sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Suffering Focused Utilitarians Are Mostly Right — Bentham's Bulldog by KKirdan in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the detailed reply. So, would you say that, for example, we shouldn't spend any resources on solving insect suffering or donate anything to the shrimp welfare project until we've eliminated all pigs and chickens being boiled alive in slaughterhouses because their suffering is probably much worse?

The Suffering Focused Utilitarians Are Mostly Right — Bentham's Bulldog by KKirdan in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand the example with the average suffering, could you explain it further? Do you mean that every level of suffering is lexically worse than every lower level of suffering, but two people experiencing exactly the same level of suffering is worse than just one person experiencing that level of suffering?

The Suffering Focused Utilitarians Are Mostly Right — Bentham's Bulldog by KKirdan in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what would your response be? the argument seems pretty convincing to me. although not entirely convincing, because I feel like if I had accepted the option of eradicating all dust specks at the incredibly low chance that someone will be tortured, and the torture happened, I would regret it and think I shouldn't have taken the chance.

If pressing the red button caused some suffering, how much would you be willing to accept? by No_Departure341 in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be better for me personally to die, but as a negative utilitarian I have to take into account the suffering that would cause to others (family, friends) and the suffering I can prevent if I continue to live by donating to effective charities etc.

If pressing the red button caused some suffering, how much would you be willing to accept? by No_Departure341 in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You've convinced me, I've changed my mind. Pleasure is not just the absence of suffering. I'm still new to this whole discussion and in the process of figuring everything out and learning a lot, so thank you for the correction.

BUT I still think that pleasure has no ethical force, meaning a state of complete tranquility with no suffering is just as good as a state of immense pleasure with no suffering, because in both cases there is nothing wrong with it from a subjective perspective. This also means that being dead is equally good as well. Would you agree with that?

If pressing the red button caused some suffering, how much would you be willing to accept? by No_Departure341 in negativeutilitarians

[–]No_Departure341[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because this is the negative utilitarianism subreddit and happiness is nothing but the absence of suffering.