CDR: Re: Insurance: My Last Post
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:24:35PM -0500, Kevin Elliott V wrote:
Hash: SHA1
Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going nowhere:
My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this list. Here's the way I view the world:
1) Life has no inherent value. Our being here is random, and there is no purpose to our lives.
2) "Human progress" is bullshit. We are no further along as a species now than we were in Plato's time. Basically, we're going nowhere fast.
3) People have no essential "rights." Rights don't exist. This is a theme often found in the work of many modern philosophers, such as Foucault.
5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate this, because this would lead to less pain in the world. (And I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris "pain." ;-) Someone here said that each time taxes are raised, we lose freedom. So what? First of all, what is "freedom"? Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be evaluated before everything else?
The best answer I can give to this is to suggest you read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill. The theory you espouse in five, by the way, is utilitarianism though it is normally phrased in the positive "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" rather than the negative as you have expressed it.
I am fairly familar with utilitarian thought. My specific form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which means that each individual action is evaulated, instead of using utilitarian ideas to form a complete system of moral thought. The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Consider this example: There is going to be a Sado-Masachism (sp?) convention, which will be attended by 10,000 S&M-ers. They kidnap a poor person, bring him to their convention, and electrically shock him. This delights the crowd, but devastates the poor person. Under the common definition of utilitarianism, this act is justified because it pleasures 10,000, while hurting only 1. However, under my definition, this act is not justified because it creates a lot of pain, whereas not doing it does not create any pain.
It was originally formulated by a gentleman by the name of Jeremy Bentham, but is most associated with Mill who studied under Bentham and is responsible for a number of works on the subject. Mill is also most responsible for clarifying and revising it counter the easy arguments against it. Most interesting however for your interest, however, is "On Liberty" which clearly and concisely explains why the greatest happiness for the greatest number results from a society where government intervention (and thievery) is minimized and people are left to there own devices.
And I disagree with him. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE593Mq2FWyBZrQ84IRAvwkAKCaEAI8fHh+q3ZyWPqUe8UTFdd0YQCfR5nc MXVzyvMqF/YoUWtx+QyDbig= =4ChW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 16:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
I am fairly familar with utilitarian thought. My specific form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which means that each individual action is evaulated, instead of using utilitarian ideas to form a complete system of moral thought.
The problem with act utilitarianism is that in whatever form it takes it leaves itself much to open to the problems of personal view point. Hitler felt himself completely justified in murdering all the jews because he felt they were causing an enormous amount of pain to the rest of the population. He would have been justified under your framework IF it could be shown they were causing sufficient pain, although that would necessarily be enormous amount of pain.
The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Consider this example:
There is going to be a Sado-Masachism (sp?) convention, which will be attended by 10,000 S&M-ers. They kidnap a poor person, bring him to their convention, and electrically shock him. This delights the crowd, but devastates the poor person. Under the common definition of utilitarianism, this act is justified because it pleasures 10,000, while hurting only 1. However, under my definition, this act is not justified because it creates a lot of pain, whereas not doing it does not create any pain.
This is a problem with any formulation of act utilitarianism. Any formulation of act utilitarianism inherently falls victim to a set of extreme circumstances that result in outcomes which are clearly immoral (see the Hitler example above for a counter example). That's why I'm not an act utilitarianist.... -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott mailto:kelliott@mac.com ICQ#23758827
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:31:56PM -0500, Kevin Elliott wrote:
At 16:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
I am fairly familar with utilitarian thought. My specific form of utilitarianism is act utilitarianism, which means that each individual action is evaulated, instead of using utilitarian ideas to form a complete system of moral thought.
The problem with act utilitarianism is that in whatever form it takes it leaves itself much to open to the problems of personal view point. Hitler felt himself completely justified in murdering all the jews because he felt they were causing an enormous amount of pain to the rest of the population. He would have been justified under your framework IF it could be shown they were causing sufficient pain, although that would necessarily be enormous amount of pain.
Yup. He killed millions of Jews. Killing millions of Jews is pretty fucking bad. Therefore, they would have to be doing something REALLY BAD to warrant killing them. Like, I guess if having millions of Jews around would mean the end of the universe, then yeah, he'd be justified in killing them. In any case, were the Jews causing any pain in Europe? No. Hitler was a dumbass, and if he can't prove that they are causing ENOURMOUS pain, then he is acting immorally.
The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Consider this example:
There is going to be a Sado-Masachism (sp?) convention, which will be attended by 10,000 S&M-ers. They kidnap a poor person, bring him to their convention, and electrically shock him. This delights the crowd, but devastates the poor person. Under the common definition of utilitarianism, this act is justified because it pleasures 10,000, while hurting only 1. However, under my definition, this act is not justified because it creates a lot of pain, whereas not doing it does not create any pain.
This is a problem with any formulation of act utilitarianism. Any formulation of act utilitarianism inherently falls victim to a set of extreme circumstances that result in outcomes which are clearly immoral (see the Hitler example above for a counter example). That's why I'm not an act utilitarianist....
I don't think your Hitler example applies, because he could not prove that the Jews were causing pain. In any case, my formulation of act utilitarianism seems to suffer from those sorts of attacks less than the normal formulation, and I have yet to find a moral theory as coherant as utilitarianism. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard http://www.gnupg.org/ iD8DBQE597lE2FWyBZrQ84IRAjfMAKCBPSB3sUrfHTXUeqUl4XeN/tMiywCgrXqZ 64P5rvDAS6HEOn98g80r5lo= =3/VD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 21:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
I don't think your Hitler example applies, because he could not prove that the Jews were causing pain. In any case, my formulation of act utilitarianism seems to suffer from those sorts of attacks less than the normal formulation, and I have yet to find a moral theory as coherant as utilitarianism.
He had certainly managed to convince himself. And unfortunately if your using act utilitarianism, he's the only one who has to be convinced. I'm not sure your 10,000 screaming sadists was terribly likely either but I didn't whine about it... -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott mailto:kelliott@mac.com ICQ#23758827
Nathan Saper wrote:
The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Consider this example:
I have an even better example for you: Why not euthanize every single human being on the planet by lethan injection. It would be almost painless - just a prick of the needle, and they would never again feel any pain ever. After all, that would fit your socialist goals. :) There's no better plan for achieving the least pain for the greatest number according to your rantings. -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
participants (4)
-
Kevin Elliott -
Marcel Popescu -
Nathan Saper -
sunder