That's all I'm looking for. The point of utilitarian is not so much to come up with a universal way of quantifying things like "harm" or whatever, but an understanding that this becomes your entire basis upon which to measure "good" and "bad." As soon as you accept utilitarianism for what it is, you have to spend a lot more time thinking about your arguments in terms of what's "good" or "bad" about particular arrangements, and it's more difficult to use "concrete principles" that you can keep falling back on.

There may be ways to argue that integration is better than segregation, but under utilitarianism, that's an argument that has to be made, not something that you can just assert.

That's fine, too. Nobody is asking you to accept that.

I tend to find that almost every utilitarian argument I see is very often made by a person I strongly suspect thought this was best long before he/she considered utility. This is not intended as an insult to anyone, but I think anyone using utility should take a good look at themselves and their position.

I think utility is very often used only to affirm ethics, not to discern them.

Just to be clear I am not outright saying I think the legislation should be in place to allow Christians to deny service. I am saying there is a conversation to be had here and a legitimate conflict. I agree there is a real problem with putting legislation in place which props up discrimination.

Well I guess I wouldn't have much info to go on then.

If they were rude then I would be much less understanding of their position and likely shift more to the "Hey this is discrimination" camp.

Clearly problematic. Especially given how uppidy some Americans can be when it comes to their "rights".

IRT the last 1/2 of your post zumby I think my answer is "I don't know". You are talking about discriminating against those who practice discrimination...

I guess it can get kinda carried away with everyone discriminating against everyone else.

What does everyone think about priests/pastor being forced to provide a service of marrying gay couples? Is this less cut and dried?

Leaving aside that you are speculating about motivations you have no epistemic access to, your criticism is almost 180 degrees from the what the most popular criticisms of utilitarianisms charge it with: i.e. violating most people's moral intuitions, and being overly-demanding.

As an aside, there is wide anecdotal evidence of exposure to utilitarianism converting people to vegetarianism... that is, abandoning previously held moral judgements in light of the logic of utilitarian arguments.

If your point was that people often seem to justify already-held moral intuitions with post hoc ethical argument I would not disagree. But utilitarianism is much less open to this sort of rationalising than most other ethical theories, so your speculation seems wide of the mark to me.

I don't think pastors should be forced to provide such a service.

If that was a reply to me, you are thinking far too narrowly. For someone inclined towards philosophy of mind it might seem difficult, but for a psychologist these are trivial statements. Research on issues like expectation, confirmation bias and implicit biases tell a convincing and strongly supported story.

Furthermore I have never said utility can not convince people, I have merely stated that I think it is mostly used to affirm rather than discern ethics.

I think I put in the third paragraph while you were responding, but I don't question the existence of confirmation bias (etc). I am reacting to you pulling up utilitarianism specifically when it is, by virtue of it's structure, much less amenable to confirming pre-existing biases than (most) other ethical theories.

See above.

I am not offering criticism of utilitarianism, I am offering criticism of people who use utilitarian argumentation sloppily. Consider for example a typical discussion on tax rates an example.

I think the fact that utilitarian arguments are (seemingly) void of personal interest make them appealing as grounds for affirmation. Consider it analogous to how many will use science to support their view, while rarely using it to challenge it.

I tend to find that almost every invocation of psychological research I see is very often made by a person I strongly suspect thought that particular way about people before they considered the psychological literature. This is not intended as an insult to anyone, but I think anyone using psychology should take a good look at themselves and their position.

I think psychology is very often used only to affirm pre-existing beliefs about human nature, not to discern truths about human nature.

I mean, your use of "almost every" and "very often" and "anyone using utility should take a good look at themselves" made it seem you were making some substantive point about utilitarianism. But as you say you are not making a substantive point about utilitarianism, fair enough.

As your point seems to just be the truism "sloppy arguments are sloppy" I wholeheartedly agree.

But this debate is so clearly one sided that I don't think the conversation should extend beyond a moment's thought. I'm sure you could come up with similar scenarios that are actually controversial and worthy of discussion, but for me this bill just isn't it.

The government should surely not force a religious figure to perform a religious ceremony.

As persons who are given legal authority to perform a legal activity (marriage is a legal status and ministers confer said status on persons), do ministers have an obligation as public servants to provide this service to others?

Ya, this isn't remotely close to being a utilitarian argument for exactly the reason Aaron says. But I don't think bladesman was suggesting otherwise.

So what a utilitarian who was trying to support this statement might do is to try and analyze the kinds of harm that come from the various hypothetical societies and find some way to compare them. For instance, they might observe that racially segregated societies in our history typically have stark differences in the quality of life and economic power of the different groups, which could itself be classified as bad for various reasons. A priori, it could be the case that highly segregated societies are very efficient at allocating resources and building a robust economy that delivers high quality of life, self actualization, whatever else anyone wants to measure. So I think a utilitarian is quite unlikely to accept that integration is intrinsically a core value we should uphold. However, a liberal utilitarian (like myself) is quite likely to look at society and determine that integrated societies (to some extent, not proposing eliminating mexican food here!) appear to be superior at eliminating other core measures of harm than segregated ones do.

So "most cars have four wheels" means "things with four wheels have four wheels"?

That is an interesting concept. By that I mean that interesting concepts are interesting concepts. Any relation between your post and interesting is, of course, non-existent.

There appears to be a pretty strong consensus here. MOST marriage equality bills proposed and passed included exemptions for priest and pastors, and it seems fairly clear cut that this is a reasonable exemption to make.

The issue, for me at least, is that a priest delivering the marriage ceremony is not some minor incidental player. They are not just doing a common task as they always do that just happened to play some role in a gay wedding. They are absolutely at the center of it. The harm done to the priest of forcing them to act in a way that violates their core beliefs - and not just act tangentially, act at the very center of the marriage - seems quite a bit more significant.

There is admittedly a continuum here. You can continue to get further and further way from the center of the wedding. If it is okay for a baker to be able to refuse gay people their services for weddings, can they refuse them for gay birthday party? Can a tailor refuse every gay for fear the suit may be used in a gay wedding? Can a mall refuse a gay tailor for fear they will be open to having their suits used in gay weddings? It's a pretty slippery slope, and after you go down it a bit I think it is pretty hard to find a clear cut line where you can say ahha THAT is the point where it switches from religious freedom to freedom from discrimination that trumps.

This is probably true, but also probably true if you had only said "almost every argument"

Even if this is true that doesn't really matter much here. In many types of ethical argumentation personal bias is often implied and indeed might even be the point. Utilitarianism on the other hand almost invariably returns to rules, the quantitative and the reductionist. It makes a claim of objectivity, not as in objective truth but as in the aspiration towards reducing personal bias.

To quote Mill: "utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator"

Meh, I don't really see how there is this extra burden not placed on other arguers. On any tricky proposition requiring some effort to present detailed arguments, it is usually the case that the arguer started from a position of some bias and came up with the argument post hoc. That's how human's operate, rightly or wrongly. And conscientious people attempt to justify their views with arguments that hold some sort of objective validity, and this is as true when considering ethics to practising science to political debates. So while there certainly is issues with regards to post hoc rationalizations, I don't see this as an issue at all unique to this one view.

That seems more like an objection than a meh.

Regardless, I have neither stated nor argued that utilitarian arguments puts an "extra burden" on anyone. Not moving the rook diagonally in chess is not an "extra burden", it is how chess works.

I presumed your argument was that utilitarianism makes a "claim of objectivity" and a further "aspiration towards reducing personal bias" that its adherents fail to meet, but people of other views don't have to meet since they don't make these additional claims. Sounds a lot like an extra burden but if you want to play some semantics game that this is just a different chess move, well go nuts.

I said "meh" because your criticism seemed silly, for the reason I explained. If you want to play some semantics game where you prefer to call that explanation an objection and not a meh, well go nuts.

I can't see how it could possibly be an "extra burden" when it is criteria that is explicitly stated in utilitarianism approaches? It is, to state it plainly, the point of utility as an argument.

Extra burden would also imply that it becomes more difficult, or "tricky" as the word you used earlier. This is not a description I would agree with either. I would personally state that utilitarian arguments are usually amongst the simpler ethical arguments.

And, to be frank: When you put words in my mouth that I have not implied nor stated, it is not a "semantics game".

Oh sorry, it is an extra criteria then that they are failing to meet, not an extra burden. I can't believe I so egregiously put words in your mouth!

More seriously, I still don't see any substance to your point. If utilitarians were the only people in the world trying to present objective arguments who have a substance beyond just a claim of personal bias then perhaps I would be swayed by you saying they don't always live up to this uniquely higher standard (let me be careful lest you protest - extra criteria). But it seems to me that such an approach of trying to present seemingly objective arguments - and tacitly appealing to value of such an approach - to support your pre determined opinions is incredibly common.

I'll note that I don't pretend to have any meaningful knowledge or appreciation of philosophy here - I haven't read Mills; I am not making sharp distinctions between this and consequentialism, for instance. This is, for me, more of a lay man's approach - and a loose one at that - to looking at social and political problems opposed to rigorous exercises in moral philosophy. Indeed, this is motivated by the lack of an apparent (to me) deontological system that holds any water and a sort of defaulted backup approach to this class of issues. So I am going to readily admit you very well may have some point valid in the latter that I just don't see in the former. C'est la vie.

Thank you the apology and for admitting you were wrong.

This all seems reasonable. The only point I would make is there is no "common task" for a Christian. The division between secular and spiritual is created by man. Imagine you are living your life trying to please the almighty creator. It doesn't matter if you are mowing the lawn or preaching a sermon both actions are spiritual as you live out your faith before God.

I don't expect the average secular person to care much about this distinction but it is very important from the Christian perspective.

if they believe they are contributing to the next sodom and gamorrah and cant in good conscience perform the cerimony i get it.

it's a thin line