Saturday, January 31, 2004
I dare say you're a moron, to start.
I dare say you use too many innuendo-laden phrases. The "thrust" of your argument? The "sadistic affluents" and their "pleasure?" The "turgid manhood thrusting through her loins of desire?" Geez, get a room, you.
Fine, Mr. Anti-Util. How about you come up with a theory of everything regarding morality and ethics? You shoot down utilitarianism. What else is there, I say? I dare say.
I await your riposte.
I dare say you use too many innuendo-laden phrases. The "thrust" of your argument? The "sadistic affluents" and their "pleasure?" The "turgid manhood thrusting through her loins of desire?" Geez, get a room, you.
Fine, Mr. Anti-Util. How about you come up with a theory of everything regarding morality and ethics? You shoot down utilitarianism. What else is there, I say? I dare say.
I await your riposte.
Monday, January 12, 2004
The crux of Fill's point seems to be that since we can't calculate the precise amount of utility, we must discard utilitarianism. This is folly, much like what Erasmus once talked about.
Ain't nothin' wrong with tyranny of the majority if it's utilitarian. But then we get into those stupid arguments about killing to save. But even that's just a question of framing.
Studies have shown that peoples' choices depend largely on framing. When you present people with the following scenario, they make disparate choices:
Scenario A:
600 people have a disease. Two different treatments can be tried.
1. 100% certainty of 400 dying
2. 66% chance of 600 dying
By a 75-25% margin, people chose option two.
Scenario B:
600 people have a disease. Two different treatments can be tried.
1. 100% certainty of saving 200 people
2. 33% chance of saving 600 people
People choose option one by a 75-25% margin.
Take that riposte, Fill!
Ain't nothin' wrong with tyranny of the majority if it's utilitarian. But then we get into those stupid arguments about killing to save. But even that's just a question of framing.
Studies have shown that peoples' choices depend largely on framing. When you present people with the following scenario, they make disparate choices:
Scenario A:
600 people have a disease. Two different treatments can be tried.
1. 100% certainty of 400 dying
2. 66% chance of 600 dying
By a 75-25% margin, people chose option two.
Scenario B:
600 people have a disease. Two different treatments can be tried.
1. 100% certainty of saving 200 people
2. 33% chance of saving 600 people
People choose option one by a 75-25% margin.
Take that riposte, Fill!
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
So Fill and I were doing our look-smart routine by standing around in the philosophy section of the bookstore and loudly arguing about issues we know little about.
I was rattling off my favorite political philosophers, and besides the obvious John Rawls, I remembered Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham, what with their support for animals rights.
When I said Jeremy Bentham, Fill rolled his eyes and blathered something about how he dislikes utilitarianism. I said, "what's wrong with utilitarianism?"
Fill says something along the lines of "According to Jeremy Bentham, if lining up 50 smokers on TV and executing them would coerce everyone else to quit smoking, then he would find it to be a right and just exercise of power."
I thought about it for a moment, and gave my tentative "hmm.." Fill continued by saying Bentham had no concept of liberal individual rights.
So we walked around spouting off about various issues, when I returned to the utilitarianism. I said, "So Fill, if you could kill one person and eradicate cancer, AIDS, and every other disease, would you do it?" He said yes.
So I concluded that his opposition to a utilitarian framework is just a question of extent, not of principle.
I was rattling off my favorite political philosophers, and besides the obvious John Rawls, I remembered Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham, what with their support for animals rights.
When I said Jeremy Bentham, Fill rolled his eyes and blathered something about how he dislikes utilitarianism. I said, "what's wrong with utilitarianism?"
Fill says something along the lines of "According to Jeremy Bentham, if lining up 50 smokers on TV and executing them would coerce everyone else to quit smoking, then he would find it to be a right and just exercise of power."
I thought about it for a moment, and gave my tentative "hmm.." Fill continued by saying Bentham had no concept of liberal individual rights.
So we walked around spouting off about various issues, when I returned to the utilitarianism. I said, "So Fill, if you could kill one person and eradicate cancer, AIDS, and every other disease, would you do it?" He said yes.
So I concluded that his opposition to a utilitarian framework is just a question of extent, not of principle.
