Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
I've myself used utilitarian arguments to defend stemcell research and abortions in discussions here and I think utilitarianism is sometimes good when it comes to making the really tough choices such as who lives and who dies, but as a moral theory to follow in everyday life? .. Not so much.
There are several reasons. One immediate one is that it's too simple. One basic increase happiness/minimize suffering rule is too simple to take care of your emotional interests. Humans have a natural capacity for morale. It's an integral part of most of us and the utilitarian rule does not describe it. I'm not sure any one moral theory does which is why I think people find it hard to be devout followers of one moral theory. To be a devout utilitarianist might mean having to make moral decisions that come into conflict with your feelings which try to guide you in such dilemmas. Basically, any action considered immoral by other normative theories can become morally good as long as the consequences are and our emotions generally don't work that way.
I don't think a so simple rule is a good guide in day to day life and I don't think following a morale theory which so easily could come into conflict with your emotional interests makes that much sense either.
|
I don't agree that utilitarianism in itself is too simple. However, it is indeed very easy to oversimplify things when trying to use it as there are many consequences that you are unaware of or will only show over time. I think that utilitarianism is always the correct way to define the morality of an action. Using it in everyday life is quite impossible though, as imagining all the consequences of a specific action is way too hard and complex to be done in a matter of seconds, or even minutes or hours. To safely determine the morality of an action one has to line up all the consequences one can think of, that the action will ever have, as objective as possible. This takes quite a lot of time, and requires input from other as well (otherwise it is quite likely that you have a set thesis to begin with and just can't think of consequences that invalidate it), so naturally one can only use it when one cares enough about a subject to really think it through carefully and for a long time.
When it comes to debate, I believe utilitarianism is the way to go, as time is most often a given and it is merely theoretical. (The outcome of the debate can hopefully then be used in order to make correct choices outside of the debate.)
Sometimes utilitarianism does indeed confront one's feelings. I feel that that's inevitable with any true moral system as I believe that feelings can not determine morality.
I feel like I'm rambling on incoherently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Actually, this is what you wrote :
And, the only way to interpret that sentence is that punishment such as the punishment of criminals is purely based on feelings. Of course it isn't. Punishment should have positive consequences, something you also admit :
So you admit there are positive consequences to punishment and my point then is that they are there by design and intention because of their consequence, not just because people want to see people punished.
I assume you do not actually mean the only reason society punishes criminals is to satisfy our hungry emotions, but hey - if you're gonna pick at my example argument which was specifically written to challenge Vegangelica's views and not your utilitarian ones, then I'm gonna nitpick at your post.  |
Yes, you are quite correct. The wording was a mistake on my part.