PhilosophyMemes

204 readers

158 users here now

Memes must be related to phil.

The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au

founded 4 weeks ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

132

100 utility (quokk.au)

submitted 1 week ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/philosophymemes@quokk.au

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I hate to break it to you but all values are made up.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

look at this user, they don't even believe in universal moral truth

[–] showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website 2 points 1 week ago

What is universal? What is moral, and what is truth? Oh man maybe I did smoke too much weed in the 60’s?

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The thing is that utilitarians have this pseudo arithmetic concept that looks objective while it's not. Other schools of thought are more openly subjective and therefore more honest

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Do you have an example of this pseudo-arithmetic? You mean like the trolley problem, that saving five people is better than ~~saving~~ not murdering one?

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

ahem

"...that murdering one person is better than letting five die"

FTFY

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

True, fixed it

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trolley is a good example. Or "You run into a burning house and can either save a dog or a human who is in coma". Like, don't even pretend you have a metric for situations that specific. There is also longtermism which I'm sure not all utilitarians subscribe to, basically saying there will be so many people in the future that it's more important to invest in the technology of my stakeholders than to help our contemporaries. And it doesn't matter that I'm rich because I will have more offspring than the poor so it's a net positive. As if you could foresee all the consequences. What you can in fact foresee is the consequence of treating people as your equals.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Three good examples - I'd say that

the trolley problem is a reasonable application of utilitarianism, not depending on any other metric than "it is good to stop a person from dying". The main problem with applying it in practice is not the arithmetic (which is sound), but that you are almost never guaranteed that killing the one person will actually save the others.
comatose man vs dog in burning building is a good example of a case where utilitarianism can't give you an answer, but can give you a way of investigating the problem by discussing what utility is in this situation
longtermism is like the reverse of utilitarianism to me. Utilitarianism asks you to ignore the abstract to justify ethics based on actual consequences. Longtermism asks you to ignore the consequences of the present in favor of some made up abstract future utility. It's the opposite of utilitarianism.

Ultimately, utilitarianism isn't about calculating which situation gives more utility, but about critically investigating whether your actions actually make the world a better place.