Utiliitarianism - doctrine of irresponsibility?

[Fenrisúlfr]

The pursuit of one's own interest does not mandate that such unfortunates be given benefit to begin with. They have no claim on it so they could go soak their heads and win Darwin awards. However, that is not the case, as unskilled labour is routinely exchanged for property, and skilled labour is also required to maximize return on the property's benefit for its owner(s), if nothing else because the vast infrastructure required for a western standard of living involves legions of engineers, chemists, &c. Furthermore, property does not necessarily have to come from existing property by virtue of invention (intellectual property).

Besides, if a property owner has no obligation to other entities unless stipulated by voluntary contract, there is nothing that is required to give. Charity is one thing, theft is another.

 

[Blowtus]

I grant all that, it's the arbitrariness of 'respect for property' as the defining factor of all that is virtuous, that I take issue with.

 

[Blowtus]

He said that modern Utilitarians have done away with the 'two' criterion for good - 'greatest good' for 'greatest number'. But his statements revealed to my mind that he has merely couched his bias of 'good' inside the claim, and whenever someone presents the The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas example (one little girl suffers as a means to all the good things the Omelas enjoy) he just asserts 'one person suffering is always worse than any benefit to come from it' or 'one death is...' or whatever. When something he doesn't like is good for the greatest number, he says 'no, it's not reallllly good for the greatest number, because to me the suffering of one person as a means is not good for them'... so he's really just pretending that the two criterion don't exist.

does anyone think his claim to a single criterion is valid?

is this what Utilitarianism is asserted to be these days, but have I/he mischaracterized how that functions?

I didn't find that hugely clear, but I think I get the gist
It seems a pretty common critique of utilitarianism that 'bad things are allowed to happen / be done to individuals if they are good overall' - I don't necessarily see the validity in it. Some level of 'rule utilitarianism', whereby basic rules of 'good' action are formulated as necessary for any expedient moral decision making, seems required to avoid the problem of spending so much time calculating what is 'good' that 'good' is reduced. Any actions society deems so 'bad' that they should never occur, are going to be dealt with under such rules.

 

[razoredge]

Once again I can only ask... what are you guys talking about ?
and more
is it possible to think for ones self or is it necessary to adopt some bazaar theory posed by someone with too much time on their hands, that approaches humanity as if its some mathematic equation ?

Im being serious, when current attitudes are not working, you fix them, not complicate and compound them, not dance around in circles thinking you have performed a cure... "let the chips fall where they may". The population is too big for that shit. Everyone has a use and purpose, it should be utilized to its fullest and justly rewarded.

Cipher - gotta love the contradictions and lack of awareness piling up in your posts.

 

[Seditious]

In nature, natural selection is used to distribute finite resources.

I don't see where you're getting this from.

if civilisation is to ensue, it is necessary that one's rights be limited so that they do not cause interference with those of others.

and suppose we don't care how civilization fares, why're we supposed to think we have a responsibility to accord with the following steps you consider necessary for it to fare well?

Other than that, to imply that, unless voluntarily contracted, that one has any obligation is to legitimize tyranny and he logical extension of that would be to legitimize theft, slavery, and murder at the hands of an entity itself not subject to such threats.

this, interestingly, legitimizes the morality of murdering homosexuals if you buy into the fundamentalist "America is in decline as God's punishment for our acceptance of this sin" line. This pro-sin behavior threatens civilization, in the eyes of Christian lunatics, which means a nation established by Christian lunatics, if one was to be made, would certainly have the right to kill any homosexuals in their jurisdiction for their crime of not meeting their responsibility to not be...whatever kind of sinner makes homosexuality uniquely worth singling out for condemnation.

 

[Seditious]

Would you also care to define 'lawfully owned property'? At what point in history do you stop looking back for 'unlawful acquisition'?
Radical libertarianism always seems like rubbish with it's oh so arbitrary 'we need a state to defend our property but everything else is best done by the individual' crap.

indeed.

Locke's shotgun rights concerning property are as absurd as a dog owning a forest for having been the first to piss there. Hell, according to homeopathic pseudoscience, it could be argued that the original homeopath quack owns all the water on earth...it's no longer international waters, it's his private property (and Locke has a lovely stupid argument against this---it's mean to hog it all when people are dying of thirst, lol).

 

[Seditious]

To be able to trace property back to when Og found a shiny rock to the point it arrived at my pinky would be absurd, thus there is a certain 'de-facto' aspect of property. To deny that in cases and on large scales, property has been seized is likewise absurd. I am partial to the adversarial method of determination: let those who can prove a title or de-facto claim (it was in his clear and undisputed possession previously) the property, claim it through the courts, that is what they are there for.

an interesting tangent to this discussion might be our lovely liberal nations' (I'm not American, but it's common to most of the western democracies) habit of confiscating marijuana, chemicals, lab equipment for narcotics manufacture, etc., which are so indisputably "the private property" of those from whom it is taken as to be used as evidence against them at trial.

To talk about a nation with this and that right, while maintaining laws arbitrarily against it, it is very difficult to hold respect for the principle without calling the nation a tyranny, or respect for the nation without dismissing the claim to holding such a principle.

 

[Seditious]

All property has already been claimed. (Not something Locke had to contend with)
Property grants one a measure of power.
Preserving such power, at the same time as giving no benefit (education, health, various infrastructure) to those born into the unlucky situation of having no property, can't be seen to be in the interest of those without property *at all* - so it's basically just a desire from those with property to maintain the status quo, to be able to benefit from their property and give nothing in return.

and he had an illogical answer to that.
If Bill gates bought up a shitton of farms and horded all the crops in some guarded facility, preferring to let it rot than be eaten...that's wrong, that's no longer his property, you can't let things spoil while others are in need---Locke would have Gates give up his there held power over people...by duty.

But, of course, if Gates buys up all the farms and sells the crop overseas, going to good use, making billions, while millions of Americans are unable to feed their families, essentially overpopulated now for the amount of produce they can purchase on the global market, too bad... Gates is allowed to effectively deprive people of food until they die so long as he isn't letting the food spoil. If he was letting it spoil, to steal it from him wouldn't be stealing, to Locke, as if somehow Gates deserves his power over people in one case but not the other for some logical reason, rather than a merely pathetically emotional humanistic one.

 

[Seditious]

Once again I can only ask... what are you guys talking about ?

presently?--Locke's theory of property; look it up.

and more
is it possible to think for ones self or is it necessary to adopt some bazaar theory posed by someone with too much time on their hands, that approaches humanity as if its some mathematic equation ?

if you have a better idea, by all means, get to it and become a household name to intellectuals worldwide for the coming centuries.

Im being serious, when current attitudes are not working, you fix them, not complicate and compound them, not dance around in circles thinking you have performed a cure... "let the chips fall where they may". The population is too big for that shit. Everyone has a use and purpose, it should be utilized to its fullest and justly rewarded.

your thinking is simply too dogmatic for a philosophy forum. It's nice that you have ideals, but the point is for you to be able to persuade other people to endorse them, such as by either proving it is in their interest, which is purely pragmatic, for which you can make no moral claims, or by providing a philosophical argument in defense of it, such that people can only reject reason itself if to oppose your conclusions in pursuit of their personal desires. It, I think, is the latter we here are typically concerned with.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I don't see where you're getting this from.

Through competition for scarce resources; I should have been more specific.

and suppose we don't care how civilization fares, why're we supposed to think we have a responsibility to accord with the following steps you consider necessary for it to fare well?

In that case, by all means go forth and loot, but don't say I didn't warn ya.

this, interestingly, legitimizes the morality of murdering homosexuals...
You make a very large leap; care to elaborate how?

As for marijuana, narcotics, &c it is not the role of government to delegate the substances which its citizens ingest, smoke, or otherwise consume insomuch as it does not cause harm to others or a disturbance of the peace, and the actions described are simply that: theft. War on drugs, war on this, war on that...all means to keep the people scared, and such means are tyrannical.

As for the dog pissing in the forest, last I checked, animals do not have property rights recognized by man, or at least lack the capacity to dispute them in the courts. Say some other man pissed in the forest and decided to claim it as his own. Naturally, he could claim it as his own (via the doctrine of terra nulla) and the state, being a protector of property and all of that, likely has a register of deeds for such purpose.

razoredge - so you would support an overbearing state that 'utilizes' us to our fullest potential? Look how well that worked out...100mln dead in Russia and China from governments that sought to do just that. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if anyone seeks to 'utilize' me, I will invoke the right to revolution and make Tom Paine proud.

Additionally, perhaps if my "contradictions and lack of awareness" is so self-evident, you should compose a counter-argument detailing the why and wherefore?

BTW, here are some links:
http://mises.org/
http://lewrockwell.com/

By all means poke around the archives, though on occasion I find myself siding with the Chicago school of economics, though it is infrequent enough that I am a de-facto Austrian economist

Why economics though? Methinks that civilization itself is shaped more by economics and the pursuit of self-interest than anything else, though the animal, base components of human nature get in the way of this on many occasions (on account of a propensity for a 'sheepish' or 'peasant' mentality that arises from fear of the unknowns of life).

 

[Seditious]

Additionally, perhaps if my "contradictions and lack of awareness" is so self-evident, you should compose a counter-argument?

if you scan his posting history you'll see that he tends not to do that.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It is no big deal, as I am a fast typist and a faster thinker; I can counter-argue in shorter time than it takes to relieve my bladder.

 

[Seditious]

I don't see where you're getting this from.

Competition for scarce resources; I should have been more specific.

indeed, because that is a rather broad use of 'natural selection', and 'natural selection' isn't "used' "to" do something. Natural selection is just the name for why some mutations end up passed on through the generations---the other cunts fail the exam of life. This though, says only 'things happen'. 'the moon is used to distribute thermal currents around the ocean'...well, ok, sure, but if we had cause to interrupt it, does this statement bear an argument against our doing so?

In that case, by all means go forth and loot, but don't say I didn't warn ya.

then what good is the rest of this talk? you're here conceding that 'property rights' are merely "I'm warning you not to do that", which leads us to the next point...

this, interestingly, legitimizes the morality of murdering homosexuals...
You may a very large leap; care to elaborate how?

You suggested Locke's principles burden us a responsibility to allow certain rights, for if we do not then civilization cannot ensue. You've conceded that if we don't want that, or don't mind risking that, or deny that premise, then we have no such responsibility. It seems then that we stipulate rights arbitrarily as means to the sustanance of a civilization. Under such conditions, if the worldview is such that an infant has to be sacrificed to ensure a good harvest, or gays exterminated, or whatever, that being perceived as necessary for the maintenance of the civilization is sufficient warrant for such harmful actions to be committed and thought acceptable, and indeed, as estimated by they of that worldview, a responsibility.

As for marijuana, narcotics, &c it is not the role of government to delegate the substances which its citizens ingest, smoke, or otherwise consume insomuch as it does not cause harm to others or a disturbance of the peace, and the actions described are simply that: theft. War on drugs, war on this, war on that...all means to keep the people scared, and such means are tyrannical.

So we're in agreement that while your founding fathers took much from Locke, such principles are not that upon which the nation functions?--that, as it were, a man in his meth lab (let us stipulate it is not in an apartment complex harming others, but the sort of industrial operation one would set up if not always in fear of being busted) attacked by a S.W.A.T. team, is in fact only acting upon his rights, essentially under the right to revolution, when he blows away S.W.A.T agents... and his being sentenced to murder is an injustice according to Lockean principles, which anyone who supports such rights as he supposes, 'liberty' in general, should be outraged at (if they were people of principle). Do we agree on that assessment?

As for the dog pissing in the forest, last I checked, animals do not have property rights.

depends who you ask. Locke's phrasing, I believe, is that we hold property over ourselves, that is what the right to life means. An animal is clearly found to exhibit the same behavior as we would define as a human appreciating the concept of his own right to life.

But more to the original point, I do not have the right to deprive you of berries merely because I stumbled around the bush first - 'shotgun, I saw it first, now you've been warned, buster!'. If I have such a right, I have the right to stab you in the back after you got their first, and have them for myself - 'I warn you to surrender'.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

indeed, because that is a rather broad use of 'natural selection', and 'natural selection' isn't "used' "to" do something. Natural selection is just the name for why some mutations end up passed on through the generations---the other cunts fail the exam of life. This though, says only 'things happen'. 'the moon is used to distribute thermal currents around the ocean'...well, ok, sure, but if we had cause to interrupt it, does this statement bear an argument against our doing so?

In the aforementioned context, the argument against doing so was civilization, as if everyone competed for resources as in a state of nature, the result would be a war of all against all.

then what good is the rest of this talk? you're here conceding that 'property rights' are merely "I'm warning you not to do that", which leads us to the next point...

Property rights are moot unless backed by force, protecting such rights is one of the primary roles of a state respectful of natural rights.

You suggested Locke's principles burden us a responsibility to allow certain rights, for if we do not then civilization cannot ensue. You've conceded that if we don't want that, or don't mind risking that, or deny that premise, then we have no such responsibility. It seems then that we stipulate rights arbitrarily as means to the sustanance of a civilization. Under such conditions, if the worldview is such that an infant has to be sacrificed to ensure a good harvest, or gays exterminated, or whatever, that being perceived as necessary for the maintenance of the civilization is sufficient warrant for such harmful actions to be committed and thought acceptable, and indeed, as estimated by they of that worldview, a responsibility.

That is somewhat tricky. To that, I would have to reply 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', otherwise one could allege all manner of absurdities i.e. 'I will have to part you and your gold or it will rain blood and hail flesh'.

However, in such exigent circumstances, often such things are overlooked, but if it is proven that an infant sacrifice would be required, I am honestly not sure what to do.

So we're in agreement that while your founding fathers took much from Locke, such principles are not that upon which the nation functions?--that, as it were, a man in his meth lab (let us stipulate it is not in an apartment complex harming others, but the sort of industrial operation one would set up if not always in fear of being busted) attacked by a S.W.A.T. team, is in fact only acting upon his rights, essentially under the right to revolution, when he blows away S.W.A.T agents... and his being sentenced to murder is an injustice according to Lockean principles, which anyone who supports such rights as he supposes, 'liberty' in general, should be outraged at (if they were people of principle). Do we agree on that assessment?

I would be demonized for doing so, but when the state oversteps its boundaries in such a heinous manner, I would agree that he would have a right to such revolution. Though producing meth, 'to the willing there is no harm' i.e. he is not force-feeding meth into his customers. However, it would not be in his interest to exercise it so just yet, such revolutions are predicted upon other participants acting in their individual enlightened self interests (i.e. if they can take down his meth lab, they can raid my hemp plantation or impose some other arbitrary restrictions averse to my interests).

depends who you ask. Locke's phrasing, I believe, is that we hold property over ourselves, that is what the right to life means. An animal is clearly found to exhibit the same behavior as we would define as a human appreciating the concept of his own right to life.

I am not so well-versed on the arguments surrounding sentience, though I would be in favour of more research into the matter.

But more to the original point, I do not have the right to deprive you of berries merely because I stumbled around the bush first - 'shotgun, I saw it first, now you've been warned, buster!'. If I have such a right, I have the right to stab you in the back after you got their first, and have them for myself - 'I warn you to surrender'.

If I had picked them from a bush on your property, to which you held title, yes, you could deprive me of said berries as it was your lawful property along with the bush at the time of the picking. Stabbing, though, is a over the top for something as petty as berry-theft (especially if lethal force had not been initiated and one had already been asked to leave, as it could well have been a misunderstanding if the boundary between neighbouring properties was not clearly marked) though for something more valuable I can see how greater force could be used vis-a-vis the 'castle doctrine'. However, it would be great trouble on your part since you likely have better things to do than guard berries all day, thus why sign-posts and fences (and if so disposed skulls on pikes) are used.

 

[Blowtus]

But more to the original point, I do not have the right to deprive you of berries merely because I stumbled around the bush first - 'shotgun, I saw it first, now you've been warned, buster!'. If I have such a right, I have the right to stab you in the back after you got their first, and have them for myself - 'I warn you to surrender'.

Nicely put
Cipher - does the US have the 'right' to the moon? If it declared its ownership, would it be 'immoral' of other countries to ignore such a claim?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

They could do so under 'terra nulla', though methinks Neil Armstrong would have better grounds such a claim.

 

[Blowtus]

Probably - I'm not interested in the present legal quagmires regarding such a situation though, I'm interested in the *rightness* of the situation, of either Neil, the US, or whoever, staking their claim on it.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

It is right that whomever lay claim to the property own said property provided no one else can establish a claim.

 

[Seditious]

It is right that whomever lay claim to the property own said property provided no one else can establish a claim.

again I have to consider what animal rights activists might say--cannot there be behaviorally representative equivalents to 'laying claim' to a given resource?

Man is only animal, so it has to be asked why the claim a bear makes on a cave which happens to be a diamond mine, and the claim a man makes on another such cave, are not governed by the same concept of property rights.

D'you have any thoughts on that viewpoint?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Man is not just any animal, it is the only sentient animal capable of articulating a claim on property. Besides, the aforementioned social contract is made with other men, not animals, thus to them we still exist in a state of nature where one has a claim on no property one cannot retain via fiat (granted they are incapable of articulating a claim on property to begin with...) as in such a state, the fiat is the claim period.

If you want to enter into a cohabitation with a bear, so be it, but to the bear it is his property by virtue of his presence and he will let it be known by force.