>>uhh... if they're so easily answered, why don't you try to answer them? while utilitarianism is a very novel concept, it isn't without critics.>>
Will do.
>>if no one is entitled the right to life, then why should the government punish those who kill others? the murderer didn't do anything wrong; whoever got killed was just dumb enough to let it happen right?>>
The murderer caused a loss in utility through her murder that was larger than her gain in utility from the killing.
>>and if we don't have any rights, then free speach, life, liberty, property, and privacy are all just privileges granted to us by the benevolence of whatever government happens to be in power. and if that government happens to be a fascist dictatorship, then we have no right to complain about being oppressed. if we aren't entitled to any rights then there are no standards for making ethical judgements, therefore might is right.>>
A utilitarian would argue that free speech, liberty, privacy, continuing existence, etc. make people happy. Now, I can't in good conscience condone the right to private property.
>>there's really no reason to help the needy either since people aren't naturally entitled to a dignified existence. people aren't entitled to equal treatment so the whole civil rights movement was based on claims which don't exist. there's nothing wrong with job discrimination or segregation or even slavery. all those who suffered under these evils were just "dumb enough to let it happen.">>
A utilitarian would argue that a poor person gains more utility per unit of material consumption than a rich person. E.G., food and shelter for a year would make a poor person happier than another car for a rich person.
A utilitarian would argue that people enjoy being treated equally.
Okay...rereading Leg's post, the thing about "being stupid enough to get killed" is a little silly...or deserves further explanation.
>>the problem with utilitarian ethics is that it doesn't necessarily ensure that the rights of the individual will be protected. in fact it doesn't even take into account the intrinsic moral value of individual actions. for instance, if you look at the ancient roman tradition of pitting human beings against each other in a fight to the death against their will for public entertainment, most people would agree that there is something wrong with such an institution and that certain human rights are not being upheld. with utilitarian ethics however, you try to quantify "total happiness" which follows from public gladiator matches. now since gladiator matches only cause unhappiness for very few people, and give great pleasure to the overwhelming majority of the population, it can be seen as something of great utility, and thus a desirable institution.>>
Such a utility calculation is dubious at best. Now, you do give a very valid criticism in that utilitarianism is far from practical. If it were to be workable, we would need a society of mind-readers who can predict the future.
I will also note that I am not a utilitarian.
ebola
