Philosophy questions - Morality & Moral Theories

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

Scott

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does); you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

Scott

PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ethics is the study of values; you just claimed that all attempts at universal morality are immoral.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Utilitarianism is oppressive, and oppression is wrong, because it involves making value judgments about each other, then all of ethics is oppressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Making judgments *about* one another is different than making judgements *for* one another. If I decide you're a scumbag, it doesn't really impact you. If I decide you need to spend a portion of your money on something you don't really want, and then I force you to do so with threat of force, that does impact you.

Implementing utilitarianism requires a central decsion-maker who A) determines maximal utility distribution and B) carries out actions needed to achieve that distribution. The oppression is in part B.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are still conflating morality with legality, and doing it selectively for Utilitarianism alone.

Scott

[tylerdurden]

I'm not concerned with legality at all. It doesn't matter to me if there is legislation backing a utilitarian system or not, it's still oppressive.

I think lots of other systems are oppressive, too. It just happens that Utilitarianism got brought up here.

[Scotch78]

Would you please change your avatar to the album cover of Pink Floyd's The Wall. I will repeat this one last time . . . you are conflating morality with legality. There is absolutely nothing in Utilitarianism that requires me to make value judgments for you. If you want to buy a Dell 2001fp instead of feeding the homeless, then yes, a Utilitarian could claim you are acting immorally. However, he cannot force you to feed the homeless instead.

Scott

[tylerdurden]

Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Is your monitor defective and not displaying the word "IMPLEMENT" when I type it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two types of implementation for a moral theory. The first is to personally subscribe to it, to judge own's actions according to that value system. The second is to legistlate it, to force others to obey it. The latter is not a part of Utilitarianism, or of any philosophical system. I said that you are conflating morality and legality because you intend only the legal definition of implementation, but refuse to let go of the moral definition of implementation.

Scott

[tylerdurden]

Forcing it on others (which many people advocate, implicitly or explicitly) is oppressive.

Talking about it, or using it as a means for making your own decisions, is not oppressive.

The theory itself, obviously, is not oppressive. The "pure" form of it may not be oppressive. Using utilitarianism for a basis of policy is oppressive.

Your "moral implementation" is a trivial case (in that any decisions you make for yourself that don't get imposed on others cannot be aggressive) and clearly not what I was talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that cooperating increases personal happiness, and the total happiness of those involved -- so it doesn't require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying that the prisoner's dilemma does not require altruism (though it does);

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I asked my rhetorical question. I was assuming that you didn't think that a cooperating prisoner was being altruistic. But, now I see that you DO think that. I don't. I guess we have different understandings of altruism.

Perhaps I should have stated that I'm referring to an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- where the "tit for tat" strategy is being used. In this way, the prisoners realize or "learn" that they will be happiest if they cooperate and not defect. Thus, their motivation is to help themselves, NOT the other prisoner -- this is why it's not altruism.

[ QUOTE ]
you have not yet pointed out how Utilitarianism does not require altruism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way I just desribed the Prisoner's dilemma not requiring altruism. That is a simpler scenario, and we disagree on that, so I'll stick with that for now.

[ QUOTE ]
PS You did not say whether, by "cooperation", you mean cooperating with the police or with the other prisoner, and that is another unclarity in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other prisoner. I'm just referencing two people playing a "game". I can describe the scenario in detail if you wish, but it's a common problem, so I thought most people would be familiar with it.