Sorry for not replying until now. For some reason I keep missing replies.
Pleasure is always good in itself, and pain is always bad in itself. Now, actions that cause pleasure may have consequences that cause pain too, and in fact cause a greater amount of pain than they did pleasure. If that is the case, I classify the action as “bad”, and vice versa of course. All this is of course difficult to discern. Maybe the happiness I get out of drinking loads of beer outweighs the pain I and others feel when I get ill from it.
In general terms, beating someone up is bad, even if you’re a sadist. In a purely hypothetical situation, where a person suffers tremendously if he is not allowed to beat someone up, and the beat-up person’s suffering is less than the sadist’s would be, and there are absolutely no other effects, then yeah, I’d have to say it’s better if the sadist gets to beat.
Now, this situation is never, ever, going to come up in reality. In reality, there are always other effects (fear, for example), it is a better solution for everyone if the sadist gets treatment instead, and so forth. But in this purely hypothetical situation, I’ll side with the sadist. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.
Interesting point. However, if the only thing hydrogen did was be a part of water, I’d argue that water is what is valuable, not hydrogen. It’s the same with the other “elements of happiness”. If respect is good because it leads to happiness, then respect isn’t good in itself, happiness is.
NP You may have noticed I was getting the two threads mixed up :o
This part of Utilitarianism seems contradictory to me and makes it unappealing. Physical and emotional pleasure is good yet when you consider the long term consequences maybe not. The same for phyisical and emotional pain. You say the happiness of anyone else is the same value as mine but there seems to be little direction in how to make that judgement call especially in the short term. Principles are antiquated and useless but morals are not. Huh??? When John Stuart Mill advocates promoting the happiness of all sentient creatures it begins to make more sense. In my own belief system we are not seperate but connected and so one can only promote ones own long term happiness by promoteing the happiness of everyone else. Mill went on to say, that only by adopting the self-restraint principle can we seek out the truth, experience the truth as “our own”, and fully develop individual selves. In some regards I see a similarity beween this and what Jesus advised in Mat 6 19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."
I read this remembering that Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is within you, {not a big place in the sky}
I understand the point. My arguement is that if certain things are “crucial” to happiness then you have no alternative but to desire them equally.
such as
“Well I don’t really care about hydrogen, I really just care about water”
Okay then you won’t mind if we take hydrogen away.
“Of course I mind, I NEED hydorgen. I MUST HAVE hydrogen.”
A crucial element seems secondary until we consider it’s absence.
In previous staements in one of these two threads the point was made that the truth didn’t matter. A lie was just as good if it led to happiness. I maintain that the truth is a crucial ingrediant of that happiness when one considers long term consequences and promoting the happiness of all sentient beings. Then when a situation arises where we have a hard time discerning the short term and long term consequences we have a foundation from which to make a judgement call. The truth.
It’s been an educational and interesting discussion.
You’re misreading me. Pleasure is always good, in itself, and pain is always bad, in itself. An action that causes a net gain in pleasure is good, an action that causes a net gain in pain is bad.
Now, the same action may cause a little pleasure and a lot of pain. That action is bad, although the little bit of pleasure it causes is good.
Yes. I’ve been sticking to the purely philosophical part of the argument; I haven’t really attempted to apply it to reality.
Well, it all depends on your definitions. Principles such as “you should always tell the truth” or “sex between two men is an abomination” are certainly antiquated and useless, in my view. Morals, ie “do that which is right/good”, are not.
I advocate that as well. Promoting the happiness of all beings capable of feeling happiness, and counteracting the pain of all beings capable of feeling pain.
I understand your point as well, and I believe we have no other recourse here than to agree to disagree.
Well I won’t disagree with that in itself. Do we agree that physical and emotional pain might be nessecary to reach what we percieve to be the greater good? That doesn’t mean we like it but in viewing reality we might actually see the physical or emotional pain as a sign of growth and welcome it to some degree.
Hmmm hard to tell the difference. I agree that adhering to principles for just the sake of the principle serves little purpose. Principles and morals require examination to see if we are actually doing what is right or good.
People who see gay sex as an abomination truly believe they are concerned about whats right or good. The truth can change their perspective.
But sometimes the goals seem to conflict. Thats where the truth becomes our guide. When we have to figure out how we promote our individual happiness and the happiness of all other beings as well.
Possibly. When that doesn’t happen, it’s an excellent example of why principles aren’t any good.
What I dislike so much about principles is this: they by definition lead you to do dumb things. If the thing the principle leads you to do is good, then you don’t need the principle. If the thing the principle leads you to do is bad, then the principle is bad.
Not exactly. I’m trying to figure out the difference beyween principles and morals. Of course morals vary from person to person. I don’t see someone believeing gay sex is evil as a principle. More of a belief. Principles need to be applied with wisdom and a little compassion or just plain common sense or coutesy. As we’ve seen already. Mistaking personnal opinion for the truth, or blurting out the truth without consideration of consequences, may be a very misguided and poor execution of the principle of honesty. I see principles as guidelines we use to exercise judgement and learn how to apply those principles with wisdom. How is it that principles lead us into doing dumb things? Can you give an example or two?
Without getting the whole debate started over let me try to clarify.
We make judgement calls on what we think will lead to the best consequences for ourselves and those around us. Sometimes in certain situations it is difficult to discern which way to turn. There seems to be good and bad consequences in every choice. In my belief since the truth is the foundation of long term happiness for myself and all around me, if I am confused about which way to turn I can make a decision based on the truth with faith that in the long term it is the best choice.
Of course I may not always use wisdom in exerciseing the truth as I see it but by useing it a a guide I can gain the nessecary wisdom and a clearer understanding of the truth and how to employ it. There is learning and growth even if in the short term the consequences don’t seem good and that is a positve that will improve all future decisions, thus increaseing the happiness level.
It might be argued that learning to lie skillfully, or only in certain situations can also lead to increased long term happiness. I just don’t believe it. I think lying is a poisen to long term happiness, in the same way lying will poisen our closest relationships.
Give me an example of what you consider to be a “principle” in the sense that you’ve been using the word. I have a feeling we’re talking past each other.
I don’t understand what you mean by “decision based on the truth”. Of course you will always make a decision based on what you consider, at the time, to be the truth. To do anything else would be downright idiotic.
Well, as guidelines that we live by honesty is a big one. Generousity and compassion. Kindness. Patience. An appreciation of the diversity of people and culture. Perhaps these are only personality traits but principles and morals are tied pretty closely. As I said they are guide lines. I’ve know people who were too generous and weren’t helping themselves or the people that remained too dependent on them. Rather than make a painful decision they avoided it by always giving. They could mentaly claim the role of “good person” but weren’t faceing the truth that their giving was doing more harm than good.
I’m confused by that last sentance. You’ve been saying that lying is just as good as the truth if it leads to happiness. I assume that means dishonesty in other areas is perfectly acceptable as long as it leads to happiness or physical pleasure.
Yes it’s the truth as seen at the time. By making that choice consitently our understanding of the truth grows and we learn how to employ the truth in the most beneficial way.
That means you don’t accept lying on your work or personnal life even if it seems to yield benifits. You don’t lie to cover up for your friends. You don’t tell a little white lie to save yourself a few dollars. It’s a committment to the truth because I believe that even when I can’t see immediate results, or the immediate resluts seem negative, the truth leads to better long term consequences.
That’s precisely what I mean. Let’s say someone follows the principle of honesty; always telling the truth.
That person and I encounter two situations, A and B. In A, telling the truth obviously has good consequences. In B, telling the truth obviously has bad consequences.
In situation A, I tell the truth. So does the other person. Good consequences happen. In situation B, I lie. Good consequences happen. The other person either abandons his principle in this case and lies, in which case good consequences happen, or follows it and tells the truth, in which case bad consequences happen.
The principle does nothing good, and possibly something bad. If the person abandons the principle when it seems to have bad consequences, then he is in practice not following the principle at all, and his actions are the same as mine. If he upholds the principle, he does good where I do good but sometimes does bad where I still do good.
In summation, that’s why one fundamental tenet of my philosophy can be succinctly expressed as “principles suck”.
Yes, but basing one’s decisions on the truth means basing one’s decisions on, well, reality, which is of course the right thing to do. It would be stupid to knowingly invent a falsehood and base your decisions on that.
.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this as well with some variables. I think when principles become an excuse to not examine ourselves and our application of those principles thats not good. In that sense I agree with you. On the honesty thing I respectfully disagree. I think honesty always leads to better long term consequences as we learn how to use it. The bad consequences that come from honesty are usually short term. {relatively speaking}
But it wouldn’t be stupid to knowingly invent a falsehood in response to some decision you made, or some situation you find yourself in? I don’t quite get that. What I meant more specifically was when faced with a situation where you’re not quite sure which route to take, or even when tempted to lie, choosing the more truthful path has a better chance of leading to a more positive outcome in the long run. We can disagree on that too. I’ve enjoyed our exchange.
Possibly, it’s not really the issue I’ve been examining in this discussion.
You do agree with the gist of what I am saying? Principles are only used when they lead to bad actions, because you do good actions anyway and don’t use the principle for that.
We’ve been talking past each other again, I fear. I meant that you base your decisions on the truth, as in when you decide what to do, the factors you take into account are the ones that are, to the best of your knowledge, actually real and relevant, not ones you’ve made up.
I don’t think I do. As I’ve said. Principles are guidelines. Sometimes adhereing to strictly to a guideline instead of thinking of the desired result can cause problems but I don’t see any more problems with that than any other method of decision making.
Good results can come from adhering to principles as easy as bad. The same is true if you make a moment to moment choice without adhering to any principle. I see the difference as more internal than in any external consequences.
But a principle is only ever of any use whatsoever when it influences your actions, right? If you would do the action the principle demands anyway, the principle doesn’t influence your actions, and so is of no use. If you wouldn’t, the principle causes you to do something bad.
I don’t follow you. If a person believes in honesty or generousity and acts accordingly then their principles have had positive consequences. If you don’t have those principles you might act differently with negative consequences.
If you’re a consequentalist you’ll do the actions with positive consequences anyway, with no need for the principle. All else equal, a consequentalist will always do that which has the best consequences, a person following principles will sometimes do that which doesn’t have the best consequences.
I see how that could happen but I don’t think there’s any more chance of positive outcome from either way. Faced with the prospect of whose happiness is most importent I see the consequentialist as more likely to choose for themselves.
What appears to be the tricky part of being a consequentalist to me is trying to make those judgement calls on the greater good , or trying to figure long term consequences when the short term ones seem so good. It’s tricky for everybody.
Someone raised in a household by principles struggle with choices as well. All part of the human experience.
good luck with your moving. I know what a pain that can be sometimes.
Now you’re projecting. I’m trying to stylise the positions to make a point.
Yes, of course the judgment calls are the tricky thing. But this is a stylised example, to show that the notion of principles is fundamentally flawed.
When the principle leads someone to do right, there is no difference between that person and a consequentalist. When the principle leads someone to do wrong, that person does wrong while a consequentalist does right. The difficulty to make judgment calls affect both persons, but given perfect circumstances the consequentalist comes out ahead. Right?
I’m not sure what you mean by stylise. I think principles developed because of a concern for consequences. Certain principles became recognized as “better” for individuals and society. The person useing principles looks to consequences as well. It is the internal temptations and influneces that consciously or unconsciously move us and skew decision making for everybody. Given a dozen or so situations I think consequences would be an equal mix of good and bad for both styles. If I am to consider perfect circumstances { which doesn’t seem useful} then I’d have to think that both styles would result in perfect outcomes.
I think you’re making a perfect circumstance for the consequentalist but seeing the principalist as adhereing very ridgedly to principles. That seems the worst case scenario for the principalist and best case for the consequentalist . Hardly a fair comparision. Under perfect circumstances both styles would have their decision making tempered with a little wisdom and compassion.
Exactly my point. In order to “catch up” with the consequentalist he has to stop adhering to his principles when necessary, and in order to know when it’s necessary he has to make exactly the same judgment calls as the consequentalist. So he either does bad actions sometimes or adheres to his principles loosely. In either case, what good are the principles?
