[QatzelOk]

I didn't say anything about fascism, that would be one specific type of disciplinary institution.

All disciplinary institutions become fascist (violent and all controlling) when the state is threatened.

So "fascism" isn't really a type of institution, it's more of an institution-preserving strategy.

Submission but not wholesale submission. Revolt is the logical outcome if the government doesn't fulfill its end of the bargain.

This has been know for thousands of years. The elites have had lots of time to create Disciplinary Institutions to repress any kind of meaningful revolt or change.

They have us all locked into their remote control world through media brainwashing, religious fanaticism, and fabricated social norms. And this is the opposite of "useful" if human societies are more than a racket to enrich a tiny minority of sadists.

Oh and one more idea, what if there was still a president or prime minister, but they were chosen randomly by lottery from all the local governors or mayors?

Instead of being chosen by a handful of Jewish billionaires? Not sure why this is more or less useful than the system we have now.

[Noumenon]

All disciplinary institutions become fascist (violent and all controlling) when the state is threatened.

So "fascism" isn't really a type of institution, it's more of an institution-preserving strategy.

Not sure if I agree with your definition of fascism, but okay if we take it in the broadest possible sense. Historically the specific thing called fascism has a lot more to it than that. It is also not correct to say that it is purely top down like Orwell's 1984. It was a cross-class mobilization of forces - bottom-up - which collaborated with a decrepit and weak state in order to revitalize it and achieve certain ideological goals which have nothing to do with state-preservation and in the end may be suicidal for the state.

The thing which is paradigmatic that we call fascism is historically very rare. Only a couple regimes have turned fascist. If you mean authoritarianism more generally, I'm not sure if that's accurate that all disciplinary institutions must become more violent and controlling. The best discipline operates with "consent" of the governed and it is true that if this breaks down, the state will often turn to brute violence to maintain control. But then a new regime is installed, order is restored, and so on. It's cyclical. Challenges to authority make provoke the violent response in the short term but in the long term they move society in a more progressive direction.

This has been know for thousands of years. The elites have had lots of time to create Disciplinary Institutions to repress any kind of meaningful revolt or change.

They have us all locked into their remote control world through media brainwashing, religious fanaticism, and fabricated social norms. And this is the opposite of "useful" if human societies are more than a racket to enrich a tiny minority of sadists.

The strategies of control and co-optation have worked for a time, but we can already see the structure coming apart at the seams. No matter how evolutionarily adaptive a system is, at some point it cannot catch up with forces that are outside of its control and it begins to collapse from its contradictions.

The idea that the elites are in control of this is what I call the conspiratorial hypothesis. I used to believe it but no longer. Elites are very much part of the system, to be sure, and they exercise a great deal of power within it. But it is absolutely not true that they are in control of it and directing it behind the scenes. Rather, the system of power constructs these elites as subjects fulfilling a role carved out by the system itself. This is why the higher you go up the hierarchy the more brainwashed and fanatical these elites get, slaves to the profit drive and working every minute of the day to squeeze out one more cent for their shareholders. The truth is that no one is in control, and that is the scary reality that the conspiratorial hypothesis - or rather, faith - helps shield its believers from.

Instead of being chosen by a handful of Jewish billionaires? Not sure why this is more or less useful than the system we have now.

Not sure if you're being ironic, but only 11% of the world's billionaires are Jewish, and I really don't think that their cultural background matters at all. The real religion of the rich, no matter their ethnicity, is money. Money, this abstract entity that is the lifeblood of the capitalist economy, itself is the ruler of the system. The machine man created now rules over man. This is too abstract for most people to comprehend, which is why they're drawn to conspiracy theories, which anthropomorphize these mechanical forces. In a very dangerous way that enables lynch mob behavior on the group blamed for all of society's ills. If you're going to resort to conspiracy metaphors, maybe something like the Archons which are are demonic forces acting behind the scenes for thousands of years, could be a useful concept.

[QatzelOk]

Historically the specific thing called fascism has a lot more to it than that.

It is also not correct to say that it is purely top down like Orwell's 1984.

It was a cross-class mobilization of forces - bottom-up - which collaborated with a decrepit and weak state in order to revitalize it and achieve certain ideological goals which have nothing to do with state-preservation and in the end may be suicidal for the state.

And yet, it is the primary state actors (state religion, state corporations, state labor unions) that unite to create a fascist state. The lower classes simply do as they must when their options are limited by repression.

So really, FASCISM occurs when the various elites of a nation realize that their best-before date is long passed. They suddenly must UNITE in order to convince the entire society that the "overall" best interests of their society (or state) depends on everyone living a commonly-shared lie. This is only of "use" to the elites themselves, but through control of propaganda, they can convince their owned sheep that "they have no choice" and "your contrary opinions will be dissappeared anyways."

So you can see how in imperfect definition of "overall" and "use" make Utilitarianism meaningless in the grand scheme of human survival and life enjoyment.

[Noumenon]

And yet, it is the primary state actors (state religion, state corporations, state labor unions) that unite to create a fascist state. The lower classes simply do as they must when their options are limited by repression.

Pretty sure that is not true. Just look at the footage of the crowds cheering on Hitler. These aren't faces of people crushed under the boot of oppression. This is the majority identifying with the boot of oppression, who don't mind that it is being used to stomp some other group of people they don't care for. Hitler did not come out of the state. He came surging forward on a wave of underground enthusiasm that the state could not ignore, and ultimately made a deal with because they weren't "as bad" as the communists and socialists. The conservative state forces and Nazis never really liked each other too much.

So really, FASCISM occurs when the various elites of a nation realize that their best-before date is long passed. They suddenly must UNITE in order to convince the entire society that the "overall" best interests of their society (or state) depends on everyone living a commonly-shared lie. This is only of "use" to the elites themselves, but through control of propaganda, they can convince their owned sheep that "they have no choice" and "your contrary opinions will be dissappeared anyways."

Fascism is a totally incoherent chameleon of an ideology, that morphs itself into the existing social space and offers something to everyone (except the hated minority). Yes, it is of use to the elites, but also to the masses, who participate in the lie or fantasy because it is exciting and meaningful to them. You don't have to look too far to see this in action. Trump is not a fascist, but definitely some kind of proto or quasi-fascist. Look how enthusiastic his supporters are even as Trump passes policies that are objectively against their own interests. That doesn't matter to them because they are in the grips of ideology, a fantastical relationship to their real conditions of existence. The fantasy of the Great America, Trump as the hero saving it from dark shadowy forces, matters more to them than the reality. That is not very far at all from Nazi Germany. It was more normal and banal than the movies make it seem.

So you can see how in imperfect definition of "overall" and "use" make Utilitarianism meaningless in the grand scheme of human survival and life enjoyment.

Utilitarianism definitely has its paradoxes but overall it is closer to people's real objective interests, the rational fulfillment of which should be the goal of society. Life enjoyment often takes the form of fantasy and ideology, which can be very dangerous. Normally people are naturally decent enough to not slaughter others wholesale, it takes ideology for them to do that. Utilitarianism could be an ideology as well. There are no easy answers.

[Potemkin]

Utilitarianism could be an ideology as well.

It is an ideology, from the very moment it was dreamed up. It is the fantasy of rationalists.

There are no easy answers.

You got that right. Lol.

[Noumenon]

It is an ideology, from the very moment it was dreamed up. It is the fantasy of rationalists.

Yep - I definitely believe in being rational, but there are limits as to how that can be symbolically theorized or planned.

[Wellsy]

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/flourishing.pdf

When Economics builds its science on the assumption of an independent, individual economic agent who makes decisions to maximise their own utility they take as given a society in which the norms of Utilitarianism are universal. In the event that the subjects of a community do not act as individuals maximising their own utility, then the science fails. But perhaps more importantly, governments and firms which make policy on the basis of economic science, and therefore Utilitarian ethics, are acting so as to foster this ethos in the community, with all the consequences in terms of inequality and social disintegration.

[QatzelOk]

Pretty sure that is not true. Just look at the footage of the crowds cheering on Hitler

I am seeing you use a piece of movie production to "prove" some thing is true or not true. "It's not true that fascism is a product of a group of oligarchs because I saw a movie clip with smiling people."

I realize that movies are very useful for a small elite trying to force their own self-interests onto the lower classes, but how is your use of Hollywood as *proof of reality* useful to the human race (and other species) *overall*?

So even the smallest rodents and insects support fascism as well? Is this because they like being trampled on?

Utilitarianism could be an ideology as well

That is the only way I see it. As an ideology.

But it's an ideology that corresponds most closely to basic animal needs. The only thing missing is the NEED for the fulfillment of human desires. But this is also UTILITARIAN if fulfillment of NATURAL desires is required for a good life.

(Utilitarianism can't be defined without "good" being understood, especially common good)

[Rugoz]

It is an ideology, from the very moment it was dreamed up. It is the fantasy of rationalists.

And deontology isn't?

When Economics builds its science on the assumption of an independent, individual economic agent who makes decisions to maximise their own utility they take as given a society in which the norms of Utilitarianism are universal. In the event that the subjects of a community do not act as individuals maximising their own utility, then the science fails. But perhaps more importantly, governments and firms which make policy on the basis of economic science, and therefore Utilitarian ethics, are acting so as to foster this ethos in the community, with all the consequences in terms of inequality and social disintegration.

Utilitarianism dictates the action the maximizes aggregate utility. Nowhere does it presume individuals maximize their own utility let alone prescribes it.

[Wellsy]

Utilitarianism dictates the action the maximizes aggregate utility. Nowhere does it presume individuals maximize their own utility let alone prescribes it.

But how is the common good arrived at? How is the market argued to be for the greatest happiness? I take it that its seen as a rational and efficient means in which individuals realize a greater utility for a commodity than the price or its utility for the seller. So trade leads to an increase in utility for all by allowing trade. The individual on the market doesn’t query the common good of all of society when buying products, they look for what they want and how much it costs. The market is simply argued as the means in which the greatest sum of happiness is delivered even while everyone pursues their own individual interest and desires.
Do you disagree this is how the common good is often conceived?
Although there are criticisms of a market achieving such an end due to inequality

But then I guess you’re thinking of it purely for ethics independent the political economy such as a doctor prioritizing who to put on ventilators. But then the quote isn’t strictly about utilitarianism outside economic decisions and policy.
But then we can discuss the independence or lack there of, of utilitarianism and economics. Because Mill certainly adapted Benthams utilitarianism to the political economy and there are claims that the abstract reduction of happiness to a single point, the utility of things is comparable to the reduction of things to price. The point earlier on the thread about no mediating term on which things are compared, although of course people prioritize and value somethings more than others.But not in a way explained by utilitarianism necessarily until they are perhaps part of a market society.

[Rugoz]

But then I guess you’re thinking of it purely for ethics independent the political economy such as a doctor prioritizing who to put on ventilators. But then the quote isn’t strictly about utilitarianism outside economic decisions and policy.

Yes, Utilitarianism the ethical theory is the topic of this thread. See the OP.

[Rugoz]

...there are claims that the abstract reduction of happiness to a single point, the utility of things is comparable to the reduction of things to price. The point earlier on the thread about no mediating term on which things are compared, although of course people prioritize and value somethings more than others. But not in a way explained by utilitarianism necessarily until they are perhaps part of a market society.

Every ethical theory must somehow weigh consequences, even if it is not consequentalist.

[Wellsy]

Yes, Utilitarianism the ethical theory is the topic of this thread. See the OP.

Fine, if don't want to go down that path, I just think that the theory of utilitarianism most prominently expressed by Bentham is inconceivable outside of the developing economy of his time and to consider it independent of that is to leave the social basis of such a manner of thinking unremarked upon nor critically examined. Because such notions do not arrive simply from anywhere, but always come to people's mind as a reflection of the world even if they themselves have no sense of where because knowledge independent human relations is nonsensical as Kant's thing-in-itself.

In fact, in the concept ‘of a thing as it exists before and outside any possible experience’ there was included a bit of nonsense not noted by Kant: to say that the Ego was conscious of a thing outside consciousness was the same as to say that there was money in one’s pocket outside one’s pocket.

I think the point of saying how utilitarian ethics is derived from social relations organized by the mediation of exchange ie markets is a sound point to make, and also how many people do not act on the basis of such reasoning and can be presented as irrational by such a standard.

Every ethical theory must somehow weigh consequences, even if it is not consequentalist.

Indeed, and I am skeptical of the manner in which deontological and consequentialist theories argue such a basis of judgment is founded.
In it's emphasis on duty, the right course of action, it flattens the complexity of actual life. I like the criticism from the point of view of 'virtue' ethics, where real life and the resolution of moral quandaries cannot be answered with certainty through the application of some rule system of action even if they can at times be quite useful.

https://epochemagazine.org/a-problem-based-reading-of-nussbaums-virtue-ethics-4cacfa3e74d6

It is not enough for me, when this problem arises, to remind myself of the maxim ‘be generous’, which I then interpret to universally mean ‘give away the thing that I want’, because excellence of conduct vis-à-vis this problem in this situation may not call for ‘generosity’ to be interpreted in this way (for example, in the distribution of attention and time between multiple people). In fact, from this perspective, this style of rational deliberation is entirely back to front. ‘Generosity’ is not a form of conduct I consult to match with my action when I encounter a problem, the form of conduct to be called ‘generosity’ is engendered by my overcoming of this problem excellently (and only I and those involved here in this predicament ultimately know what this consists in exactly). I don’t need the name of the virtue, or what others or I believe it entails (though this may provide assistance), merely intuit, when greeted with a problem, that there is some maximally ideal solution (notice, not necessarily “perfect”), given the situation, and things and actors within it. And, such an intuition is cooked into the very idea of encountering a problem as problem in the first place.

This is why the principlist objection that virtue ethics does not give a clear indication of what to do in moral test cases misses the mark. Not only is it not offering simple principles of the kind “be virtuous, be generous”, but it rejects the feasibility of the moral test cases as ‘false problems’. These moral test cases, stripped of all particularity, and with their assumption there must be some, one, clear solution, seemingly conflates the kinds of problems worthy of moral consideration (the problems of life) with ‘problems’ in the sense of a ‘math problem’ set for homework. Furthermore, as Annas has pointed out (2013), ‘flattening out’ the problems of life to the simplicity of a math-like homework problem is in itself a kind of attitude or pattern of conduct that can be evaluated by a more holistic virtue ethical approach. Towards what problems and when and where is it an ‘excellent response’ to flatten out the issue itself in this way? And when is doing so a vice? What does a Utilitarian buy for their spouse on their birthday, for example?

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Virtue%20and%20Utopia.pdf

The point is that reflecting against abstract and implausible criteria while carrying out elaborate hypothetical calculations is just not how people actually make decisions. This is not surprising because it would be actually impossible to make decisions in that way and attempts to do so invariably lead to perverse outcomes. It is when two or more rules conflict and we are called upon to decide which rule to prioritize or have to find a creative via media that ethics comes into play at all, and neither consequentialism nor deontology can help us when facing these kind of quandaries. The richness of the vocabulary for virtues and vices – prudence, courage, self-respect, humility, intelligence, intuition, firmness, kindness, fairness, empathy, flexibility, consistency, …. versus carelessness, cowardice, hubris, insensitivity, … – evidences the complexity of the process of determining one’s course of action in difficult situations and the depth of personal character that is called upon to act wisely. For correct decisions we must rely upon the judgment of a person in command of the relevant virtues and is in possession of all the facts. This is why we have judges and juries and we do not simply appoint a clerk to look up the relevant legal provision and read off the verdict. It always requires judgment, and the virtues needed to make a good judgment and carry it through can only be acquired through a moral education in the relevant tradition. Aristotle called the wisdom entailed in knowing how to act in the face of complex and conflicting imperatives phronesis.

In exercising phronesis, a judge, for example, takes into account foreseeable consequences and the possible unforeseeable consequences of their decision, and attends to rules of conduct which ensure justice and fairness in acting. Judges are subject to a protracted education and training in the practice of the law in order to instill the appropriate virtues and develop the capacity for phronesis. There is no rulebook for this. But in every case, this judgment entails an indefinitely complex balancing which can never be definitively resolved by rules or a utilitarian calculus. It is the tradition of which the practice is a part and the self-concept of that practice itself which provides the resources for the exercise of phronesis, the various rules of conduct, concepts and narratives which the judge can call upon in determining what to do. And there is no substitute, no abstract set of procedural rules or decision guidelines which can substitute for the exercise of phronesis by virtuous actors, determining their action as participants along with others in the relevant practice.

It is virtue ethics therefore that offers a realistic study of the exercise of phronesis, but virtue ethics does not exclude the need for deontological and consequential considerations, but on the contrary attends realistically to their application.

A person could quite consistently apply the rules of a deontology or consequentialism and behave quite foolishly in their consistency, because good judgement isn't derived from a rational consistency.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay3.htm

in a dispute between a wise man and a fool, so long as the fool ‘correctly’ set out whatever ideas came into his head from God knew where, and however absurd and foolish they were. Its rules were such that it must logically justify any absurdity so long as the latter was not self-contradictory. A self-consistent stupidity must pass freely through the filter of general logic.

Kant especially stresses that ‘general logic contains, and can contain, no rules for judgment’, that is ‘the faculty of subsuming under the rules; that is, of distinguishing whether something does or does not stand under a given rule (casus datae legis)’. The firmest knowledge of the rules in general (including the rules of general logic) is therefore no guarantee of their faultless application. Since ‘deficiency in judgment is just what is ordinarily called stupidity’, and since ‘for such a failing there is no remedy’, general logic cannot serve either as an ‘organon’ (tool, instrument) of real knowledge or even as a ‘canon’ of it, i.e. as a criterion for testing ready-made knowledge.

So it seems to me at best, that utilitarianism is one-sided in its emphasis on the ends with a devaluing of the means whilst deontology devalues the ends and prioritizes the means when imagined universally.
As of yet, I don't have a proper grasp of the adequate balancing of means and ends within a particular situation.
But I think it is to be found in a partial form in what is already practiced in courts with the consideration of peoples actions which is inclusive of their intentions, their behavior and the means in which that action was realized with the responsibility for the foreseeable consequences. Although for an ethical theory rather than simply the judgment of an individual actions must be broader than the individual somewhat.

I think an ethical theory can be derived out of a theory of action that doesn't take the individual as the unit of consideration, but situates them within social practices so as to relate the purpose of their individual actions within the intentions of the whole practice. As projects are made up of many individual actions but considering only that unit, one would miss the meaning as to what those actions have and the implications of them within a particular project.
I quite like this summary of collaborative ethics in arguing the point that when individuals are considered in relation to one another without the mediation of some shared project, the question of ethics is nonsensical and too abstract for practical purposes.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Collaborative%20Ethics.pdf

I contend that Both Habermas and Rawls fail in their project because they do not take collaboration as the norm for interactions between individuals. Individuals being the author of unmediated actions they take against another individual is far from being the typical ethical relation in social life – in the jungle perhaps, but not in a modern social formation. Ethics needs to be based on a form of relationship which can function as a methodological ‘germ cell’ of a social formation, and one individual acting upon another fails as such a germ cell.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/subject-position.htm

Moral discourse which is based around events, dilemmas or relationships in which the participants in the discourse are not participants in a relevant common project, is meaningless. What should the French government do about the hijab? What position should a socialist take in Iraq today? How can there be sensible answers to these questions for someone who is not French or not in Iraq?

[QatzelOk]

Utilitarianism dictates the action the maximizes aggregate utility. Nowhere does it presume individuals maximize their own utility let alone prescribes it.

Bentham prescribes "happiness" as the ultimate consequence of a healthy level of "utility." Since happiness can only be felt at a personal level, the behavior of SELF will be one of the most important determinants of the level of SELF happiness, (as well as strongly affecting that of others.)

Likewise, it can be assumed (because of advances in psychology made sine the 19th Century) that happy individuals are more productive (useful to self and others) and more conducive to postive relationships (useful to self and others) that create more happiness for others. And these others also create happiness for Self.

How can you imagine that individuals can simply become stowaways in a happy utilitarian society without applying utilitarian principles to their own lives and measuring their own level of resultant happiness? How could non-utilitarian people have any purpose in a utilitarian society? Why would a utilitarian society tolerate "free-riders" who are... useless or worse?

How effective is it to simply piggyback on the utility and happiness of others without applying these principles to your SELF?

Also, why are you dividing SELF and Society? The entire purpose of morality and ethics is to unite SELF and SOCIETY in a harmonious way.

---

In the above quote, you are describing the philosophical thought of of someone else - Mill and Bentham.
Which is good because they did explore the topic - though they expounded on this subject while British society was engaged in mass genocides (very negative overall utility) and the enslavement of the working class (very negative overall utility). This should contaminate their work somewhat, rather than giving it prestige.

So instead of writing "nowhere does it presume," you could have written "nowhere does HE presume."

Which is why I think it might be more fruitful to explore "utilitarianism" in a more general sense, since the topic has been explored by far more than these two situated anglospheric writers.

[Rugoz]

Fine, if don't want to go down that path, I just think that the theory of utilitarianism most prominently expressed by Bentham is inconceivable outside of the developing economy of his time and to consider it independent of that is to leave the social basis of such a manner of thinking unremarked upon nor critically examined. Because such notions do not arrive simply from anywhere, but always come to people's mind as a reflection of the world even if they themselves have no sense of where because knowledge independent human relations is nonsensical as Kant's thing-in-itself.

The basic idea can already be found in Epicurus (and probably earlier):

...
For the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and, when once we have attained all this, the tempest of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is lacking, nor to look anything else by which the good of the soul and of the body will be fulfilled. When we are pained, then, and then only, do we feel the need of pleasure. For this reason we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a happy life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge of every good thing. And since pleasure is our first and native good, for that reason we do not choose every pleasure whatever, but often pass over many pleasures when a greater annoyance ensues from them. And often we consider pains superior to pleasures when submission to the pains for a long time brings us as a consequence a greater pleasure. While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is worthy of choice, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned. It is, however, by measuring one against another, and by looking at the conveniences and inconveniences, teat all these matters must be judged.
...

http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/menoec.html
(not the greatest translation)

I think the point of saying how utilitarian ethics is derived from social relations organized by the mediation of exchange ie markets is a sound point to make, and also how many people do not act on the basis of such reasoning and can be presented as irrational by such a standard.

Just another case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

A person could quite consistently apply the rules of a deontology or consequentialism and behave quite foolishly in their consistency, because good judgement isn't derived from a rational consistency.

Partially it is.

Virtue ethics doesn't seem very interesting to me. Of course one has to be compassionate to be capable of or even care about ethical judgements, but that's about it. The rest follows from reason and knowledge.

So it seems to me at best, that utilitarianism is one-sided in its emphasis on the ends with a devaluing of the means whilst deontology devalues the ends and prioritizes the means when imagined universally.

You won't hear a defense of deontology from me. For me the ends are everything.

[QatzelOk]

Just another case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Exactly.

So while Bentham and company are saying that "happiness" is the measure of auspicious utilitarianism, they are unable to measure this. So they use MONEY to stand in for "happiness" since MONEY is the hammer that the elite possesses.

This means that in this version of Utilitarianism, it is perfectly LOGICAL to exterminate people who don't have any money.

See, building a railroad will get the Federal Government (run by Scottish banksters) billions of dollars, while "allowing the Metis to live" will remove all those billions of "happiness units" from the utility equation they wish their audience to accept. A government that receives billions in "happiness units" from barons, is able to redistribute some of these "happiness units" to the general population. The Metis continuing existence would have *slowed down* the distribution of "happiness units* so they *had to be killed* for this kind of "utilitarianism."

You and I could be next.

A lot of the "abstractions" of post-Enlightenment philosophy are intentionally convoluted and vague in order to permit genocide and other atrocities that cause mass unhappiness (by a real definition of psychological happiness). So the word "happiness" turns out to be highly problematic as well.