like rationality , motivation, emotion and hedonism. Such notions are obviously involved in notions
like greed, self-interest and distinctions between the rational and the irrational, and between rationality and emotion. — Joshs

Every single element of cognitive function contained in this message is a an elemental function of ethical assessment. Don't pidgeon-hole yourself into binary thought. It is never this or that in deliberations. Rationality is the sole starting point of all assessment; rationally assessing motivations, increased well-being and pleasure, self-interest, interpersonal harmony, the list goes on.

I bring this up because, given your professed respect for
the scientific method, I wonder what you feel is the relevance of the latest ideas in cognitive neuroscience for the ethical philosophy. For instance, many segments of contemporary psychology have all but abandoned the classic distinction between the rational and the irrational that you seem to uphold , and the opposition between the affective and the cognitive in the wake of research by people like Damasio, Panksepp and the predictive processing community. Among those who accept the implications of this research, it seems libertarian political views are a rarity. Is this just coincidence? Are these science theories politically motivated? Should we expect that utilitarian models originating 300 years ago should survive intact when the psychological assumptions they are based on have changed significantly in recent years? — Joshs

I would say a couple things here. It's been quite clear for sometime that the human mind is dominated by its subconscious givings, both genetic and epigentic. Response to stimuli is going to be first and foremost governed by unconscious cognition. That doesn't mean there isn't rationality, you're demonstrating such by voluntarily opting into an ethical discussion. As far as libertarians in the field are concerned, you seem to be forgetting that academia is dominated by the left, if you found libertarians in that sphere, they'd probably be keeping their ideas to themselves by and large. The philosophy professors I have met are by and large Utilitarians. Scientists aren't generally concerned with the philosophical arts. No, it isn't a coincidence. And no, the models won't be going away, because although it appears to be contradictive to the study of the unconscious mind, it turns out humans actually do have executive faculty that allows them to think, assess, rationalize, and create. A better question is: how much longer will consciousness remain the single greatest mystery to us? The field is young and will discover more and more through the coming decades.

Ciceronianus

It's not often that a field of science has arisen from the Philosophical Radicals of Bentham and latter John Stuart Mill all the way from England. Bentham and John Stuart Mill had a profound influence on the development of the United States. Sadly, the birth of socialism from the Philosophical Radicals in England found no welcoming from the United States. It seems that selfishness and greed prosper more than anything else nowadays instead of Bentham's liberalism. — Shawn

It's interesting that Mill subsequently (after the adoption of the Reform Act of 1832, supported by the Philosophical Radicals) argued in favor of plural voting, with the more educated given a greater number of votes than others in his Representative Government. It seems he became more leery of the idea of universal suffrage under the influence of Coleridge and others, even lauding government by an elite he called the "clerisy."

I don't know that Utilitarianism has triumphed, bu it remains a useful practical standard to apply in ethical and political issues.

Shawn

Just some passing thoughts that have been on my mind as to utilitarianism is that the greatest happiness principle seems to have been subterfuged to the desires of the individual. Meaning, that the notions of rational self-interest took a higher primacy over anything that Bentham or Mill might have desired for the greatest happiness principle to transpire in practice.

I wonder why the above seems true. The calculus of ascribing axiological values seems to point towards that human nature is mostly self-interested in economic affairs, that presuppose that what is best for one's self is good in terms of the pleasure principle.

So, I don't see any inconsistencies with the economics at large and utilitarianism apart from the issue of greed or rational self-interest deterring the greatest happiness principle.

Then again, the invisible hands works in mysterious ways.

Shawn

↪Ciceronianus

I think the Benthamites are even closer to the idea that Britain influenced the United States. Russell notes that Darwinism and Socialism arose from the Philosophical Radicals.

Any true government economist would say that they are closet Utilitarians, methinks.

Utilitarianism's Triumph

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions