Foundation for law

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.

(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[tylerdurden]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. What's this equation? Should the doctor kill the broken leg guy (man A) if there are only two people that need the organs? What if it's just one (man B)? How about if man A is a single guy, retired, and man B is young and married? What if man A has a kid, but man B has two kids? What if man A is a CEO, and man B is just a factory worker?

I hope I never end up in the emergency room at your hospital.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.

(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], people were unhappy about it).

There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.

chez

[Scotch78]

Though the intent of laws may be to facilitate a healthy society, intention is only one component of action, and often the least affective one. I was unable to find the particular quote I had in mind, but the sense of it was that good men do not need laws and bad men will not be stopped by them. If one truly wishes to improve society, then study the humanties and social sciences, and most importantly, become a teacher.

Scott

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.

(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], people were unhappy about it).

There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.

Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.

(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], people were unhappy about it).

There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.

Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
then its not a matter of actions. they didn't need to do anything to maximise happiness, they just needed to change their nature and become happier people.

Sounds about right. The way to make the world happier is for people to stop being so bloody miserable [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm one the naturally happy people (most of the time) but there seem to be a lot of people who try really hard to be miserable.

Just these quotes is enough to have me gurgling with delight. I bet someone out there is infuriated by them.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Lets try an example. I could usefully use a payrise. However my pay is public knowledge in the company and others are already annoyed my how much more than them I get. They have no chance of a payrise. I think I'm worth the payrise and so do my bosses I also think my co-workers are worth extra money (they think so to) but the bosses disagree.

Stick some arbitary numbers on it.
Ihe payrise makes me 100 units more happy
The unhappyness of my co-workers makes me 50 units less happy.
Each of my 100 co-workers is 1 unit less happy if I take the rise.

maximising my own happiness:
payrise = +50 units

maximising everyones happiness
payrise = +50 units - 100 * 1 units = -50 units

So maximising my happiness conflicts with maximising everyones happiness. The two things are different and I can't see how you can make them the same.

(BTW this is pretty close to a real example)

What does YMMV mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your co-workers should not be unhappy that your happiness is increasing. Part of morality, is learning to not let things decrease your happiness if you can help it. If the fairness was grossly disproportional, then you should either share the wealth, or your co-workers should find a new job. I've heard that even monkeys do this. If your job does not require the help of your co-workers, then you have nothing to worry about -- they will either get over it, or find new jobs. Also, the happiness of your bosses needs to be in the equation. :-?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's the world how you would like it to be rather than how it actually is. In fact the co-workers are often extremely unhappy about the situation.

I've assumend the bosses aren't bothered much either way (thats pretty close as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Arguing that all these things will balance out is just hope isn't it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Maximise my happiness and that will maximise everybodies (or vice verca)???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure this is how I want it, and not how it is. I never claimed that happiness is being maximized. I'm talking about how it can be maximized. Part of that maximization is not being unhappy because someone else is happy. That would be like the cooperating prisoner not wanting to cooperate because the other prisoner would then be happier. In that case, both defect, and both are less happy. It'd be like your co-workers trying to undermine your payraise-happiness by being mean to you or otherwise doing something to harm you.

(PS: the quoted replies are getting thinner and thinner... I think eventually it'll be just a single line of letters all the way down. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but back in the real world and making decisions I have to decide which I want to maximise, sadly, I cant choose to maximise both. (big suprise I took the payrise [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], people were unhappy about it).

There must be some maximum level of embedded quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about the real world... and how we can strive to maximize happiness. But, one person can't maximize happiness for everyone -- everyone has to be involved. In your situation, you did the right thing, I think. Your co-workers should be happy for you. If they are not, then they are not acting in order to increase happiness.

Yes, surely we will reach the edge of the quoting universe soon. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
then its not a matter of actions. they didn't need to do anything to maximise happiness, they just needed to change their nature and become happier people.

Sounds about right. The way to make the world happier is for people to stop being so bloody miserable [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm one the naturally happy people (most of the time) but there seem to be a lot of people who try really hard to be miserable.

Just these quotes is enough to have me gurgling with delight. I bet someone out there is infuriated by them.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Me too! These quotes are just great. I am cutting your signature "chez" off of them... just to make it harder to keep up with who is saying what. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Gurgle gurgle. Makes me smile.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. What's this equation? Should the doctor kill the broken leg guy (man A) if there are only two people that need the organs? What if it's just one (man B)? How about if man A is a single guy, retired, and man B is young and married? What if man A has a kid, but man B has two kids? What if man A is a CEO, and man B is just a factory worker?

I hope I never end up in the emergency room at your hospital.

[/ QUOTE ]


What I was trying to say, is that when people pose these questions in Philosophy the underlying agenda is to try and take from the conclusion a more generalized understanding of what constitutes good ethical behaviour. But a general policy can't be found in hypotheticals like these.

You exercise judgement, as best you can. The original example was, as I'm sure you intended it, an extreme example, so the solution was pretty obvious. If you make it less extreme, it becomes more and more fuzzy. All that's left is exercising judgement as to the values of the options available, as best you can, in a particular and unique situation - much like a poker game. You wouldn't want to be in that situation, but you are, and choosing to do nothing is just as much a choice as choosing to do something. There is no golden rule to be found, and there will be no subsequent verification that a choice was correct/incorrect.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You exercise judgement, as best you can. The original example was, as I'm sure you intended it, an extreme example, so the solution was pretty obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was obvious, and you thought it was obvious, but we both found different "obvious" answers.

[ QUOTE ]
If you make it less extreme, it becomes more and more fuzzy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for me.

What's wrong with you retards? If you want to quote the person you are responding too thats cool... but I am not gonna scroll three pages for each reply.