Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Ethics
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/12 , edited 12/29/12
What in my sentence comes off as Utilitarian?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/29/12

unknownkr wrote:

What in my sentence comes off as Utilitarian?


Everything, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/12
I don't understand how you get my principle of good to ''help'' and to be bad to cause ''harm or pain'' to this.



Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic utilitarianism, as advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is hedonistic.[1] It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned Utilitarianism" and consequentialism.[2] According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. Two influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says ‘it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ and describes this as a fundamental axiom.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/29/12

unknownkr wrote:

I don't understand how you get my principle of good to ''help'' and to be bad to cause ''harm or pain'' to this.



Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic utilitarianism, as advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is hedonistic.[1] It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned Utilitarianism" and consequentialism.[2] According to utilitarianism the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. Two influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says ‘it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ and describes this as a fundamental axiom.


It seems you are advocating a form of Utilitarianism, in that you advocate the good to be that which increases pleasure, and bad that which causes pain, which is pretty much Bentham's 'Pleasure Calculus'.
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/12
I'm not referring to the Bentham's 'Pleasure Calculus' ,but the concept of good and evil, the question u asked.
When a someone is a hero in society's view a hero is considered to be someone who is good
The things we hear hero's do it all connects to helping someone
When someone is the villain in society's view they are considered to be someone who is evil
The things we hear villain's do it connects with causing people harm and pain.
The actions of helping someone connects to good and the actions of causing harm and pain connects to evil.
What makes a person good or bad isn't what they action they do regardless if its good or bad but, the motive and reasoning behind it.
Even though i kill someone which is considered to be bad I can be considered to be good because i did it to save a life of another.

112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 12/30/12
I believe that good and evil are subjective.. I don't see them as objective principles.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/30/12

unknownkr wrote:

I'm not referring to the Bentham's 'Pleasure Calculus' ,but the concept of good and evil, the question u asked.
When a someone is a hero in society's view a hero is considered to be someone who is good
The things we hear hero's do it all connects to helping someone
When someone is the villain in society's view they are considered to be someone who is evil
The things we hear villain's do it connects with causing people harm and pain.
The actions of helping someone connects to good and the actions of causing harm and pain connects to evil.
What makes a person good or bad isn't what they action they do regardless if its good or bad but, the motive and reasoning behind it.
Even though i kill someone which is considered to be bad I can be considered to be good because i did it to save a life of another.



So, if someone thought that killing, say, all Blonde people is the most beneficial thing to do, then, obviously, that is good, where one wants to give to charity because he wants a tax-write off, he is clearly evil. One of the reasons why I do not accept Dentological Ethical Theories.
42 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/30/12
If someone wants to give charity for a tax off he isn't the same as a person who would gives to charity without tax-write off is he?
If killing all the blondes was the most beneficial thing to do you would have to justify it and the only way to justify the killing of a person is only self defense. To kill for pure benefit is pure evil since, you take something that doesn't belong to you regardless of how much it benefits you or others.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.