Utilitarianism Is Not a God

[feotakahari]

Entanglingbriars: "Most ethical systems allow for actions that go beyond the standards of baseline morality and are extra-good; in utilitarianism the standard is absolute and there's no way to exceed it which, when I tried to do utilitarianism, led me to believe that everything I did that did not actively contribute to others' wellbeing was evil. The last is more of a scrupulosity problem on my part, but it is consistent with the standards of a consequentialist ethic."

Systlin: "Odin’s not a force to simply toy with. He will ask you do do things.  There will be work. And while I joke, it’s because I’ve earned the right to do so. I’ve walked the path. I’ve done the work he asks, and am still doing it. I’ve journeyed to places higher and lower, and faced fears I didn’t even know I had. I’ve offered sweat and blood and tears, and in return…well. 

"In return I’ve been given much. It is worth it, every bit of it and then some. 

"But what walking with Odin is not is simply an easy way to make corvid friends. That is a way he watches out for those he favors, not a fun novelty."

A god may ask you for sacrifice in return for blessings. A god may tell you that the person you are now isn't good enough. But I am not a god, and I don't particularly care what you do or don't sacrifice.

The first mistake is to think of utilitarianism as something that tells you whether a person is or isn't good. A person is that which feels happiness, and feeling happiness is good.* It's true that happiness can conflict with other happiness, and people can behave in ways that are selfish or cruel. But they're still people, and they are to be helped to the extent that helping them is possible.

The second mistake is to think that there's a level of good action below which you're "not doing enough." You're existing as a person, and that's a good enough standard for utilitarianism. Now, I won't claim to neutrality or pretend I never judge. I'm human enough to have my own likes and dislikes. But that's just me being me, and it has no higher value than me. There's no cosmic scale, above and beyond an individual person, that will tell you your actions are insufficient.

If you choose to spend a year building low-income housing, that is good. If you choose to give five dollars to a homeless person, that is good. If you choose to care for your ailing parent, that is good. Utilitarianism is something you use to determine those things, in those times when good is something you want to do. But it won't tell you what you are, and it won't rank you on a leaderboard. It's a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

*And yes, that does mean a dog is a person.

Comments

[entanglingbriars]

That's a unique definition of utilitarianism. Traditionally, utilitarianism is an ethical system in which the good is maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering (with various tweaks as needed) and the right is acting in a way that brings about the max pleasure and min suffering. As an ethical system, utilitarianism is prescriptive, it tells people what they should and should not do. And since the good and the right are so completely mingled in utilitarianism (as opposed to, say, a deontological system where there's a certain degree of separation), the standard utilitarianism holds people to is absolute; the fact that there's no god to enforce it doesn't change the nature of the demand, just the incentive people have to comply with it.

[feotakahari]

Ah, but demand by who? And why would you “have” to comply with it?

[entanglingbriars]

Because that's what ethics is. A moral prescription for behavior based around coherent rules that, if followed, will constitute a virtuous life. If you believe that an ethical system is correct, you should *want* to follow it, so your own conscience will demand your obedience.

[feotakahari]

I’m openly and vehemently against any ruleset under which a person can be bad, or unvirtuous, or whatever terminology you want to use. Actions can be bad, in which case the goal is to stop those actions, but a person is and will always be a good and valuable thing. So if ethics requires that some people be “virtuous” and other people be “unvirtuous,” then ethics isn’t for me.

[entanglingbriars]

I can understand that; making a distinction between who a person is and what they do is important. But even in that framework, ethics is prescriptive, it says a person should want to perform good actions and avoid bad actions. And the standard in utilitarianism for a good action is that it maximizes pleasure and/or minimizes suffering.