Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
It isn't at all clear how to measure "units" of happiness.
.
Yes I agree, and the details of what I said in the OP can be torn apart, I understand that. But I'm more interested in the general things I am saying in op... all the hypotheticals and assumptions I made were for the purpose of only laying a ground work to expose something (namely, what to do / how utilitarianism looks in the event of someone who does not suffer from diminishing marginal utility) which I think utilitarians might have a hard time explaining / defending.
Don't get me wrong I would consider myself a millian utilitarian, so I mean I'm coming at this from the stance of "help me" rather than "im attacking bentham"
But here is what I have so far in defense of Bentham...
First, it might be that utilitarianism only functions on top of a basis of rights. This would mean that if a girl gets less pain from being raped than a guy gets from raping her, this does not mean he should rape here as it violates her rights which are more fundamental than utilitarianism (like a hierarchy of needs sort of speak).
I think this is okay however it has a weak spot which is in those scenarios which are so often discussed in philosophical circles that deal with violating the rights of a few to benefit many. Common scenarios are the hypothetical bomb at the super bowl and the guy who may have planted the bomb but wont speak unless we torture him, as well as the workers on the train track and the guy in the hospital who is healthy but we want to harvest his organs to save 5 people who each need a different organ.
The second thing I can think of is basically this... "utilitarianism works because it was created out of observation of humans etc. it is not dogmatic in the sense of "this is what we want, humanity must conform" but rather "this is the way humanity is, so we created utilitarianism because of that" ..."
And one of the things humans suffer from is in fact diminishing marginal utility. The reason this "utility monster" makes utilitarianism seem appalling is because utilitarianism was created for humans the way they are, and they are not "utility monsters."
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
Definitely there are some cases in which many interpretations of utilitarianism would favor helping this guy out.
What are these cases and do you know the arguments for / against helping this guy out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by madnak
Of course, said being probably doesn't exist, and if it did exist the likelihood of it getting pleasure from torturing people or whatever is unlikely.
But if there is a being such as that, then who am I to complain? I'm an ant, that's who. You might as well ask "what if God wants to torture people?" I mean, the answer is "that would suck." Bearing on utilitarianism? None, really.
Yeah he probably doesn't exist and probably never will, so I mean I guess this makes the discussion (all things being equal) less relevant, however I still think discussions / arguments for and against things like this are beneficial in understanding a viewpoint / principle / etc if only for the limits of it.
I do like what a Yale professor said on one of the lectures about Bentham which was something about Bentham pushes utilitarianism to the extreme and goes all the way with it, which to us is absurd, however it helps us because we can see it from start to finish and decide where to draw the line.
edit: so it might be that utilitarianism seems fine regardless of utility monsters, or it could be the case that utilitarianism works only with humans who suffer from diminishing marginal utility.
Last edited by Ryanb9; 07-05-2011 at 08:53 PM.