Utility Monster - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Husky
#14265296
The Utility monster is an objection to utilitarianism formulated by Robert Nozick.

Nozick postulated a creature who received 100 units of utility (pleasure, happiness) per unit of resource consumption, in a universe where everybody else received 1 unit of utility per unit of resource consumption. In this type of universe, Nozick argued, utilitarianism would require that all of the people who got lesser utility be sacrificed (give up any and all resources) to the utility monster. This moral demand for sacrifice, however, is absurd. Therefore, basic utilitarianism is defeated by means of a reduction to absurdity.


Cardinal utilitarianism suggests that we allocate goods and resources so that we maximize the total or average amount of pleasure - given the existence of a utility monster we would be obliged to neglect the needs of human beings in favour of satisfying the monster, perhaps even to the extent of annihilating the human race.


Can anyone think of an argument defending utilitarianism, that can defeat the utility monster thought experiment?
User avatar
By Poelmo
#14265330
Husky wrote:Can anyone think of an argument defending utilitarianism, that can defeat the utility monster thought experiment?


Maybe if you attached a large negative utility value to getting sacrificed (then again that's equivalent to introducing a minimum standard and therefore abandoning utilitarianism as it's usually defined)? But yeah, only looking at total or average utility (which is how utilitarianism is usually defined) is moronic and supporters of it are often vile people.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265333
The problem with classical utilitarianism is that it places no intrinsic value on individual human life, hence such logical absurdities as the 'utility monster'. Fundamentally, there is a non-rational, quasi-religious component to ethics, which we neglect at our peril.
User avatar
By emmitt
#14265552
You think that the utility monster actually leads to absurd conclusions. I'd argue against that. It's entirely possible to accept such a utility monster. The entire argument is based on your own emotional response. It's basically an appeal to popularity since most people wouldn't want to accept the conclusion.

However, the fact that some (or even most [!]) people don't like the conclusion doesn't make utilitarianism wrong.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265588
You think that the utility monster actually leads to absurd conclusions. I'd argue against that. It's entirely possible to accept such a utility monster. The entire argument is based on your own emotional response. It's basically an appeal to popularity since most people wouldn't want to accept the conclusion.

However, the fact that some (or even most [!]) people don't like the conclusion doesn't make utilitarianism wrong.

The 'absurdity' of the utility monster is that it maximises the total amount of happiness in the world, but all of that happiness happens to reside in one individual. Everybody else is miserable. This is unacceptable to most people because it violates the sense we have of the incommensurability of individual human life. I am not you, and you are not me. Utilitarianism erases the (dare I say it, 'sacred') boundaries between individuals and looks only at 'happiness' as a totality, detached from any actual human subjectivity, as though it were a kind of 'ocean' in which we all swim. This is, in fact, absurd. Happiness is not an ocean, it resides (or not) within each individual as an individual. As Mohammed once said, to kill one individual is the same as killing the entire world. This was an assertion of the inviolability, the sacredness of each individual and of the sacredness of the boundaries between individuals. Utilitarianism simply erases those boundaries and is, to that extent, a 'totalitarian' ideology.
User avatar
By emmitt
#14265598
Potemkin wrote:This is unacceptable to most people because it violates the sense we have of the incommensurability of individual human life.


I wrote:The entire argument is based on your own emotional response.

I don't disagree with you.

I'm not even offended by some of that rhetoric that you seem to be fond of.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265604
I don't disagree with you.

I'm not even offended by some of that rhetoric that you seem to be fond of.

You seem to have a faith in the power of pure rationality to save the world. Utilitarianism is, of course, merely the most extreme example of the rationalisation of ethics, and you therefore seem to find it attractive. Yet even the ancient Greeks, who invented rationality, tried to unite it with their sense of the sacred. Pythagoras, as rigorous and logical a thinker as you could wish for, founded his own mystery religion, and saw no contradiction between his sense of the sacred and the rationality of mathematics - in fact, he believed that the two reinforced each other. Modern Western culture has become one-sided in this respect.
User avatar
By emmitt
#14265609
Potemkin wrote:You seem to have a faith in the power of pure rationality to save the world. Utilitarianism is, of course, merely the most extreme example of the rationalisation of ethics, and you therefore seem to find it attractive.

I'm not terribly interested in "saving the world" at this point. I'm just trying to find common ground with other people and rationality appears to be quite useful in this regard. Conversations about purely subjective issues are fairly uninspiring to me. Unfortunately, my own personal values are in conflict with other people's values most of the time. If I were to rely on these irrational preferences, I'd become a social pariah in no time.

I do see the need for a certain kind of religion though but this kind of societal religiosity that I have in mind would be justified by its utility once again.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265630
I'm not terribly interested in "saving the world" at this point. I'm just trying to find common ground with other people and rationality appears to be quite useful in this regard. Conversations about purely subjective issues are fairly uninspiring to me. Unfortunately, my own personal values are in conflict with other people's values most of the time. If I were to rely on these irrational preferences, I'd become a social pariah in no time.

I do see the need for a certain kind of religion though but this kind of societal religiosity that I have in mind would be justified by its utility once again.

I'm not suggesting that modern society should become religious in the way that, say, medieval Europe was religious. I am merely suggesting that a society which has no sense of the sacred is a severely dysfunctional society with huge potential for social or human catastrophe. Modern capitalist society is precisely such a society. Jeremy Bentham, as a bourgeois rationalist, had no sense of the sacred, and his theory of utilitarianism reflects this absence. Pure rationalism, pushed to its logical limit, is essential inhuman and absurd.
User avatar
By Eran
#14265675
Potemkin wrote:Fundamentally, there is a non-rational, quasi-religious component to ethics, which we neglect at our peril.

Fundamentally, all ethics is non-rational.

There is nothing "rational" about utilitarianism, even setting aside the fundamental error of treating personal utility as quantifiable, comparable and additive. Why is it rational to demand that people work equally hard towards their own well-being, and towards that of strangers (as utilitarianism inherently demands)?

I am merely suggesting that a society which has no sense of the sacred is a severely dysfunctional society with huge potential for social or human catastrophe. Modern capitalist society is precisely such a society.

No, it isn't. In modern capitalist society, many things are sacred. Human life, the environment, the well-being of animals and the equal rights of racial minorities are all considered "sacred" by large portions of the population, an attitude that is often reflected in institutions, practices and laws.
User avatar
By Poelmo
#14265682
emmitt wrote:You think that the utility monster actually leads to absurd conclusions. I'd argue against that. It's entirely possible to accept such a utility monster. The entire argument is based on your own emotional response. It's basically an appeal to popularity since most people wouldn't want to accept the conclusion.

However, the fact that some (or even most [!]) people don't like the conclusion doesn't make utilitarianism wrong.


Potemkin wrote:Pure rationalism, pushed to its logical limit, is essential inhuman and absurd.


I wouldn't even say utilitarianism is "pure rationalism" (and yes, I realize Potemkin wasn't talking about just utilitarianism). Is it rational for me to sacrifice my happiness to increase yours? That of course leads to the question of why it's rational to increase your own happiness? To which the answer is: it's as rational as anything else, there's no deeper purpose to life (unless you believe god will ultimately reward followers of utilitarianism), so we might as well choose to base our idea of what's rational on what feels nice, meaning our happiness. This is why, there's nothing irrational about listening to your own emotional response in this case.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265683
Fundamentally, all ethics is non-rational.

I would say that ethics necessarily contains a non-rational element, but rationality should certainly be applied to ethics, if only to ensure that our ethical judgements are at least logically self-consistent.

There is nothing "rational" about utilitarianism, even setting aside the fundamental error of treating personal utility as quantifiable, comparable and additive. Why is it rational to demand that people work equally hard towards their own well-being, and towards that of strangers (as utilitarianism inherently demands)?

It is entirely rational. It merely contradicts some of the core principles of libertarianism, which is why you don't like it.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265685
I wouldn't even say utilitarianism is "pure rationalism" (and yes, I realize Potemkin wasn't talking about just utilitarianism). Is it rational for me to sacrifice my happiness to increase yours?

It may be completely rational for society as a whole to sacrifice your happiness as an individual for the 'greater good'. In other words, what is a rational outcome for society as a whole may be an irrational outcome from the point of view of the individual concerned. Bentham merely assumed that the rational outcome for society as a whole automatically trumps any possible rational outcome for the individual. This is merely another aspect of Bentham's lack of respect for the sacredness of individual subjectivity. He tended to value only collective, social outcomes and placed no intrinsic value on individual human life. This, ultimately, is where any attempt to rationalise ethics must lead.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14265686
What about a sadistic utility monster that gains 10 units of pleasure after producing 1 unit of pain?
Or a racist that enjoys lynchings more than the victims dis-like the experience?
5 out of 6 people enjoy gang rape......

<Evil laughter>
User avatar
By Poelmo
#14265691
Potemkin wrote:It may be completely rational for society as a whole to sacrifice your happiness as an individual for the 'greater good'.


What would this greater good be if not the happiness of individuals (do these people believe god has a pot of gold waiting for the members of the most industrially productive society in the universe?). I realize you could be talking about decreasing the happiness of rapists by outlawing rape but all such laws aim to increase happiness for most individuals (it's based on that one thought experiment where you have to design society from the viewpoint of someone who has yet to be born and whose gender, skin color, sexuality, wealth of parents, etc... is entirely random, it's rational from that point of view, not the one of the rapist, and that thought experiment is not part of utilitarianism because it looks at the individual).

My point was that there's nothing inherently rational (unless you believe god has a specific purpose for us that does not involve our happiness), so why not choose to base our idea of what's rational on what feels nice for you, the individual?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265694
What would this greater good be if not the happiness of individuals (do these people believe god has a pot of gold waiting for the members of the most industrially productive society in the universe?).

Society is not merely a collection of atomised individuals. It has its own dynamic and its own laws of development. And the good of society as a whole is not necessarily identical to the good of the individual members of that society. For example, the Industrial Revolution transformed British society and vastly expanded its forces of production, yet at the same time (and necessarily) it immiserated the majority of the population.

My point was that there's nothing inherently rational (unless you believe god has a specific purpose for us that does not involve our happiness), so why not choose to base our idea of what's rational on what feels nice for you, the individual?

If you regard society as merely an agglomeration of monadic individuals, then this is correct. However, this is not how human society operates, nor how it has operated throughout human history. My point is that Benthamite utilitarianism is entirely rational - that, indeed, is precisely the problem.
User avatar
By Eran
#14265709
Poelmo wrote:What would this greater good be if not the happiness of individuals

How do you compare, aggregate, add, subtract, measure or quantify happiness? Without being able to do the above, how can you work your way from the happiness of individuals to the "greater good"?

Potemkin wrote:It is entirely rational. It merely contradicts some of the core principles of libertarianism, which is why you don't like it.

Please explain how utilitarianism is more rational than libertarianism (by which I mean the normative theory that initiation of force against other people's peaceful projects is never allowed).

And the good of society as a whole is not necessarily identical to the good of the individual members of that society. For example, the Industrial Revolution transformed British society and vastly expanded its forces of production, yet at the same time (and necessarily) it immiserated the majority of the population.

The good of individuals can be determined (only!) through their subjective judgement.

What you call "good of society" is also a subjective judgement. In contrast with the good of individuals (for which we only need to consult the individuals involved), binding determinations as to the good of society are necessarily made by privileged few, using their own judgement to override that of individuals.
User avatar
By Fasces
#14265712
How do you compare, aggregate, add, subtract, measure or quantify happiness? Without being able to do the above, how can you work your way from the happiness of individuals to the "greater good"?


The inability to use quantitative measures for happiness does not preclude the use of qualitative ones. Not every inquiry has to be rooted in positivist theories of knowledge, and when it comes to describing human societies, to expect that is absurd.

The issue you consistently point out as favoring a libertarian society is that individuals are subjective - I agree with you on that, as we have determined in the past. The difference between you and I is your utter lack of trust that one can communicate with other human beings effectively, and that other human beings can make informed decisions that serve the interests of their fellows.

I wonder how you would explain the relationship between a parent and their child, if you are so fundamentally an individualist. Does a parent not have a right to give their children chores? Make them eat their vegetables? Force them to attend school?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14265717
Please explain how utilitarianism is more rational than libertarianism (by which I mean the normative theory that initiation of force against other people's peaceful projects is never allowed).

Utilitarianism is no more or less rational than libertarianism; they merely start from different premises, that's all.

The good of individuals can be determined (only!) through their subjective judgement.

Agreed.

What you call "good of society" is also a subjective judgement.

I disagree. There are objective factors which can be evaluated to determine the good of a given society as a whole - for example, the strength of its forces of production, its ability to defend itself from external attack, its social and ideological cohesiveness, and so on.

In contrast with the good of individuals (for which we only need to consult the individuals involved), binding determinations as to the good of society are necessarily made by privileged few, using their own judgement to override that of individuals.

Agreed, though these elites are often sadly lacking in objectivity or rationality. However, every ruling elite claims that its own interests coincide with those of society as a whole. Usually, they are either lying or deluding themselves, but sometimes it happens that they are right (as the British ruling elite in the early to mid 19th century were), and by acting in their own narrow class interests they also serendipitously act in the interests of society as a whole (though not necessarily in the interests of the majority of the individuals in that society).

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]