I would say we have this inherent property of inaction at times (omissions), poor actions at times, incomplete actions or misguided actions etc.

I'm being a bit of a nit but using the proxy word "evil" in my judgment is ill-advised.

I would also substitute the word Species for race. Again, my nit.

Individual freedom and liberty is more useful to the collective good of the human species - particularly over the long-term - than strict moral regulation or restriction and suppression of moral choice. The formula is rather simple. The more you restrict people's moral choices (for example, refer to earlier influences of the church prior to the age of enlightenment) the less societal and scientific progress (especially seen over the long-term). Moreover, this formula doesn't only apply to moral choices but to the freedom of all choice in general.

With regard to your angry tone - firstly, I didn't know I had to demonstrate how individual freedoms play into the concept of usefulness. No one had asked me to demonstrate that, so your sudden expectation and criticism therein are unwarranted.

Secondly, if you don't think that concepts of personal liberty and utilitarianism can be reconciled I will point you to three writers in particular: JS Mill, Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

How come we refer to us as "the human race" but we never refer to dolphins as "the dolphin race" or to elephants as "the elephant race"? Perhaps because race and species aren't synonymous?

Can you possibly give a brief statement as to how you think the ideologies of Ayn Rand reconciles personal liberty with utilitarianism?

If societal and scientific progress leads to a reduction in suffering, and a society with a high value for personal liberty leads to societal and scientific progress: then personal liberty is reconciled with utilitarianism.

Ayn Rand specifically bridges the two using her notion of personal integrity.

Race is a social construct - Not a scientific fact. Species is the correct term. We are **** sapiens. A specific species of primates (under the genus ****). Since I'm being a nit in this thread we are **** Sapiens Sapiens if you prefer. Modern Humans.

Would it not be better to use John Stuart Mill?

I'm just being a counter-nit. I personally just prefer to use the word species because it demonstrates my focus on the grander view as opposed to the narrowed view on societies/cultures/countries or any kind of intra-human divisions. Also, most of my understanding of moral philosophy stems from evolutionary psychology where terms like species are more useful than terms like race.

Why does scientific progress lead to reduced suffering? This is only true if the progress is shared with everyone equally, which to my understanding, personal liberty does not always allow. At least the liberties Rand implied.

Scientific progress benefits the elite. At first. After a decade or two, this progress trickles down onto the lower classes. For example. 200 years ago, the King of England, in his infinite possessions could not afford to cure the common flu, and many in his day died from it. Nowadays a poor kid living in the slums of India can save up for a week and buy himself paracetamol or antibiotics. That's progress.

I'm good with species.

My use of evil is specific to Aaron's claim regarding the depravity of man in another discussion. In it he defended that people are inherently evil and I disagreed.

Do you have something beyond an assertion here? It's fine if this is your fundamental claim, I'm just looking for you to identify what's at the root of your position.

It would make sense that you would, given that you're expanding on your concept of morality. So far, none of *your* concepts of individual freedoms (as presented) play into the concept of usefulness as you've defined it (at all).

I'm not saying that they can't be, I'm saying that what you've presented hasn't done so. But I will suggest that your concept of "usefulness" for morality as the narrowly-defined concept that you've stated does not appear to be connected with what you've said about personal freedoms. (And you spent a lot of time trying to be very precise about your concept of morality being applied to consequences at the species level, and not the individual level.)

I don't believe (though I may be wrong) that "usefulness" is the tool that Rand uses. Rand's tool is a very self-centered concept whereas yours is focused on species-survival. So I'm not sure that a Randian approach is consistent with what you're using. I think Mill's and Aristotle's ideas are similarly self-centered.

So none of these seem to construct a concept of morality based upon the same foundation as these people have laid.

It seems that every time I explain my position to you, you just revert back to - you did not explain it. It's getting tiresome and I see no point going through it again and again and again. For one, I'm not learning anything from you. For two, it's just frustrating.
I think you should have a revised read of the three writers I suggested if you don't think my notions fit theirs.

You're free to requote something if you've said something and I've missed it. But up to this point, I don't see the parts fitting together.

Why not actually present a direct criticism of my observation?

Am I wrong to state that Rand's concepts were built on an individualistic ethos, whereas yours is built on the species-wide concept of "usefulness to the species" and not the individual?

For example,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/

Isn't this saying something different than what you're saying about morality:

I don't see how Rand's focus on the individual is reconciled to your focus on the species. I think it's quite clear that what may be best for the species is often in conflict with that which would benefit the individual (or at least that which would increase the individual's happiness).

You don't see it because you blatantly haven't read Rand's work. All her work is about reconciling utilitarian goals using an individualistic morality, as opposed to an altruistic morality.

How does she do it? Using three important notions of (1) personal integrity; (2) need for achievement and the all important - (3) personal liberty. It is not only possible but apparent that people can and do reach utilitarian goals through individualistic and selfish motives. America has been doing it since Rand's very influence on corporate america and Alan Greenspan and hundreds of other millionaires and billionaires that were borne out of Rand's inner-circle.

Maybe you should pause for a moment and make sure you know what utilitarianism is. After all, you seemed to have moral absolutism wrong, so it is not unreasonable that you're saying one word, but the meaning you wish to endow it with is something completely different.

Specifically, it's far from clear that the "utilitarian goals" being reconciled are the utilitarian goals that you've established. You are measuring utility by "usefulness to the species." That does not appear to actually be the same goal that Rand is pursuing.

This seems to be pointing very directly at the usefulness to a society, not usefulness to the species. So I'm not sure what you're saying.

Also, you've used the term "utilitarian goals" and I'm still not sure what goals you're referring to. Since you've talked about John Mill and suggested that you're coherent with his views, it would seem that you would be trying to talk about utilitarianism in the following sense:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/

This doesn't sound anything remotely close to a utilitarian goal of "usefulness to the species." In fact, it seems to stand directly opposed to it. As does Rand's view.

I'll admit to not having read deeply in this area. But what you're saying appears to be in conflict with what I understand. So I'm waiting to see the dots connected in a meaningful way.

This is where my notions split from hers, or are based on hers you could say, since some of my views on morality differ. For example, she argues that even love is a logical process and must be pursued as such but this kind of thinking is highly limited (as pointed out by critics). It's limitation is also seen in her own love life - seeing as she was in love with someone for reasons that she could not justify logically.

The reason I broaden out the picture to the entire species is once again, because my notions of morality split from hers on this issue.
Goals that ultimately help reduce suffering, through improvements in societal and scientific progress: progress borne out of personal liberty, need for achievement and personal integrity. All three of which are required for the facilitation of up-most progress.

Whether you get the most utility out of an individualistic framework of morality or an altruistic framework of morality is yet to be determined, so Rand will do just fine.

I believe we need to find a good middle-ground between the two approaches but I could be wrong.

I think that middle-ground exists, and is called ethical hedonism.

Wiki:"Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them, assuming that their actions do not infringe on the equal rights of others."

I have always liked that wording and it is a principle I agree with. It isn't exactly a viable constitution, but you can easily see how this would make laws and similar protective of both society and individual.

It would have been better if you had said that the first time I asked about it:

Or maybe the second time:

---

Okay. But now you still have precisely the problem I've presented you. How is it that your concept of good for the entire species is accomplished through the individualistic framework that you're claiming to be working from?

So if progress is not borne out of these three principles, does it not count towards the end goal of reducing suffering through improvements in societal and scientific progress?

Also, you still haven't addressed the personal liberties of parents of a 10-day old child.

This is one of the criticisms that Rand received. That it is merely an ideal, but when this is put in action, it is ruined by human behaviour which doesn't meet up to the selfless standard this model assumes.

VeeD has said that his model splits from that of Rand, and I'm also curious to see how his personal views reconcile some of these things.

Is this kind of epistemology generally applicable?

Isn't the history of science full of the overturning ideas arrived at cross-culturally, independently, at multiple points in time?

Does the fact that time travel has come up cross-culturally, independently, at multiple points in time count as evidence (or proof?) that time travel is possible? Or is it not evidence for or against time travel as a real possibility?

It's certainly applicable to many mathematical claims. And for other observations of the universe, many of the conclusions reached have been broadly accurate.

Can you cite some specific examples?

The "possibility" of something isn't really the type of statement that can be evaluated meaningfully under this scheme, so I don't see the relevance of this example.

Care to name any of them? It has been a few years, but I don't remember any proof by consensus in my math studies.

The pursuit of values such as sqrt(2) and pi has also spanned multiple cultures. In a broader sense, math itself has been studied in multiple disconnected cultures. The fundamental problem of developing numerical writing and computational manipulation is something that is seen in a variety of disconnected cultures.