First principles

You could make the same argument for "minimizing killing".

Still waiting on a response from you Rott, are you a pacifist?

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I'm confused. What are these "exceptions" and "rules" of which you speak? By the philosophy, if something worsens the pleasure:pain ratio, then it is bad, and if something betters it, then it is good; I agree with this in entirety. That it would not, by itself, make great practical advice to someone unwilling to think, ignorant, inexperienced, whatever, seems irrelevant to me to its being a fundamental value.

Honestly, the reason I came to think about fundamental values and utilitarianism in the first place was from thinking about the conflicts people encounter with such flawed systems as having multiple fundamental wrongs (leading to, say, "is killing acceptable to prevent killing", "are fifty lies worth more bad than one killing", etc), as considering an action to affect the value of a situation (ex. "killing a man is worse than letting three die for not doing so, all unspecified factors equal". I know a lot of people believe that, but it is, simply, an alien idea to me), and... I seem to have lost track of my thoughts.

I think I've typed enough on these forums for how many posts I have thus far anyways.

edited 31st Mar '11 5:45:32 PM by Garbeld

Rott: I still can't get your link to work.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

@Garbeld: The trickiness has to do with how hard it is to actually quantify happiness and how happiness/suffering mean different things to different people. And even if it were possible to definitively gauge happiness and suffering in the world, then there's the question of "Would it be right to make one individual suffer so that lots of individuals could be much happier?". If we were just looking at the ratio of happiness:suffering, it might seem justifiable, but that doesn't sit right with most people. So often it becomes necessary to add caveats, like "The happiness to suffering ratio must be made as high as possible, but not at the expense of a very unequal distribution of happiness."

@Rott: Children cannot consent, but parents have sovereignty over their children in most respects, and they can consent. So no, you can't go around doping kids on painkillers. Not to mention that giving them painkillers when they're not actually in the level of pain that it's meant to treat is not minimizing their suffering, since they will likely have horrible consequences down the line. Likewise with the wolves and the deer - first of all, the park rangers in that area are entrusted with the care and monitoring of the wildlife there, not you. Second, locking up all the wolves so that they won't hurt deer will catastrophically ruin the ecosystem and cause future suffering for both wolves and deer that far exceeds the suffering of deer now.

And also, this whole philosophy is not meant to force you to actively do things - it's meant to help you evaluate actions you already want to do, to see if that decision is in fact moral.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

TBH, I'm not seeing why we can't combine the two main conflicting ideologies in this thread into "minimize killing, maximize happiness".

Unless I missed something that makes it so that wanting people not to die needlessly means they must be miserable and wanting people to be happy means THEY MUST DIE!

Doesn't anybody here take self-ownership or self-determination as a first principle?

Damn, I'm disappointed.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

In my case, it's because 1. I do not see inherent value in life 2. killing and pleasure are not the same scale, meaning one has to come up with a system for "How much pleasure is worth how much death?" among other things.

edited 25th Nov '12 3:56:36 PM by JosefBugman

Coincidence?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Bugman: I'm so sorry that I took time away and spent it with my girlfriend.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Well, if they can derive those from their first principles then it's all good, really.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

edited 25th Nov '12 3:56:43 PM by JosefBugman

Might as well post this here, after giving it some thought. My principals:

1. Try to find the best solution, being as careful as possible. Completely relying on ethical theories like utilitarianism to make decisions for you is stupid and weak, as there are many valuable things to be protected. The ends do not justify the means, nor do the means justify the ends.
2. Whenever possible, follow laws and rules. The law helps people on the large scale, and moral rules are often motivating in a positive way. - {"Laws" referring to Deontology, "moral rules" referring to virtue ethics.}
3. Always take care and reexamine all possibilities and perspectives. Extremism is always, always dangerous. Nine times out of ten moderation is preferable. - {Related to Pragmatism.}
4. You cannot always change the world, but you can always change yourself. Imagine two people, equally happy. However, one of them is a hero who has saved many people, at great personal cost, while the other has done nothing. Both are equally happy, but the former has done more. Be the former person, and you will be both happy and moral. - {Stoicism?}

I'm unsure of what label to attach to item one, so I left it blank.

Additional qualities are helpful when placed with the above, such as ideal observer theory.

edited 5th Apr '11 11:40:07 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD