Theweakeredge AMA - Reboot

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 177
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
God - no - that's generalizing a word - i wasn't referring to any already-a-thing "soft utilitarianism" I mean that I don't subscribe to it because it's frankly much to quantanistic, it doesn't deal in nuance, whereas nuance is literally the key to all morality - so generally the concept of utilitarianism is fine - increasing good - but the particular interpretation that most utilitarians take is disagreeable to me, hence "soft utilitarian". 

also - please CITE where you got that example

And no - I don't remember the last one you put out-  the last thing I remember you putting there was a wall of text, if you don't have a wall of text as your last response, I haven't seen it. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just googled the word and read the first thing that popped up and it brought those questions to mind. I'm not familiar with soft Utilitarianism, So how do you define it? 


Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I already did that... like, literally in the post you responded to
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I reread it, but you didn't define it. So what do you mean when you say soft Utilitarianism? 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
so generally the concept of utilitarianism is fine - increasing good - but the particular interpretation that most utilitarians take is disagreeable to me, hence "soft utilitarian". 
This is me defining what I MEAN when I say soft utilitarianism, because - hint hint - I'm not actually referring to an official ideology, this is just something I came up as a short hand for what should be obvious. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
What about the statement, "the most good for the most number is the supreme principle of morality" do you disagree with? 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Raw numbers don't always quantify what the MOST HARM or is or what the MOST GOOD is. Which is a thing I've already explained to you. Numerous times
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Why are you always so angry?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
RMM

Mmmm, angry is probably the wrong word - frustrated is better. Now, some of the BS you try to pull actually makes me angry, but in general, I become frustrated easily. And the answer is probably a combination of things: Anxiety, feelings of inferiority, general frustration with perceived incompetence, general frustration with perceived dishonesty, the current hopeless situation that pervades real life all the time, breaking up with my boyfriend, etc, etc - or you could be projecting. Either one really. 
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yeah I don't agree with Utilitarianism either, but what modification would you add to that principle, so that it becomes "Soft-Utilitarianism" as opposed to just regular Utilitarianism?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
The quantifying of lives. Again, I was VERY explicit with what I saw wrong with Utilitarianism. One person being harmed does not always equal another singular person being harmed, in fact, in most instances it doesn't. Utilitarians seem to forget that
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
So I'm curious why you choose to call yourself a soft utilitarian rather than a hedonist or some other theory of well-being based morality.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't typically, it was a shorthand. And I have no idea what a hedonist is, nor do I trust your definitions to be unbiased - you have a tendency of trusting google's top result apparently. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
One person being harmed does not always equal another singular person being harmed, in fact, in most instances it doesn't. Utilitarians seem to forget that
No they don't. In fact, the entire philosophy rests on it.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Lol bro, that was just so I could ask a more informed question. All the information I have about moral theories of well-being come from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I don't think you necessarily would be classified as a hedonist, but you do allude to negative well being as being pain, which is part of hedonism.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Did you know that Christopher Nolan's Batman movies are actually all a critique of utilitarianism? Ra's al Ghul trying to crash a train into Gotham City for a quick little proof, but even Heath Ledger's Joker and Harvey Two-Face are victims of trolley problem thinking. Utilitarianism is just bunk af tbh. There's something of the game of Russian roulette in it, even. Strange philosophy. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
Then we don't see it at all the same. I would disagree heavily with that intrepretation
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Peter Singer is also like the world's leading crackpot and there's something of euthanasia or eugenics in effective altruism. It really is some barmy shit.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.

Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and bad;  b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have).

See here, me and utilitarianism would almost agree - it's fairly similar to my basis of groundwork, its the interpretation that I take issue with. 
"To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people attending like chocolate while others like vanilla. As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole. If seven like chocolate and three like vanilla and if all of them get the same amount of pleasure from the flavor they like, then you should choose chocolate. This will yield what Bentham, in a famous phrase, called “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”"
Because it assumes the pleasure of ONE PERSON equals the pleasure of ONE OTHER PERSON, when that is not always the case, or actually almost ever. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Theweakeredge
Blocked.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
Me?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Seriously, first of all, you changed harm to pleasure there, and it's barely workable if we're deciding on who should get pleasure. Second, that's just not the reason at all utilitarianism is bullshit.

The whole debate in utilitarianism revolves around social worth, a greater good in individual people. The philosophy would absolutely having us weighing the worth of individual people. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
That's why I said the "INTERPRETATION" - seriously - and no... the harm and pleasure thing are equal in this instance, they symbolize the same thing.... also - there can be fringe cases, fine, but I am talking about the overall ideology. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
This is you:

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@badger
Give me a rebuttal or engage with my arguments please. I already explained that the popular interpretation of the framework is my problem, given that moralities are half framework and half interpretation, I'd say its pretty important. 

84 days later

drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
thats was an interesting read anyways,
equality or equity?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@drlebronski
Mm - more generally for equity - the only way we can reach the state of equality is through at least some equity
StevenCrowder
StevenCrowder's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 21
0
0
4
StevenCrowder's avatar
StevenCrowder
0
0
4
communist
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@StevenCrowder
Myself? No, economically speaking I'm much closer to socialism - though I do admit there are issues with it over a longer period of time practically - as such I would prefer a combination of socialism and capitalism. Particularly, there be specific bare minimums and maximums that governments regulate in regards to: pay, disturbution, and construction. Such regulation would include also ensuring that monopolization cannot occur, which would allow workers to own part of the production, thus allowing them to do things such as; create branching companies, ensure higher wages for workers is easier to reorganize, and lower the wages of CEOs and such. 

This is the only way to eliminate, or at least mitigate, the inherent exploitation of capitalism.
StevenCrowder
StevenCrowder's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 21
0
0
4
StevenCrowder's avatar
StevenCrowder
0
0
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
Socialism is communism they r the same thing. Liberals  use them separately to make it seem like they aren't supporters of stalin but in reality they all are. you totalitarian authoritarian "socialist"