O
Oreoracle
Guest
I didn’t think I’d ever convince you.Sorry that I couldn’t get back into the discussion of Utilitarianism until now. Couldn’t be helped. As I said, last night, after thinking it through, the idea of a Utilitarianistic world - with rules - might make some sense. It seems that most people actually are motivated by the hope of happiness and pleasure.


You’re theory sounds good in a uniform world, but as you said, some people break the tacit contracts involved in your theory. But I’ll get to that in a second. For now, I think “Do good, don’t do evil” would result in total pacifism if “the greater good” doesn’t count as just being a mass of pure goodness, which it of course isn’t.But, there are some “moral absolutes”, regardless of where one thinks they came from. The first moral absolute is simple, “Do good, don’t do evil.” A second moral absolute is the “sanctity of life.” I use “sanctity” because I can’t think of a more secular sounding synonym. A third would be, “don’t steal”. For starters.
I remember, before I became a full-fledged utilitarian, I was in a philosophy forum. I used a definition of a good act that I had created which used “reciprocation.” One of the prominent members, a utilitarian, immediately called me on it. He asked me if I thought donating money to the impoverished in Africa was good. Of course, I said that it was. He then asked me if I thought that those people could reciprocate my kindness. It was then that I noticed my error. If we focus on one’s ability to reciprocate not just the kindness of letting you be, but of giving you things, the poor will always lose. Only the strongest survive, and we’re left with something like capitalism. We don’t want people to just have a right to privacy, but also of moderate wealth. At least I think so.Here, we will have to have some absolutes rules as well. The definition of a “right” is not all that difficult. A right is that benefit accorded between human beings precisely because it is reciprocated. I accord you a right to life, for example, because you accord me a right to life. I accord you a right to property precisely because you accord me a right to property. No different than the marketplace. I sell you a chicken; you pay me. I accord you a chicken; you pay me in kind, or, in something else that I will accept. This is the ultimate utility.
Before, I was talking about when a contract is nonexistent, but what if one is broken? Most people will tell you that it’s not only acceptable to use force when a contract is violated, but necessary. They make sure to qualify that by telling you to only use the “minimal amount of force.” But how is one supposed to reliably determine the amount of force that is acceptable, necessary, or even if force is needed in a given situation? If a woman is going to die due to pregnancy, is it acceptable for her to abort? If our country is invaded, how many enemy soldiers are we allowed to kill or imprison? Is the sanctity of life at all defeasible in the face of utility?
I agree. It would be a slow change.I guess the biggest problem is going to be getting this world changed over. Obviously, there are people on this planet who simply want others to die - kind of like the martian in the movie, Independence Day. The next problem is how to convert the politicians. It is the process of getting elected to public office that corrupts these folks. Although there might have been some deficiencies of character before they got involved in the system. Nonetheless, we will need to retain most, if not all, of the current politicians, as they know how things work on the macro level. It would simply take too long for newbies to come up to speed, and citizens would suffer greatly in the transition.
It may be to your advantage to know that I am a noob in politics, as I am quite young (I’m a freshman in High School). If I say anything stupid in my next post, don’t be surprised.
