im still not convinced, the woman choosing between her kids and the neighbours kid is too big of a plot hole to just write off as an exception. feels like human nature is an after thought here used to duck tape up some shakey framework rather than sth incorporated into ur moral system. frankly in a utilitarian mindset, you *should* sell urself to organ harvesters. you can't just weasel out of the butt end of a trolley problem like that. you would have pulled that lever on someone else. if human nature suddenly becomes a concern here then maybe you should have included it into the foundations of ur philosophy.
also feels like ur explaining a bunch of moral decisions in post with "see how much happiness would be gained by that decision?" when amounts and distribution are very unclear. it uses the same reasoning for certain when faced with decisions weighing groups of all shapes and sizes. if all of russias glory wasnt based on invading ukraine but invading 1 family's house in finland utilitarianism would posit the same decisionmaking explanations, possibly with the same excuses. greatest amount of happiness is not a useful unit. at the end if the day its some other moral code making decisions here, with utilitarianism showing up afterwards with a smiley face to steal the credit
I tried to make a contrast between the System One decisions that are informed by evolution (natural and cultural) and System Two decisions (rational). System One (and 50 million years of primate evolution) says you should give preference to your own children and there's no need to mess with that. Various societies have tried to mess with it from time to time but they all seem to suck really badly and eventually go back to System One. Best to stick with what works.
When System One doesn't give an answer or it turns out that the System One answer sucks, you need to think about which decision will result in the most happiness. Russia invading Ukraine has made a lot of people unhappy. Even if Russia wins, the amount of happiness in the world went down by a long way. It's best not to invade your neighbours.
still not convinced, you'd kill ur pet pig for the heroin adjacent pleasure of bacon and sausages for a couple days rather than just eating some cauliflower, but suddenly when someone wants to kill you for the survival of 5 sick patients suddenly system 1 says no
and like i said invading your neighbors somehow equates to the happiness of invading the millions in ukraine, which to me says the "amounts" of happiness really isnt whats being weighed here. its just a human nature decision being wrapped up in a utilitarian gift box.
i think utilitarianism would not have you killing ur pigs for some sandwich based pleasure dose, and if youre going to make a life guiding philosophy it shouldnt fall apart at such a basic human function like that. if theres some moral philosophy worth subscribing to out there, it should at least be able to explain this simple situation without throwing its hands up and taking a back seat to "uhh.. human nature"
in your terms, your system 2 does not align with your system 1 even when consulting the basics of humanity. i notion that if thats the case when would you ever be able to rely on your 2nd system, since it doesnt hold up even in foundational situations.
system 1 says: sure eat meat its a natural part of human life
system 2 says: killing causes too much unhappiness to pretty much ever be worth it, and as understanding grows, killing animals for food is only going to get less and less worth it as the environmental destruction proceeds
I’ve just found your Substack via your comment on Christine Arnade’s post. Some great posts I’ve enjoyed reading them.
I liked the gate analogy in this one but wonder can we ever fully know what the gate is for. You use the example of gay marriage as a harmless gate to open but in another post express some doubts about trans ideology and also how legitimate debates are now shut down with shouts of an ‘ist’ or ‘phobia.’ I’m not drawing a causal line from acceptance of same sex love to extreme trans ideology but every gate we’ve opened, particularly in the field of sexuality, has led to bigger fields and more gates. Not only can that lead to discomfort in a world without any recognisable boundaries, it has come with considerable pressure for those of us happy in our own field to become actively celebratory of all others. It seems to me there is a line where the primary virtue of tolerance passes into something much more coercive. We can’t chat over a gate, we must burn it down. At that point the happiness quotient goes up for some and down for others, which is about power.
Thank you for stopping by, Martin, and for your kind words.
I think the gay community were simply asking for the right to live their lives without persecution with the right to marry and equal rights in employment etc. In Chesterton’s Gate analogy, there was no reason for the gate and the gate was taken down.
If the trans community were simply asking for the gate to be taken down, they would have majority support, I am sure. Support would not be universal, of course, just as support for gay rights was not universal and they would still face plenty of obstacles and bigotry for a while to come. If trans activists were just arguing for the right to live their lives, I am sure most people would agree.
But they are asking for more than that. They are asking for changes to the culture and language - pronoun declarations, unisex toilets and chestfeeding for example. The changes they are asking for also collide with the rights of women in, for example, Olympic swimming and weightlifting and access to single-sex spaces.
I personally, think there is an easy compromise available to the trans community that allows them to live the lives they want to live. In JK Rowlings’ words, “dress how you want to dress, live who you want to love, be who you want to be”.
There are some tricky issues around the edges but I think we can solve them and we will all be better off - especially the trans community.
And later Bentham realised that his words were being misinterpreted and that people thought he was condoning sacrificing a single person for the happiness of the many, such as the organ donor. He responded saying that if you sacrifice one person, then what’s to stop you sacrificing a second, and then a third and then where will it end? He said it was never acceptable to sacrifice a single innocent for the happiness of the majority. And, as you say, there’s the unintended consequences - the impact to society’s security and cohesion of a single unethical act could be enormously negative.
What a great article! I agree. I am a fan! I do think some people interpret Bentham to mean that the happiness of the many means the suffering of a minority. That was not his intention. He was a great social reformer in a society where the inequalities of the time meant that the privileged few often had the law and public opinion on their side. Bentham was instrumental in changing perceptions to encompass the rights of the poor majority. At the same time, his writings have provided far-reaching moral considerations for future generations. And I agree the word ‘utilitarianism’ is awful - perhaps ‘Jeremonics’ would have given him a bigger following.
I think that thinking about the amount of happiness that will likely be generated by an action is a good way to focus the conversation, even if it's not possible to measure the amount accurately. I think it helps to reveal what you think the consequences will be and which consequences are important.
im still not convinced, the woman choosing between her kids and the neighbours kid is too big of a plot hole to just write off as an exception. feels like human nature is an after thought here used to duck tape up some shakey framework rather than sth incorporated into ur moral system. frankly in a utilitarian mindset, you *should* sell urself to organ harvesters. you can't just weasel out of the butt end of a trolley problem like that. you would have pulled that lever on someone else. if human nature suddenly becomes a concern here then maybe you should have included it into the foundations of ur philosophy.
also feels like ur explaining a bunch of moral decisions in post with "see how much happiness would be gained by that decision?" when amounts and distribution are very unclear. it uses the same reasoning for certain when faced with decisions weighing groups of all shapes and sizes. if all of russias glory wasnt based on invading ukraine but invading 1 family's house in finland utilitarianism would posit the same decisionmaking explanations, possibly with the same excuses. greatest amount of happiness is not a useful unit. at the end if the day its some other moral code making decisions here, with utilitarianism showing up afterwards with a smiley face to steal the credit
I tried to make a contrast between the System One decisions that are informed by evolution (natural and cultural) and System Two decisions (rational). System One (and 50 million years of primate evolution) says you should give preference to your own children and there's no need to mess with that. Various societies have tried to mess with it from time to time but they all seem to suck really badly and eventually go back to System One. Best to stick with what works.
When System One doesn't give an answer or it turns out that the System One answer sucks, you need to think about which decision will result in the most happiness. Russia invading Ukraine has made a lot of people unhappy. Even if Russia wins, the amount of happiness in the world went down by a long way. It's best not to invade your neighbours.
still not convinced, you'd kill ur pet pig for the heroin adjacent pleasure of bacon and sausages for a couple days rather than just eating some cauliflower, but suddenly when someone wants to kill you for the survival of 5 sick patients suddenly system 1 says no
and like i said invading your neighbors somehow equates to the happiness of invading the millions in ukraine, which to me says the "amounts" of happiness really isnt whats being weighed here. its just a human nature decision being wrapped up in a utilitarian gift box.
I think both system 1 and system 2 still have most of us enjoying bacon sandwiches. Maybe that will change one day though.
i think utilitarianism would not have you killing ur pigs for some sandwich based pleasure dose, and if youre going to make a life guiding philosophy it shouldnt fall apart at such a basic human function like that. if theres some moral philosophy worth subscribing to out there, it should at least be able to explain this simple situation without throwing its hands up and taking a back seat to "uhh.. human nature"
in your terms, your system 2 does not align with your system 1 even when consulting the basics of humanity. i notion that if thats the case when would you ever be able to rely on your 2nd system, since it doesnt hold up even in foundational situations.
to clarify, my understanding is that
system 1 says: sure eat meat its a natural part of human life
system 2 says: killing causes too much unhappiness to pretty much ever be worth it, and as understanding grows, killing animals for food is only going to get less and less worth it as the environmental destruction proceeds
aka
system 1 = eat meat =/= system 2 = dont eat meat
aka
they dont allign
I’ve just found your Substack via your comment on Christine Arnade’s post. Some great posts I’ve enjoyed reading them.
I liked the gate analogy in this one but wonder can we ever fully know what the gate is for. You use the example of gay marriage as a harmless gate to open but in another post express some doubts about trans ideology and also how legitimate debates are now shut down with shouts of an ‘ist’ or ‘phobia.’ I’m not drawing a causal line from acceptance of same sex love to extreme trans ideology but every gate we’ve opened, particularly in the field of sexuality, has led to bigger fields and more gates. Not only can that lead to discomfort in a world without any recognisable boundaries, it has come with considerable pressure for those of us happy in our own field to become actively celebratory of all others. It seems to me there is a line where the primary virtue of tolerance passes into something much more coercive. We can’t chat over a gate, we must burn it down. At that point the happiness quotient goes up for some and down for others, which is about power.
When are you getting to Nietzsche?😀
I've never actually read Nietzsche but I have Beyond Good and Evil next in my queue. So, soon!
Thank you for stopping by, Martin, and for your kind words.
I think the gay community were simply asking for the right to live their lives without persecution with the right to marry and equal rights in employment etc. In Chesterton’s Gate analogy, there was no reason for the gate and the gate was taken down.
If the trans community were simply asking for the gate to be taken down, they would have majority support, I am sure. Support would not be universal, of course, just as support for gay rights was not universal and they would still face plenty of obstacles and bigotry for a while to come. If trans activists were just arguing for the right to live their lives, I am sure most people would agree.
But they are asking for more than that. They are asking for changes to the culture and language - pronoun declarations, unisex toilets and chestfeeding for example. The changes they are asking for also collide with the rights of women in, for example, Olympic swimming and weightlifting and access to single-sex spaces.
I personally, think there is an easy compromise available to the trans community that allows them to live the lives they want to live. In JK Rowlings’ words, “dress how you want to dress, live who you want to love, be who you want to be”.
There are some tricky issues around the edges but I think we can solve them and we will all be better off - especially the trans community.
And later Bentham realised that his words were being misinterpreted and that people thought he was condoning sacrificing a single person for the happiness of the many, such as the organ donor. He responded saying that if you sacrifice one person, then what’s to stop you sacrificing a second, and then a third and then where will it end? He said it was never acceptable to sacrifice a single innocent for the happiness of the majority. And, as you say, there’s the unintended consequences - the impact to society’s security and cohesion of a single unethical act could be enormously negative.
What a great article! I agree. I am a fan! I do think some people interpret Bentham to mean that the happiness of the many means the suffering of a minority. That was not his intention. He was a great social reformer in a society where the inequalities of the time meant that the privileged few often had the law and public opinion on their side. Bentham was instrumental in changing perceptions to encompass the rights of the poor majority. At the same time, his writings have provided far-reaching moral considerations for future generations. And I agree the word ‘utilitarianism’ is awful - perhaps ‘Jeremonics’ would have given him a bigger following.
Thank you! I'm blushing!
Furthermore, although his calculus isn’t perfect it was/is a good rule of thumb for macro rule-making and policy-making. It was truly revolutionary.
I think that thinking about the amount of happiness that will likely be generated by an action is a good way to focus the conversation, even if it's not possible to measure the amount accurately. I think it helps to reveal what you think the consequences will be and which consequences are important.