Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
My largest point in the post had nothing to do with rich people, it had to do with the definition of utilitarianism, and more specifically, that it doesn't mean "maximizing happiness" but rather "maximizing happiness in the largest sense of the word."
What you are doing is analogous to when earlier, when I was talking about the ethics of lying, and said "you should lie when the nazis are at your door and asking if you are hiding any jews in your attic," if you were to then point out that "nazis didnt ask about jews in people's attics - they just searched your attic", or something like this. That isn't the point -- you are focusing on the tool being used to convey the point instead of the point that is trying to be conveyed, and I'm not sure if you are doing it by mistake or on purpose.
I also think that, by now, there should be no further misunderstanding about what has happened, and that this misunderstanding should be over. I cant explain it any better than I already have (twice), or even if I can, I think it unfair that I should have to.
I'm not sure of what you mean by "happiness in the largest sense of the word." I'm still not sure what the point of all the paragraphs were if you were trying to make a point. The source of my confusion doesn't matter.
If you mean what most people mean by "overall well-being" and not "we measure giggling" then I agree.* They are also quite clear when they say "largest amount over the largest number of people" as well.
If you meant something different: If you meant happiness as some sort of value judgment on what people ought find pleasurable, then it clearly doesn't mean that. It isn't silent on the matter either - it directly states that doesn't matter
at all whether happiness comes from making cute cat videos or building a spaceship. This isn't to say that consequences down the line are not important (they absolutely are), simply that suffering and pleasure are the ONLY measures that matter.
It also is extremely clear that pleasure and suffering have nothing to do with worthiness. Total suffering and pleasure to the largest number of agents. It is very clear that this does not mean, "to the most deserving."
"But humanity will conquer and populate the solar system" is not an end. It is a means. If it doesn't lead to less suffering and more pleasure (to the greatest number of agents), then it is not good.
To state it more clearly: Suffering is bad. Pleasure is good. The goal is maximize one and minimize the other for as many agents as possible. Absolutely everything else is just details on how best to achieve that goal, and are of absolutely no value outside of their usefulness in achieving that goal.
*not sure if it was worth mentioning since it is obvious, but that hardly counts as a criticism
Last edited by BrianTheMick2; 07-04-2020 at 12:27 PM.