Opinion of Utilitarianism

[CatoMinor]

I've started reading about it a bit, specifically Bentham and Mills, and so far it seems like a horrible philosophy. From what I gather so far it comes down to (in Bentham's case at least) if the action brings more pleasure its the morally right thing, if it brings pain, its the morally wrong thing. Mills seems to expand this idea into different levels of pleasure and is more qualitative where Bentham is quantitative.

What made me start thinking this was a horrible philosophy is that in a scenario we were given to discuss in my Contemp Morals and Issues course, a 8 year old girl is detained by federal agents because she is related to terrorists and may have info. They use torture and any means necessary to get information out of her. She is not released for 5 years, and during that time there is no major terrorist attack. According to Utilitarianism torturing the little girl and detaining her for 5 years was the morally right thing to do.

[Robert California]

Never liked it. What I always saw it as was "if it makes the majority happy, then it's okay" which is a ridiculous sentiment, even in a democracy.

[fezzyfestoon]

Unsurprisingly, it's far too simplistic to be able to effectively pertain to the complexities of society.

[Blue3]

But doesn't Mills also advocate for libertarianism and the importance of each and every individual's happiness?

[Robert California]

But doesn't Mills also advocate for libertarianism and the importance of each and every individual's happiness?

As I recall reading, that was part of his rhetoric, although heavily countered by the tenets of his philosophy.

[DC Al Fine]

But doesn't Mills also advocate for libertarianism and the importance of each and every individual's happiness?

Mill had a varied career. I believe by the end he was calling himself a socialist.

Anyway, utilitarianism is an HP among HP's. It degrades people to mere numbers and gives no respect to individual rights.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The ends never justify the means, so it is a massive HP.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Here's an example I gave on this subforum attacking it a couple years ago.

Let's say I'm at a strip club. While there I find that someone has carelessly left their wallet hanging out that has several hundred dollars in it. I know that person probably won't miss $20 from it, so I steal a $20 from it and have a great lapdance.

Utilitarianism says that is acceptable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's an example I gave on this subforum attacking it a couple years ago.

Let's say I'm at a strip club. While there I find that someone has carelessly left their wallet hanging out that has several hundred dollars in it. I know that person probably won't miss $20 from it, so I steal a $20 from it and have a great lapdance.

Utilitarianism says that is acceptable.

You can get a great lapdance for only $20?  Either you have a low standard of great or those cold Minnesota winters cause the strippers up there to generate more friction than they would down here for only $20.

[King]

Let's say I'm at a strip club. While there I find that someone has carelessly left their wallet hanging out that has several hundred dollars in it. I know that person probably won't miss $20 from it, so I steal a $20 from it and have a great lapdance.

Yes, if you find a lost wallet with $500 of it and take $20 for a lap dance, but give the remainder back to the original owner, then that is a utilitarian decision.  You receive a tangible reward and they receive a tangible reward.  A non-utilitarian decision would be to keep all of the money or to return all of the money and receiving no reward from the owner, giving no incentive for a positive behavior.

I think utilitarianism works at a micro level. 

[SPC]

Doesn't everybody at least implicitly use utilitarian principles in order to arrive at their philosophy?  In other words, does anybody actually advocate a philosophy that they believe would leave most people worse off?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

It's kind of odd that libertarians often defend it a lot (like see above) considering how easy it is to use it to justify redistribution.

[DC Al Fine]

Doesn't everybody at least implicitly use utilitarian principles in order to arrive at their philosophy?  In other words, does anybody actually advocate a philosophy that they believe would leave most people worse off?

No.

Most of us have some value that overrides utility. Just about every human right falls into this category.

[Nichlemn]

FP. Any moral philosophy that isn't wishy-washy is vulnerable to extreme hypotheticals. But in utilitarianism's defense, a) most are very unlikely to actually occur and b) some of them wouldn't actually be recommended by utilitarianism, or at least variants such as rule utilitarianism. For instance, for BRTD's example, the rule "steal money from wallets" would not be likely to maximise utility, because people would respond by being overly careful with their wallets and in some cases avoiding going to places that would give them utility in order to safeguard their wallet.

In many cases where utilitarianism gives the "wrong" answer, I'd bite the bullet and say that other people's moral intuitions are wrong. For instance, for the OP's example, if it is true that torturing an 8 year old girl will reduce terrorism, I think we're led to unjustifiably weight the girl's utility above the unknown, "statistical" deaths that would result from terrorism. Or in cases where torturing one person will save billions of others the pain of pinprick, I think our inability to comprehend large numbers is partially responsible for emphasising the one person.

[SPC]

It's kind of odd that libertarians often defend it a lot (like see above) considering how easy it is to use it to justify redistribution.

Utilitarianism can be used to show why redistribution is a bad idea, since it marginally incentivizes social loafing.

Also, I'm not necessarily an advocate for utilitarianism, but how can you make any political argument if you don't accept that the consequences of a policy have any effect on your advocacy of said policy?

[DemPGH]

I had to refresh myself by reading up on it a bit, and after doing so, I really don't think people who subscribe to this philosophy would approve of human experiments or torturing children or otherwise Nazi stuff. I generally take Utilitarianism to be a "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" kind of thing, which would allow not only redistribution but could be used to advocate peace. So I guess I'm neutral since it's widely open to interpretation and application. I got the impression from way back when I read Mill that he was much more a rationalist than an authoritarian, which would have fit well the time in which he was writing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is utilitarianism even useful itself?   You can have an ideal that the sum of pleasures ought to outweigh the sum of all pains,  but even if that would be theoretically quantifiable assuming omniscience (which it isn't imo), it's not something anyone can be expected to be able to calculate as they go about their lives.  It also says nothing about how one can become a moral person.

[John Dibble]

Intrinsically I would say neutral. Many philosophies in a vacuum void of any others are bad, but situationally can be valid. When trying to find the solution to a problem it's certainly valid to consider a utilitarian viewpoint when weighing one's options.

[Beet]

Sounds like opeboism.

I will say though that, more than any other philosophy, it appears to work for rulers and political leaders.