Is utilitarianism a logical fallacy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

One could use utilitarianism to justify rape, among other things.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No not totally, but it is "English happiness" not anyone elses definition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No not totally, but it is "English happiness" not anyone elses definition.

Upper Class and Bourgeois English happiness, get it right

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No not totally, but it is "English happiness" not anyone elses definition.

Upper Class and Bourgeois English happiness, get it right

As far as Jeremy Bentham (and Robert Malthus) was concerned those were the same thing. The poors weren't English back then, no?*

I must say I find modern Utilitarianism a rather sad failure, though I can't think of anyone who fits that makes that description other than Peter Singer and as he thinks it is okay to commit infanticide on babies who have down syndrome that shows...

* (Just in case you didn't figure, I was trying to Quote Nietzsche on this very subject. So there. )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As far as Jeremy Bentham (and Robert Malthus) was concerned those were the same thing. The poors weren't English back then, no?*

Not real people, at any rate. I mention it because of the New Poor Law; probably the best example of Utilitarianism directly influencing policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could work out that you were quoting someone, wasn't sure who.

[© tweed]

Yes.

One could use utilitarianism to justify rape, among other things.

how would that be a 'logical fallacy'?  wouldn't that just be undesirable?

[A18]

Huh?

Utilitarianism is not an argument of any kind (valid or invalid); it is simply an ethical standard. As such, it cannot cannot be logically fallacious.

[Alcon]

Yes.

One could use utilitarianism to justify rape, among other things.

You do realize, that by arguing that a system is fallacious, because it would allow for something "bad" that is not considered "bad" under that system, you're committing a logical fallacy yourself?  And you're entirely misappropriating the term "logical fallacy," as well.

[A18]

He's really just making the badness of rape an unstated premise. If you grant him that premise, as well as his explicit one, then the only thing wrong with his conclusion is the use of "logical fallacy" in place of "fallacious."

Of course, that's not to say that anyone who accepts the premises would, when presented with the argument, have to accept the conclusion. Instead, he might rethink his support for the premises.

[Alcon]

He's really just making the badness of rape an unstated premise. If you grant him that premise, as well as his explicit one, then the only thing wrong with his conclusion is the use of "logical fallacy" in place of "fallacious."

Of course, that's not to say that anyone who accepts the premises would, when presented with the argument, have to accept the conclusion. Instead, he might rethink his support for the premises.

But arguing against something on the basis of a premise the other party doesn't concede, and is entirely opposed to their thesis is...retarded.

Not exactly a logical operative term , but still.  This is one degree removed from "nihilism sucks because it supports apathy."

[Keystone Phil]

[Insert something very intellectual/philosophical here]

[A18]

He's really just making the badness of rape an unstated premise. If you grant him that premise, as well as his explicit one, then the only thing wrong with his conclusion is the use of "logical fallacy" in place of "fallacious."

Of course, that's not to say that anyone who accepts the premises would, when presented with the argument, have to accept the conclusion. Instead, he might rethink his support for the premises.

But arguing against something on the basis of a premise the other party doesn't concede, and is entirely opposed to their thesis is...retarded.

Not exactly a logical operative term , but still.  This is one degree removed from "nihilism sucks because it supports apathy."

As plausible as what you're saying sounds, its assumption is wrong. It's simply not true that a person who maintains x can't simultaneously hold beliefs that, upon inspection, turn out to flatly contradict x. None of us have ever carefully sat down and thought through all of the implications of the various beliefs we hold; and how any set of them may relate to some other belief.

Let me try this on you. Are geometric proofs a waste of time? And if not, why not? Aren't they equally subject to your critique? (Anyone who ever doubted the Pythagorean theorem must have disagreed with the premises, no?) Indeed, aren't all logical arguments equally subject to it?

[Alcon]

He's really just making the badness of rape an unstated premise. If you grant him that premise, as well as his explicit one, then the only thing wrong with his conclusion is the use of "logical fallacy" in place of "fallacious."

Of course, that's not to say that anyone who accepts the premises would, when presented with the argument, have to accept the conclusion. Instead, he might rethink his support for the premises.

But arguing against something on the basis of a premise the other party doesn't concede, and is entirely opposed to their thesis is...retarded.

Not exactly a logical operative term , but still.  This is one degree removed from "nihilism sucks because it supports apathy."

As plausible as what you're saying sounds, its assumption is wrong. It's simply not true that a person who maintains x can't simultaneously hold beliefs that, upon inspection, turn out to flatly contradict x. None of us have ever carefully sat down and thought through all of the implications of the various beliefs we hold; and how any set of them may relate to some other belief.

Let me try this on you. Are geometric proofs a waste of time? And if not, why not? Aren't they equally subject to your critique? (Anyone who ever doubted the Pythagorean theorem must have disagreed with the premises, no?) Indeed, aren't all logical arguments equally subject to it?

Oh, I have no problem with consistency tests.   I was only making fun of BRTD because I (maybe wrongly) assume that wasn't his intention (based on the question "is utilitarianism a logical fallacy?")  I mean, I assume BRTD understands what a logical fallacy is in a general sense, enough to know it's different from a consistency test.  But maybe not.

You'll have to explain your Pythagorean Theorem reference if it's anything other than an explicit analogy.  I got a "B" in geometry four years ago

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

An ethical philosophy can be so if one uses fallacious arguments based off it. Is "Moderate Heroism" a logical fallacy? Not exactly, but the basis of it is a commonly accepted fallacy (Middle Ground.)

When I was a kid I used utilitarianistic arguments against doing things like cleaning my room. I'm sure those would be considered fallacious.

[John Dibble]

When I was a kid I used utilitarianistic arguments against doing things like cleaning my room. I'm sure those would be considered fallacious.

Care to elaborate on the content of the arguments? I kind of doubt they would be that utilitarian to begin with.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Basically that I really hated cleaning my room and having a clean room didn't make me any happier so there was no reason why I should.

[John Dibble]

Basically that I really hated cleaning my room and having a clean room didn't make me any happier so there was no reason why I should.

On the other hand, it would make both your parents happier. Your argument was based on what would make you happy, not the greatest number of people happy, so I don't think your argument there could count as utilitarian.

[Alcon]

An ethical philosophy can be so if one uses fallacious arguments based off it. Is "Moderate Heroism" a logical fallacy? Not exactly, but the basis of it is a commonly accepted fallacy (Middle Ground.)

Positing that moderation is better (for some given set of reasons) is not a logical fallacy; positing that it is inherently better because it is moderation (unless you define "good" using "moderate" for some reason), is a logical fallacy.

It's one of a wide range that basically consist of confusing correlation and causation.  If you were picking an option blindly, the moderate option might generally be best; but abandoning additional information for "moderation" is fallacious, if you can evaluate it on actual merits.

When I was a kid I used utilitarianistic arguments against doing things like cleaning my room. I'm sure those would be considered fallacious.

Why?  There is nothing logically unsound about an ethical system that posits that victims of rape should abandon irrational feelings of violation in favor of utility.  How is that fallacious?

Your argument, as John points out, was not utilitarian anyway; it was narcissistic and hedonistic.  That doesn't make it fallacious either, if you define your world around your own personal pleasure -- or your ethical system around each individual's.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The problem is here is that any definition of "happiness" will be completely arbitrary unless refering to subjective tastes - like BRTDs.

That is of course not a logical fallacy. And of course I pointed this out in the first post.

[pbrower2a]

Moderation is not a valid position if the 'moderation' is a choice between two horrible positions and especially between good and evil.

"Shall we hang this person known to have been convicted of a questionable crime under questionable circumstance, or shall we burn this person at the stake? Hanging is gentler, and we might as well show some decency."

Even if one can accept the death penalty as an appropriate means of punishing those who have committed horrible crimes, execution in the wake of shabby legal process is unforgivable. The right procedure would be to retry the person convicted, and of course ensure that even if capital punishment is abolished that it is used only for the most horrific crimes -- like murder.

"Do I take nothing from the till, do I take one $20 bill, or do I take two of them? Stealing $40 is worse, so taking the $20 is a reasonable compromise." 

No, it isn't. Larceny is immoral at any level, whether it is filching pennies or filching millions.

Goodness is always the right position. One needs a compelling reason for making a compromise with any evil.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's another example of utilitarianism:

A lapdance costs $20 at most clubs I go to. I find someone carelessly leaving their wallet around at some bar or party. Inside there's a couple hundred dollars. I know they won't miss a single $20 bill, so I steal one and then go get an awesome lapdance.

Utilitarianism says this is a justifiable action.

[Alcon]

Here's another example of utilitarianism:

A lapdance costs $20 at most clubs I go to. I find someone carelessly leaving their wallet around at some bar or party. Inside there's a couple hundred dollars. I know they won't miss a single $20 bill, so I steal one and then go get an awesome lapdance.

Utilitarianism says this is a justifiable action.

Yes, so?

[John Dibble]

Here's another example of utilitarianism:

A lapdance costs $20 at most clubs I go to. I find someone carelessly leaving their wallet around at some bar or party. Inside there's a couple hundred dollars. I know they won't miss a single $20 bill, so I steal one and then go get an awesome lapdance.

Utilitarianism says this is a justifiable action.

And that, children, is how socialism works.