Why Utilitarianism is correct

[r0ckyreed]

So I have been contemplating how we should live morally speaking.  I have gained insight that there are no objective moral principles.  Morality is relative and invented for survival.  Fairness and happiness is something that humans value deeply on average, and the best ways to ensure fairness and happiness is to create a "social contract" known as what we call today, morality.

Background on Kantian Ethics

To give a little bit of my take on the Kant's Deontology, also known as the Categorical Imperative, rests on the notion that there are objective moral principles, and thus, we should live by rules to live up to these principles.  Morality for Kant is found in the rules we live by that are universalizable.  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  The maxim is our moral actions that we take.  The "golden rules" in life are what we should live by according to this idea ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you").  It is irrational to act against your maxims.  For instance, lying is always morally wrong because if I lie, then that means everyone can lie.  But you are not really okay with everyone lying.  If everyone lies, then it contradicts with the maxim, and thus is irrational according to the Categorical Imperative.  Lying cannot be justified, murder cannot be justified, etc. according to Deontology.  If you lie, then it allows everyone to lie, but what kind of world would this be?  This isn't about well-being, but about rationality according to Kant.  

But another stipulation of Kantian ethics is to treat life not as a means, but always as an end.  This means that we treat all life with respect, dignity, and moral worth and not use life as a "tool" to get an outcome that you desire.  I think Kantian ethics is very interesting, but it does have some flaws in it.  Kantian ethics only focuses on the actions itself, not on the consequences, which can lead to immense suffering down the road.

Background of Utilitarianism

Contrast this with Utilitarianism.  It is the idea that the moral thing to do is whatever brings about the greatest outcome.  Utilitarianism looks at the consequences of their actions.  Utilitarians know that there is no objective moral action, but they believe that since we all value happiness, fairness, compassion, empathy, autonomy, well-being, etc.  we should do our best to maximize these out in the world.  A common critique with utilitarianism is that the "ends justify the means."  This means that since morality is relative, the outcomes outweigh the action itself.  This means that murder can be justified if it brings about greater virtues and lives for the world.

My view

So my view is that utilitarianism is the highest moral theory that we can live up to.  I understand that it is a theory on morality, and so it is limited and not absolute.  But in terms of society and how to best function as a community, utilitarianism seems to be a "better" moral theory than deontology.  To me, Utilitarianism is all about how you can give to the world, not what you take from it.  It is all about making sacrifices for the community.  An example of this is enforcing everyone to wear a face mask in COVID-19 era.  Enforcing this sacrifices individual freedoms, but it benefits the community.  Contrast this with Kantian ethics, the maxim could be "Take away other's freedoms is immoral."  I think if Kant were alive today, he would say that it is our duty to wear a mask because that action is right for it's own sake.  But it is not clear whether Kant's ethics could justify forcing people to wear masks despite their resistance, being against their will.  For a utilitarian, this is completely moral because it is the best way to serve others and the community.

Utilitarianism is a selfless moral approach to life.  Virtue ethics has the critique that it is too self-centered on focusing on one's character and living virtuously.  But I see the best utilitarian in the world also displaying an overlap of all three main theories: deontology, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism.  In my mind, a True utilitarian is one that values the lives of others, but takes the best approaches to increase virtues of wisdom, selflessness and happiness in the world.  Maximizing virtues is what will create order in life.  A True utilitarian is not concerned about the trolley problems and the medical problem because a True utilitarian understands that a human life = an Ant life.  In addition, a True utilitarian understands that we will all die someday, and it is not our job to decide who lives and who dies.  If everyone decided to play God and make moral decisions of sacrificing innocents, how will our world be?  A true utilitarian keeps in mind the maxims of deontology as well as their duty to maximize well-being.  To be virtuous is not just to perfect your own character, but to allow and help others to perfect their own characters.  Utilitarians are deeply concerned about the consequences that will take place in life.  Life is a big chess game for the utilitarian, there will be sacrifices along the way, but a True utilitarian treats life as the King on the chess board.  What sets utilitarians apart from deontologists is that utilitarians are capable of making sacrifices to bring about a better world. Utilitarians are not bound by rules, they see the world as gray, not black and white. Kantian ethics, on the other hand, are bound by rules, which can be rigid.  This rigidness prevents them from making sacrifices to make the world a better place.  

Conclusion

So far, I have discussed why utilitarianism is the way to go.  I made a crucial distinction between Mill and Bentham's utilitarianism and my version of True utilitarianism, which is all about our duty to live virtuously and to act in ways that will instill virtues out in the world.  Life is all about maximizing virtues, not happiness because happiness can be very subjective.  The consequences of our actions.  How our actions will affect other people is what we should be concerned more about.  So our actions do matter but not intrinsically, but instrumentally.  There are no correct actions because we live in a relativistic universe in which every situation is different.  Focusing on how we can lift others up, serve our communities is the utilitarian way.  Utilitarianism is more in line with Liberalism and Deontology seems to be a Libertarian approach.  

This is what has been in my head.  I would really like to hear your objections and your own perspectives.  I think it would be great if Actualized.org did a video on "how to live morally -- a discussion about utilitarianism, kantianism, and virtue ethics"

 Thank you!  

[Apparition of Jack]

You have a house, but there’s 10 homeless people in our town with nowhere to stay. I decided to kick you out of your house and put the homeless people there instead. I’ve just helped out the maximum number of people with the resources we have.

 Do I get my good boy utilitarian points now?  

Edited August 11, 2020 by Apparition of Jack

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Utilitarianism is a selfless moral approach to life.

Hahahaha....

Nice try, devil!

Utility is ALWAYS relative to your self.

And morality is an invention of your self to justify its selfish ways.

Quote

since we all value happiness, fairness, compassion, empathy, autonomy, well-being, etc.  we should do our best to maximize these out in the world.

You cannot maximize those things because they are all relative.

You're falling into the trap of self-bias and self-deception. All ideology or "ism" will do that. That's the whole point of ideology.

See my videos:

• Understanding Survival Parts 1 & 2
• Self-Bias
• Self-Deception Parts 1, 2, 3

Your mind is playing tricks on you. The #1 rule is DO NOT TRUST YOUR MIND!

[Artsu]

Uh, as a philosophy, utilitarianism does have selflessness built into it.

Its all about a) what quality are you trying to maximise (happiness), and b) how do you measure it (across all consciousness, adjusting for degree of consciousness, and also across as great a time scope as reasonable).

So it only gives you as an individual priority because you are the main one effected by your actions, but ideally you should factor in other people on comparable grounds where you can.

[r0ckyreed]

@Apparition of Jack  you have decided to play God if you did this. It’s just like Thanos wanting to snap his fingers. How do you know those 10 homeless people will bring about more wellbeing than me? This is an assumption and a straw man. What if I am a mental health therapist who is helping 10 clients with a substance abuse problem or better yet, a doctor or philanthropist? This is why a True utilitarian acknowledges that greater numbers do not guarantee the best outcomes. A True utilitarian has Kantian principles but is not limited by them. 
 

@Leo Gura @Artsu I understand that morality is relative and a social contract between others to ensure survival. I’m not for sure if you guys have seen Harry Potter or not, but he is an example of what I am talking about. A Deontologist would obey the rules and not wander around in an invisibility cloak, but Harry understands that if he just follows the rules then huge consequences will happen. So in a way, Harry has a “duty” to break the rules to save Ginny Weasley because if he doesn’t, she will die. When I talk about utilitarianism, my focus is on how my actions affect others. If my actions bring about bad consequences then it is “immoral.” A Deontologist would be the person who never lies even if lying would help save millions of lives. Or torture to get information out of The Joker, etc.  Since you say that morality is subjective and an invention, then that means that there are NO intrinsic moral actions, which is in agreement with utilitarians. Kantians believe there are moral absolutes. So, I am trying to understand how utilitarianism is flawed if it is based on serving others and the community? I do acknowledge the dark side of utilitarianism, which is that any action can be justifiable, but what about the dark side of Kantian ethics? The consequences of our actions matter relativistically. The flaw that I see in utilitarianism is that it is self-biased towards human affairs, but the True utilitarianism that I am talking about is concerned more with how our actions affect others rather than the action itself. Life is a chess game that needs to be strategized. One move has an effect on another. That is why sacrificing a human to save more lives is foolish because the utilitarian assumes that more lives is good, but they fail to look at the damage of their actions. This is why I distinguish between True utilitarian and John Stuart Mill utilitarian. The action of killing an innocent person will have extreme consequences because it is a maxim that we have allowed. So there is a little bit of overlap between all three theories with my version of utilitarianism because you cannot truly create a greater world if you yourself do not uphold virtues and principles. What separates a Kantian from a True utilitarian is that the True Utilitarian is not limited by rules that other people invented and they are not concerned only with the action itself (since there are no Intrinsic values) but the ripple effect of their actions. 
 

examples of the True Utilitarians I talk about are:

Gandalf (In the books he tortured Gollem only as a last resort)

Harry Potter (breaks the rules to save lives, although I admit that Harry can be reckless and should think about his actions more)

Dumbledore 

Yoda  (yes Yoda is a utilitarian because Yoda wanted to sacrifice Han and Leia)

Obi-wan Kenobi

All of these people deeply care about the consequences rather than the actions themselves

 

please continue to correct me. I am Just exploring morality with you all to gain a better understanding with how you all see it. 
 

 I am reinterpreting Mills hedonistic utilitarianism to a more Eudaemonic utilitarianism, which uses Kant’s principle of treating life as an end not a means.

Ultimately utilitarians are more flexible in their moral approach. They see it as gray whereas Kantians see morality as absolute black and white.

I enjoy this conversation so far. Thanks for all of your responses!

Edited August 11, 2020 by r0ckyreed

[Artsu]

I personally go by a morality associated with the bible. The 10 commandments. Love God, and love each other, and seek wisdom/truth.

This works with utilitarianism if you consider that sin leads to suffering. You think there are no moral absolutes in utilitarianism, but you are actually begging the question. Hatred of a person is wrong and leads to suffering, so that is a moral absolute that is also consequential.

Always act with love, and you will create a great surplus in happiness.

Edit: the morality i speak of has more to do with intention/the heart, rather than observable acts

Edited August 11, 2020 by Artsu

[r0ckyreed]

I totally agree with your edit! My position is that since there are no moral absolutes, we should still uphold virtues and treat each other with compassion and respect similar with The golden rule, but I also focus on how much actions can affect others. I am playing a chess game to strategize how my actions affect others. I appreciate you sharing your moral views tied to Christianity. I prefer a secular approach away from religion. Sometimes sacrifice is Love. Thanos did what he did out of love, but I don’t agree with him. He could have just doubled all the resources instead and decreasing half of life. Even though Thanos killed life, I still consider it a utilitarian approach but not a True utilitarian approach because of all the suffering it brought on the world. Only living things can suffer.

 

Now I really wanna know Stage Turquoise morality. It seems obvious to me that Leo does not think that utilitarianism is a stage turquoise approach. So my question is what is a stage turquoise moral principle? Deontology?? Can utilitarianism be upgraded to stage turquoise just like consciousness? What if each moral theory has its own stages as well? @Leo Gura

Edited August 12, 2020 by r0ckyreed

[Artsu]

Two ways that turquoise ties in to utilitarianism:

As a correlate to cosmos centric, we can consider the consciousness of non-physical beings.

Also, we can consider things on greater time scales. Things take place on grand scales at cosmos, and overwhelming yourself with thoughts of high risk events can help break you into the next level - infinite mystery, or Coral.

I am in the process of discovering the morality that goes beyond what I have mentioned.

[emind]

@Leo Gura  Even granting the ultimate truth about "isms" and moral ideologies like you said, shouldn't there be (if not for the enlightened, at least for people who are less cognitively and spiritually evolved) a code of principles by which societal goals are established and norms are determined?