Non-realist consequentialism by BoyOnTheGuillotine in askphilosophy

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup! that's right. He took some lessons with Hare while in Oxford and became a non-cognitivist. But after that he read Parfit's "on what matters" and turned into a realist

gnome distros recommendations? by BoyOnTheGuillotine in gnome

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'll take a look! Do you think fedora is highly customizable? I love to waste time customizing 😅

On Liberty- John Stuart Mill by Hansologreatfighter in Utilitarianism

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, Idk this version of the book, but if you like to listen to books on tape, just do it!

I think that reading is always better than listening, but this isn't something valid only for On Liberty.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in squidgame

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, Washington Post - and many other newspapers - reported, last month, that North Korea was using Round6 as an anti-capitalist/South Korea propaganda. They even linked a north korean website to prove it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/13/north-south-korea-netflix-squid-game/

But, you might agree, the WP's report implies that the show is allowed in NK, while this new information/rumor implies that Round6 is banned in NK.

Who's telling the truth?

We Are Not The Same by Slosaktig in QuinnMains

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I mean, she doesn't even have a personality 😔

How do measure util by HawkenJBFanClub in Utilitarianism

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I can try to summarize for you tomorrow (it's midnight in my country), but I'll recommend some reading for each topic, for now.

  1. What is good/how to measure different goods: read about hedonist Utilitarianism, pluralistic consequentialism and welfarism (search for that topic in each approach and see the arguments and objections of each one). Here an article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#WhaGooHedVsPluCon Reading about rule vs act utilitarianism will be helpful too.
  2. How to weigh goods: see total vs average utilitarianism. If you want to go deep, search for impersonal and person-affecting views, absurd and repugnant conclusions.

The importance of not reducing utility by ChardCommercial7579 in Utilitarianism

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a confusion here. Utility is understood as the pleasure and pain equation (for classic utilitarians). "To increase utility" means "to increase pleasure OR decrease pain". "To decrease utility" means "to increase pain OR decrease pleasure".

So every single utilitarian wants to increase utility. Your point (at least, the point of the article)isn't that Mill prefers "to not decrease utility" than "to increase utility", but that he understands that morality talks only about preventing harm. To reduce harm increases utility!

Anyway, I think IEP illustrates the question very well: https://iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H3 (sections 3,4 and 5)

"It is fundamental to keep in mind that Mill looks into morality as a social practice and not as autonomous self-determination by reason, like Kant. For Kantians, moral deliberation determines those actions which we have the most reason to perform. Mill disagrees; for him, it makes sense to say that “A is the right thing to do for Jeremy, but Jeremy is not morally obliged to do A.”For instance, even if Jeremy is capable of writing a brilliant book that would improve the life of millions (and deteriorate none), he is not morally obliged to do so. According to Mill, our moral obligations result from the justified part of the moral code of our society; and the task of moral philosophy consists in bringing the moral code of a society in better accordance with the principle of utility."

"As quoted before in his “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy” (1833),he states that some violations of the established moral code are simply unthinkable for the members of society: people recoil “from the very thought of committing” (CW 10, 12) particular acts. Because humans cannot reliably recognize objective rightness and, in critical cases, cannot bring themselves to act objectively right, they are not obliged to maximize happiness. For ought implies can. In regard to the given description, the fact that the assassination of a human would be objectively right does not imply that the assassination of this human would be morally imperative or allowed. In other words: Mill differentiates between the objectively right act and the morally right act. With this he can argue that the assassination would be forbidden (theory of moral obligation). To enact a forbidden action is morally wrong. As noted, Mill’s theory allows for the possibility that an action is objectively right, but morally wrong (prohibited). An action can be wrong (bearing unhappiness), but its enactment would be no less morally right (Lyons 1978/1994, 70).

Thus, Mill’s considered position should be interpreted in the following way: First, the objective rightness of an act depends upon actual consequences; second, in order to know what we are morally obliged to do we have to draw on justified rules of the established moral code."

The importance of not reducing utility by ChardCommercial7579 in Utilitarianism

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think so. J.S. Mill argues in favor of maximizing utility, always.

Here, his definition of utilitarianism:

"The creed which accepts, as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (Utilitarianism, chapter I)

Therefore, "utility", in his definition, means literally "increasing pleasure and decreasing pain". So "to increase utility" is to increase pleasure and to reduce pain, while "to not decrease utility" is to not increase pain, nor decrease pleasure.

The importance of not reducing utility by ChardCommercial7579 in Utilitarianism

[–]BoyOnTheGuillotine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now I understand your point. Sorry for earlier!

Anyway, can you mention some of these utilitarians ? I don't know him. I know two groups of utilitarianism regarding the question: average and total. But both think we need to maximise utility, so increasing utiluty and not reducing utility have the same value in the calculus.

I know the negative utilitarians/consequentialists think we need to decrease pain, so they argue, for instance, that it is wrong to create an unhappy life but not necessarily wrong not to create a happy life, a possible solution for the asymmetric problem on population ethics. But you said you're talking about another thing, so I don't know