Foundation for law

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an idealist. Like I said, that would maximize happiness, if people liked other people to be happy. But, there are some jerks out there that get their kicks by hurting other people. So, more rules... and more suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

Once you find the optimal distribution of happiness points, how will you determine which comrades get which happiness rations?

What happens to those who end up less happy because of your engineering than they would have been without it? Too bad for them?

Here's some stuff I've written previously:

You cannot decide what's best for the community, and even if you could, you SHOULD NOT implement it, unless everyone voluntarily agrees. You can determine what YOU think is best for the community. Your DESIRE to do what's best for the community doesn't mean that you actually will make the best decsion. Also, what's best for the community will often be detrimental (sometimes catastropically so) for individuals in that community. Utilitarianism is just another form of oppression.

***


There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.

Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.

The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.

Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?

***

The funny thing is, we can show that utilitarianism can lead to bad outcomes, but we really don't need to go to so much effort - just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

chez

[bearly]

ok, since the op is unwilling to clarify, let's try this: the planet is deserted hence it has no stores (it wouldn't be deserted if it did) no food or water supply, no shelter, and the ad hoc prediction of a life-expectancy of 2-3 days. now, what is a good legal system for our little 'society'?................b

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

chez

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
The foundation for laws in a society are Natural law and Ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true High School Social Studies teacher.

[RevAgain]

Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.

Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.

Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.

One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.

That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).

Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.

This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.

(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.

Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.

Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the hell kind of insane thing is that to say? Capitalism hinges on enforcing property rights. Pillaging someone for their organs against their will to achieve what is(in your mind) a much more benficial and equitable distribution of organs sounds a lot more like socialism to me.