Guest guest Posted January 2, 2002 Report Share Posted January 2, 2002 Me again, I’m sorry if this list is turning into a philosophy debate but given that philosophy was my main reason for going vegan I feel it is of great importance to understand the implications of different ethical views. Utilitarianism can easily be misunderstood and its arguments grossly simplified as the numerous counter examples have shown. On his last response, James agreed with the statement: “Given our origins and the origins of life in general through Darwinian evolution it is clear that there isn’t an objective moral code written in the stars like Plato or Kant believed in. We must therefore create our own moral code on our own terms.” Yet his main criticism of utilitarianism was that: “it makes no room for what is commonly regarded as justice”. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! There is no such thing as justice; justice is whatever we make it to be. Case in point, the war in Afghanistan: Bin Laden is convinced he is doing justice to the world while Bush is also convinced of the exact same thing (as a matter of fact the original name of the operation was called ‘infinite justice’). Every human being on this planet has a different idea of justice yet all of them will ultimately agree that pleasure is good and pain is bad. That’s why I still feel that a utilitarian law system is our best hope for a unified, more rational and compassionate world. The argument that utilitarianism would support slavery or animal exploitation is ludicrous. Meat eating provides a small pleasure when it is eaten (at least for some people) but in a utilitarian system this is overridden by the immense suffering to the animal, impact on human health, the environment, etc… Slavery would suffer the same fate as the small pleasure gained by the slave owners through slave labour could never equal the suffering of the slaves. Furthermore, in a utilitarian system there would be no distinction for determining who are the owners and who are the slaves as all those who are capable of suffering deserve equal respect for their interests (unless you have something against using machines and plants as slaves). Not everyone in the world has a Ph.D. in philosophy but if we only taught people the basic utilitarian principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain I feel our world would be so much better for it… Kamrinn Roy, Toronto, Ontario Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2002 Report Share Posted January 2, 2002 Kamrinn Roy at kamrinn wrote: > Utilitarianism can easily be misunderstood and its > arguments grossly simplified as the numerous counter > examples have shown. No one has shown any indication that they misunderstand utilitarianism, in my opinion. I think we're all on the same page about what it is, just not whether it's a useful ethical system. > On his last response, James agreed with the statement: > “Given our origins and the origins of life in general > through Darwinian evolution it is clear that there > isn’t an objective moral code written in the stars > like Plato or Kant believed in. We must therefore > create our own moral code on our own terms.” Yet his > main criticism of utilitarianism was that: “it makes > no room for what is commonly regarded as justice”. > THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! You're incorrect - that is not *my* main criticism of it, I simply pointed out that it is a critcism made against it, and a problem many people have with it. I consider all ethical systems equally arbitrary, and that is my main complaint about all of them. > There is no such thing as > justice; justice is whatever we make it to be. That's true but not really relevant to the complaint.. you're saying that neither ethics nor justice are inherent, that they are human inventions, and you think people out to invent ethics in the form of utilitarianism, but many people disagree because they want justice to exist. That is not the same as saying utilitarianism is a problem because it doesn't include justice which inherently exist. Some people agree that justice is invented *but want it anyway.* > The argument that utilitarianism would support slavery > or animal exploitation is ludicrous. Meat eating > provides a small pleasure when it is eaten (at least > for some people) but in a utilitarian system this is > overridden by the immense suffering to the animal, > impact on human health, the environment, etc… Slavery > would suffer the same fate as the small pleasure > gained by the slave owners through slave labour could > never equal the suffering of the slaves. I suggest you read some of the criticisms of Peter Singer's writing and of utilitarianism in general and you will find compelling arugments about this. I think you are underread on this subject to have chosen it as an ethical theory. I recommend (humbley) that you look into it more if you're really interested in it. > Not everyone in the world has a Ph.D. in philosophy > but if we only taught people the basic utilitarian > principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain I > feel our world would be so much better for it… You keep speaking of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain but that is not an accurate way to describe utilitarianism. A more accurate way would be " the greatest good for the greatest number. " " Maximize pleasure, minimize pain " summarizes hedonism. -james. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.