[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32696607]Except happiness isn't on/off. The person suffering is suffering much more than the enjoyment of the happy person.
To claim anything BUT happiness has worth is idiotic.[/QUOTE]
There is a pretty big jump from saying pleasure and pain aren't the only determining factors for morality (as utilitarianism claims) and that happiness is irrelevant to morality.
How about capital punishment then? The person doesn't feel pain in jail, they're not alive any more. Everyone else is a bit happier from capital punishment being a deterrent (ignore that it might not be, that's not the point) and the funds not spent keeping them locked up are used to make everyone else happier. It even saves lives with outreach programs helping people survive when they wouldn't have otherwise if we had spent the money imprisoning them. Is this moral? Judging if someone deserves to live or die simple based on how what could be achieved without them?
Someone can be consciously happy and smiling, yet at the same time, subconsciously be subjected to inner turmoil.
Someone can conciously have a blank expression on their face, yet at the same time, be present and thus have outstanding inner peace/ true happiness.
Humans have a way of reading this 'vibe' from people despite what their 'body language' and 'expression' tells us, it's not rocket science to tell that something like this must exist, you can see it from observing people, or carrying out your own little case experiments by simply making eye contact with people and predicting how they're really feeling inside despite their expressions.
Thus I don't believe happiness exists on a single measurable line from 1-10 or whatever. I think there are many elements that contributes towards a persons 'state' and the vibe they project.
A few ideas in lieu with this:-
Outer mental state (conscious)
Your active thoughts. Your observations of the world you see. Influences what you say and do.
Inner mental state (subconscious)
Dictated by your active thoughts, things you witness and the experiences you have, this has some influence on what you think, say and do.
Emotional state (subconscious)
Influenced by thoughts, very difficult to control, underpins all interactions you have.
People you interact with interact with you on all three levels simultaneously. Rapport is created when one or more of these match between two people.
My argument is that happiness isn't just a single factor, but several.
Experiencing this turmoil, will help an individual withstand menial things that may happen in their future life.
Therefore it is best to get all of these thoughts in teenagehood rather than going through a crisis at 30-50.
Learn how to control your mindset early in life in order to digress through the inevitable pains.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;32696910]There is a pretty big jump from saying pleasure and pain aren't the only determining factors for morality (as utilitarianism claims) and that happiness is irrelevant to morality.
How about capital punishment then? The person doesn't feel pain in jail, they're not alive any more. Everyone else is a bit happier from capital punishment being a deterrent (ignore that it might not be, that's not the point) and the funds not spent keeping them locked up are used to make everyone else happier. It even saves lives with outreach programs helping people survive when they wouldn't have otherwise if we had spent the money imprisoning them. Is this moral? Judging if someone deserves to live or die simple based on how what could be achieved without them?[/QUOTE]
Except that money is much better spent rehabilitating the prisoner instead of imprisoning him. Not to mention that just because you're happier from A doesn't mean you should. If you are given the option to mold society's values to A or B, you would pick B (in this case).
Scope, I'd have that the subconscious can't feel, or at least you can't perceive, but I don't think you'll want to discuss the possibility of we having two consciousnesses, so that's rather irrelevant.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32697489]Except that money is much better spent rehabilitating the prisoner instead of imprisoning him.[/QUOTE]
But imprisoning them [I]is[/I] rehabilitating them.
I'd like to know how you would go about digging into these closed off characters.
Let's take a character like CHARLES MANSON. If you don't know who he is, try reading up on his ideologies and beliefs.
What he has to say is philosophically sane, yet he is being portrayed as an evil maniac. No sense is made.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32697489]Except that money is much better spent rehabilitating the prisoner instead of imprisoning him. Not to mention that just because you're happier from A doesn't mean you should. If you are given the option to mold society's values to A or B, you would pick B (in this case).
Scope, I'd have that the subconscious can't feel, or at least you can't perceive, but I don't think you'll want to discuss the possibility of we having two consciousnesses, so that's rather irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Why not both rehabilitate and punish, then you have a deterrent and a reform system.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32697887]Why not both rehabilitate and punish, then you have a deterrent and a reform system.[/QUOTE]
So imprisonment isn't enough so we should start torturing them?
[QUOTE=AK'z;32697915]So imprisonment isn't enough so we should start torturing them?[/QUOTE]
When did I endorse torture?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32697957]When did I endorse torture?[/QUOTE]
It seems this discussion is saying that "prison" doesn't do much for prisoners in terms of developing a better mindset. They are forced to do a routine and must undertake manual labour tasks in order to get into a normal mode of mind.
Punishing them further than this will only prolong their original thoughts and not help them.
I believe that there are various components which builds up who we are. For example, knowledge/wisdom, attitude, open/closed minded, ambition, etc. There are so many more components, and everyone has a different combination on how they use them.
Abusing one or another can lead you in a wrong direction, while using them carefully can lead you to success and happiness.
I've been taking Philosophy and Law this year. They're both my favourite classes.
In Law we were talking about [URL="http://www.nmmc.co.uk/images/uploads/The%20Mignonette1.pdf"]this.[/URL]
It's an interesting read.
[QUOTE=AK'z;32697596]But imprisoning them [I]is[/I] rehabilitating them.
I'd like to know how you would go about digging into these closed off characters.
Let's take a character like CHARLES MANSON. If you don't know who he is, try reading up on his ideologies and beliefs.
What he has to say is philosophically sane, yet he is being portrayed as an evil maniac. No sense is made.[/QUOTE]
All I found was Helter Skelter which makes no sense.
None the less, imprisonment is punishment and only a component of punishment is rehabilitation (the only that has actual worth, the other is just revenge which is useless pain).
Psychologists are going to do a much better job at dealing with psychopaths and the like than a guard and mind-breaking conditions.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32699016]All I found was Helter Skelter which makes no sense.
[/QUOTE]
What?
I meant his ATWA ideology: [url]www.allthewayalive.com[/url]
Now at first things like this can frighten people because he's being made out as a murderer in the media.
[QUOTE=Crackatowa;32698683]I've been taking Philosophy and Law this year. They're both my favourite classes.
In Law we were talking about [URL="http://www.nmmc.co.uk/images/uploads/The%20Mignonette1.pdf"]this.[/URL]
It's an interesting read.[/QUOTE]
I wish my school had done law, instead I had to do politics.
[QUOTE=AK'z;32699254]What?
I meant his ATWA ideology: [url]www.allthewayalive.com[/url]
Now at first things like this can frighten people because he's being made out as a murderer in the media.[/QUOTE]
Huh, let me tell you what, I can concede that his ideas are debate-worthy, but I don't see how this has to do with anything.
[QUOTE=AK'z;32697596]But imprisoning them [I]is[/I] rehabilitating them.
I'd like to know how you would go about digging into these closed off characters.[/quote]
The western justice system has a lot of reasons for doing what it does to people. Rehabilitation isn't always the aim. I'd argue that you know very little about prison if you think the vast majority of prisoners come out rehabilitated.
[QUOTE=AK'z;32697596]Let's take a character like CHARLES MANSON. If you don't know who he is, try reading up on his ideologies and beliefs.
What he has to say is philosophically sane, yet he is being portrayed as an evil maniac. No sense is made.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? I don't think I've ever heard someone say that Charles Manson was a sane person. You honestly believe that Helter Skelter was a sane belief?
[editline]10th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;32699254]What?
I meant his ATWA ideology: [url]www.allthewayalive.com[/url]
Now at first things like this can frighten people because he's being made out as a murderer in the media.[/QUOTE]
You said 'his ideologies and beliefs'. Helter Skelter was a belief of his.
And he is a murderer. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, that makes me a murderer. If I manipulate someone into killing an innocent person, that makes me at least partially responsible for their death, which would not have occurred without me. He manipulated a lot of people into those murders; I hardly see how you can think he was innocent.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32700702]The western justice system has a lot of reasons for doing what it does to people. Rehabilitation isn't always the aim. I'd argue that you know very little about prison if you think the vast majority of prisoners come out rehabilitated.
Seriously? I don't think I've ever heard someone say that Charles Manson was a sane person. You honestly believe that Helter Skelter was a sane belief?
[editline]10th October 2011[/editline]
You said 'his ideologies and beliefs'. Helter Skelter was a belief of his.
And he is a murderer. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, that makes me a murderer. If I manipulate someone into killing an innocent person, that makes me at least partially responsible for their death, which would not have occurred without me. He manipulated a lot of people into those murders; I hardly see how you can think he was innocent.[/QUOTE]
I'm not debating his innocence.
I'm just saying that he's being portrayed as an insane maniac when he has created ideologies that would be put forth by a sane man.
I do know about his supposed "Helter Skelter" story, but I doubt any of it is from his own words.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32697887]Why not both rehabilitate and punish, then you have a deterrent and a reform system.[/QUOTE]
Except that deterrents don't work and never have?
[QUOTE=AK'z;32710384]I'm not debating his innocence.
I'm just saying that he's being portrayed as an insane maniac when he has created ideologies that would be put forth by a sane man.
I do know about his supposed "Helter Skelter" story, but I doubt any of it is from his own words.[/QUOTE]
Except that you said he was being 'made out to be a murderer' in the media. Because, uh, that's what he is. He's a murderer.
Plenty of people with mental illnesses have created amazing things. Plenty of mentally ill people have had lucid moments. Just because he created something you find to be sane doesn't mean that he's not actually mentally ill, or wasn't at one time (like, maybe, the times he manipulated people into veritable massacres?).
And what makes you believe that Helter Skelter isn't from him? Do you actually have any evidence to suggest this?
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
You know what? Whether he was/is mentally ill isn't even the point. He did some pretty fucked up things, but that doesn't take away from the merit of his ideas (unless, of course, his personal philosophies/ideologies were what motivated him to do what he did). Maybe you believe what he did was entirely separate from his ideologies, and that's fine. What I was commenting on was this:
[QUOTE=AK'z;32697596]
Let's take a character like CHARLES MANSON. If you don't know who he is, try reading up on his ideologies and beliefs.
What he has to say is philosophically sane, yet he is being portrayed as an evil maniac. No sense is made.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's true that some of what he espouses is 'philosophically sane'. But he's being portrayed as an 'evil maniac' because it isn't the norm in our society to form a cult and manipulate its members into killing around 11 - 15 people, partially because you thought a band was talking to you about a grand apocalyptic racial war through their CDs. That, to me, is not something I would expect a sane person to do. Whether he is actually suffering from a mental illness (although that would indicate to me that he is) isn't the point. The point is that it makes sense for him to be portrayed as such.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32730838]You know what? Whether he was/is mentally ill isn't even the point. He did some pretty fucked up things, but that doesn't take away from the merit of his ideas (unless, of course, his personal philosophies/ideologies were what motivated him to do what he did). Maybe you believe what he did was entirely separate from his ideologies, and that's fine. What I was commenting on was this:
Maybe it's true that some of what he espouses is 'philosophically sane'. But he's being portrayed as an 'evil maniac' because it isn't the norm in our society to form a cult and manipulate its members into killing around 11 - 15 people, partially because you thought a band was talking to you about a grand apocalyptic racial war through their CDs. That, to me, is not something I would expect a sane person to do. Whether he is actually suffering from a mental illness (although that would indicate to me that he is) isn't the point. The point is that it makes sense for him to be portrayed as such.[/QUOTE]
I guess what he's doing is trying to philosophically separate the man's ideas from his actions... a noble gesture but spending time trying to find every exception to the rule is a waste. Manson is an insane murderer. A few good ideas may come from his mouth, but most of it will be worthless. Why not focus on someone who just generally has good ideas?
The only time someone like Manson is needed is when a creative, out of the box solution needs to be supplied and no one else has it. People who are as different from normal humans as he is may have something to offer.
The merit of many ideas have nothing to do with the intention of the idea. It is like every episode of House, Wilson says something completely unrelated to the episode, but what Wilson says gives House insight on what is wrong with the patient. In the case of Karl Marx, he was a big fan of the philosopher Hegel, but Marx completely misunderstood a large part of Hegel's philosophy and used this misunderstanding to come up with the theory of labor value. The fact that Marx misunderstood Hegel's philosophy and came up with something unrelated does not imply anything about what Marx came up with besides that he incorrectly believed that it was based on Hegel's work.
What I'm getting at should be obvious and it's that ideas are not necessarily directly influenced by their intention, and that the worth of an idea is greater than its intention (apply this to the above paragraph). This is largely the case with people like Charlie Manson, the meaning that is received is not created by him, but by you. It is in a sense poetry.
To make it clear, lyrics and poems are generally a bit vague to lead open room for interpretation. The majority of the meaning is generated in the mind of the audience. The question is never "what does that song mean?" but it is always "what does that song mean to you?".
[quote=The Beatles]Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise
Black bird singing in the dead of night
Take these sunken eyes and learn to see
all your life
you were only waiting for this moment to be free
Blackbird fly, Blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night.
Blackbird fly, Blackbird fly
Into the light of the dark black night.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise,
You were only waiting for this moment to arise,
You were only waiting for this moment to arise[/quote]
To contrast this with Frederick Douglass.
[quote=Frederick Douglass]What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him!If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks' "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live.[/quote]
I think I've made that point well enough. Watching through a number of Manson interviews, the point he seems to make a number of times is that he doesn't he doesn't at all understand the attention surrounding him. Most of what he does is make fun of and take advantage of the fact that people find what he says important, and really, this becomes really obvious.
Utilitarianism isn't a very sound Idea in my opinion, as what brings happiness to others can be entirely subjective, and the process of doing so undermines individuality.
[QUOTE=Midas22;32682142]So far I've seen Mass Debate put to a really good use but what bothers me is that I've never seen any philosophical or ethical theory debates so I'm asking if anyone here ever studied philosophy and/or ethics during their education. Want to share your view on a certain theory? Pass down some knowledge to other FPers? Post it here.
I'll start off by outlining a simple(ish) theory known as Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism was first created by a man named Jeremy Bentham. He said Utilitarianism is doing what brings the most happiness to the majority of people, he developed a checklist sort've thing to find out how much happiness an action would bring, he called it the Hedonic Calculus which takes the following into account. Intensity of happiness, duration of happiness, certainty of happiness occuring, how soon will the happiness take place, how many people will be effected by the happiness and will the happiness be followed by other feelings of opposite kind. This theory of Utilitarianism is known as 'Act' Utilitarianism, there are two others known as 'preference' and 'rule' Utilitarianism.
Does FP think this theory works? Why? Any other theories FP's wise men can discuss and explain?[/QUOTE]
I haven't studied philosophy but I'll chip in my two cents.
My response to this
[quote]He said Utilitarianism is doing what brings the most happiness to the majority of people[/quote]
is who is going to bring that happiness to the majority? The minority in charge; the government and the wealthy. And they don't give a fuck about the rest of the people. They never have and they probably never will. If you don't think that's true, consider the upper class and leadership historically. If the people with power really give a shit, how long have they given a shit? When did rich assholes turn from greedy old pricks interested in their own power to benevolent caretakers of society? They didn't. They're interested in themselves and keeping us preoccupied enough to ignore them, which is basically what it sounds like this theory is about.
You have to draw a distinction between the form of government we have today and the form of government there was in the past as there are clear differences. I forget the exact classifications, but it really makes not sense to even compare medieval governments with current governments. A huge misinterpretation of modern governments is that the elected representatives in a democracy run it. This isn't at all true as it is the bureaucracy that runs the government. This shows itself quite well in any transition phase where a preexisting government tries to work out a new constitution which takes years. There are no elections, but at the same time there is no anarchy and there are still laws being made.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32778940]You have to draw a distinction between the form of government we have today and the form of government there was in the past as there are clear differences. I forget the exact classifications, but it really makes not sense to even compare medieval governments with current governments. A huge misinterpretation of modern governments is that the elected representatives in a democracy run it. This isn't at all true as it is the bureaucracy that runs the government. This shows itself quite well in any transition phase where a preexisting government tries to work out a new constitution which takes years. There are no elections, but at the same time there is no anarchy and there are still laws being made.[/QUOTE]
Is that a response to me? If so, then I ask again: when did this magical transformation take place? When did the people in control of the wealth and power (I wasn't referring to just the government) start caring about more than just maintaining their wealth and power? I never mentioned medieval governments; I'm sure you'll agree that the few have been prospering at the expense of the many until [I]much[/I] more recently than that.
I forget who that was in response to or if that was in response to anyone, I think I may have just making a few points.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32771692]Utilitarianism isn't a very sound Idea in my opinion, as what brings happiness to others can be entirely subjective, and the process of doing so undermines individuality.[/QUOTE]
Utilitarianism in gov't doesn't literally mean giving people the most happiness, it means giving stability, sufficient wealth, security, etc., which is a means to happiness.
The process of giving people a place to live where they can happily thrive in removes individuality? Shelter, food, and peaceful interaction with others are basic human needs, not components of an individual.
Utilitarianism is always a fun one.
Utilitarianism at first seems pretty sound, but it has one inherit flaw in it. That inherit flaw is that it relies entirely on projection, on predicting the future. If it didn't, after all, then it would fall flat on its face - how could you make a decision that WILL generate the most happiness without projecting into the future? The entire premise of the word "will" is that it projects into the future.
The problem is, how far into the future do you project?
Let's take a simple example. Let us say that you are walking through the park early one morning, and you are the only one about. Suddenly, you hear a cry for help. You run toward the source to find that there is a young boy drowning in the pond. What should you do? Obviously, saving the boy would generate far more happiness from him, his family, his friends, his school, and most probably you, than if you were to leave him to drown. So you promptly jump in and save the drowning boy.
Now, let's pull a Godwin. Let's say this was the early 1900s, and this young boy you saved from the pond was a strapping young German lad named Adolf Hitler. By you saving him, he will grow up to become the chancellor of Germany, the head of the Third Reich, and the perpetrator of one of the grossest violations of human rights in the history of the world, generating an amount of unhappiness never before seen by humankind.
With this knowledge, it is obvious that your choice should have been to let the boy drown. The unhappiness his drowning would have caused then wouldn't have been even a drop in the bucket compared to the unhappiness he would later create.
So the question becomes, how far into the future do you have to project? Utilitarianism's major flaw, then, is that it presupposes clairvoyance.
Not to mention it has a far more practical limitation: by the time you run through every possible scenario, weighing the happiness and unhappiness of every remotely involved party affected by this decision, the boy would have already drowned. :v:
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32771692]Utilitarianism isn't a very sound Idea in my opinion, as what brings happiness to others can be entirely subjective, and the process of doing so undermines individuality.[/QUOTE]
JS Mill - the most influential of all utilitarians - understood this very well. In his [I]On Liberty[/I] it's a fundamental principle of his utilitarianism, and justification for his harm principle. You can be utilitarian and still believe in a purely subjective notion of happiness.
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;32837715]Utilitarianism is always a fun one.
Utilitarianism at first seems pretty sound, but it has one inherit flaw in it. That inherit flaw is that it relies entirely on projection, on predicting the future. If it didn't, after all, then it would fall flat on its face - how could you make a decision that WILL generate the most happiness without projecting into the future? The entire premise of the word "will" is that it projects into the future.
The problem is, how far into the future do you project?
Let's take a simple example. Let us say that you are walking through the park early one morning, and you are the only one about. Suddenly, you hear a cry for help. You run toward the source to find that there is a young boy drowning in the pond. What should you do? Obviously, saving the boy would generate far more happiness from him, his family, his friends, his school, and most probably you, than if you were to leave him to drown. So you promptly jump in and save the drowning boy.
Now, let's pull a Godwin. Let's say this was the early 1900s, and this young boy you saved from the pond was a strapping young German lad named Adolf Hitler. By you saving him, he will grow up to become the chancellor of Germany, the head of the Third Reich, and the perpetrator of one of the grossest violations of human rights in the history of the world, generating an amount of unhappiness never before seen by humankind.
With this knowledge, it is obvious that your choice should have been to let the boy drown. The unhappiness his drowning would have caused then wouldn't have been even a drop in the bucket compared to the unhappiness he would later create.
So the question becomes, how far into the future do you have to project? Utilitarianism's major flaw, then, is that it presupposes clairvoyance.
Not to mention it has a far more practical limitation: by the time you run through every possible scenario, weighing the happiness and unhappiness of every remotely involved party affected by this decision, the boy would have already drowned. :v:[/QUOTE]
The problems of potential outcomes and felicific calculus are very negligible in my opinion.
When faced with uncertainty you should just act on probability based on risk assessment. You're misinterpreting utilitarianism. Suppose I'm the guy who rescued the young Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, my action has led to terrible moral catastrophe. Objectively, by saving the boy, I made a huge mistake. That doesn't mean that my motivation for rescuing the boy wasn't of pure benevolent intention or worthy any less of praise. Utilitarianism isn't a method of portioning praise or blame out to people: it's an admission that utility is the only true moral object.
Sure, to be a perfect moral being, according to utilitarianism, you do have to be infallible. But being a utilitarian doesn't necessitate anything of the sort.
Of course, there's a major difference between idealistic utilitarianism and practical utilitarianism. I was, of course, assessing the faults of idealistic utilitarianism.
In a practical context, the future-projection counter becomes nullified, because in practice, the projection is limited to a very short timespan - rarely more than a few days.
Likewise, the "decisions taking too long to make a difference" is largely eliminated when using utilitarianism in a practical manner - when making a utilitarian decision, people tend to only really judge the major and most-obvious outcomes, rather than pursue every possible scenario.
On a practical level, utilitarianism really is one of the best philosophies, in my opinion. Though Kant isn't that bad, either.
When you blow utilitarianism (and Kant's theory, for that matter) up to its idealistic extreme, the flaws become inherently obvious, and more than a bit concerning. It's all a matter of how harshly you want to analyze it. On a practical scale, it's a very solid theory. And idealistically... well, one could safely argue that things very rarely approach their idealistic form, so there is little value in analyzing it, beyond a thought exercise.
Just for the record, I am a practical utilitarianist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
