Philosophy Now Forum

Lev Muishkin wrote:As ultimate knowledge of the consequences of your actions to bring about 'maximal happiness' can not be known, the philosophy which you seek to enact is an impossible aim; bankrupt.

Who said anything about ultimate knowledge? You are repeatedly making assumptions that have nothing to do with what I said. What's up with all the strawmen?

Lev Muishkin wrote:Your country is a net importer of most of what it uses.

Because we are filthy rich, someplace our money has to go xD By some accounts the richest country in the world, competing with Qatar for the title, and a couple of city-states.

Lev Muishkin wrote:It does this by association with its Western/Northern allies which specifically exclude the "South" and the trade deals it does with it's friends places tariffs and trade barriers on foreign countries outside the G20, and G8. ( I imagine you have heard of these). If you want the conspiracy then look no further.

Norway is not part of nor associated with the G20. Norway has no tariffs on the 50 poorest countries of the world. You are acting like a lunatic, things don't happen as "conspiratorial" as you seem to assume. The world is a complicated place, and we can continuously make improvements, but some things we have less power over than others, and therefore we choose middle-grounds.

Lev Muishkin wrote:I don't give a rat's arse about you being Norwegian. And I resent the cheap trick of protesting that I am some sort of racist.
I don't care if you are a Martian.

That's good to know. But you really shouldn't have shown such despise of my origins then, sends mixed messages.

Lev Muishkin wrote:But of you are living in luxury and trying to support utilitarianism that makes you a hypocrite.

Nope. I'm not that luxurious, I'm a poor student in Norway who barely affords his food at times. But that aside my wealth has no implication over whether it is hypocritical for me to adhere to a derivative form of utilitarianism. I have travelled about the world eating food out of garbage bins, you'd be careful before you suppose something untrue about me.

Lev Muishkin wrote:Of course there is happiness from hatred! You are surely naive. The policeman that killed the black boy enjoyed it

I highly doubt it, he probably thought "oh fuck". But it's not up to us to suppose anything, we don't know the person. That aside, enjoying killing people is lunacy, it's not happiness. Comparing it with ordinary people's happiness is hugely misleading.

Lev Muishkin wrote:probably thought he was doing a great job too; may well have been a utilitarian.

Most people don't really have a philosophical orientation. It's normal to be mixed. So I find your statement very radical.

Lev Muishkin wrote:And those with the righteous anger at that act, will feel good that having hung that "pig" from the next lamp-post knowing justice is done and can laugh and cheer, just like the crowds did when they killed Osama Bin Laden.

I'm not familiar with that case so I cannot comment. You'll have to point out a specific individual with a specific profile so I can analyse what in fact you are referring to.

Lev Muishkin wrote:Living in christian moral-bubble in Norway does not make you qualified to judge what happiness is to most people.

Norway is one of the most atheist countries of the world. Me among them. I am seeking no particular qualifications, I don't trust the people to judge themselves very well. I find out whether I'm wrong by confronting them.

Lev Muishkin wrote:And given your country's suicide rate I don't think that the current moral system is compatible with utilitarian ideals.

What? Norway doesn't have a bad suicide rate ^^ it's lower than the US, one place above the UK, and lower than a range of western and northern european countries, including France and Germany. Given that most of the other countries down the list doesn't have a functioning society to report most suicides, or are countries where people don't live long enough to get the full time to consider suicide, I feel we have a very good spot relatively speaking.

Lev Muishkin wrote:The fact is that it is simply not possible to reach a valuable judgement on happiness, and how to get it.

What? Nonsense. How else could I go on a gaming evening with my buddy and lots of sweet drinks and candy and have a hell of a good time? It seems a very dependable situation to be in for happiness if you ask me. Same with sex, and good odours, nice sounds and comfortable beds can give a lot of happiness I promise you, I feel it all the time. The sensation to lay down to rest in a newly made bed with a nicely showered body is extremely cosy, and absolutely causes moments of happiness. Same when I hear really good new music, though in all fairness that's not something I can reasonably predict since music is mostly unpredictable (though some artists produce rather dependably at least a few very nice songs for each album, and so gives some reason to expect and receive things worthy of moments of happiness).

If you can't know what makes you happy and how to get it, you indeed live in a sad world, and you should maybe seek out some help ^^ That's not healthy. I know, so at least seem to be getting some valuable judgements on happiness.

Lev Muishkin wrote:So it seems when it comes down to brass tacks you are not an utilitarian at all.

I don't know what brass tacks is, but it doesn't matter to me whether I'm utilitarian or not. My philosophy is not summarized by any such label, it is uniquely its own.

Sometimes it it the best course to do the right thing regardless of maximal happiness. You answered this with a straight no, but have not really defended that denial except with a paltry defence of Norway, and something about eating sweeties.

There are many people who think that happiness is not the b-all and end-all of moral truth, and your comment "those are the wrong people, those we try to get rid of so that people can be happy." would create chaos. It would empty the law courts and the police stations, social services...

One man's happiness is another woman's misery. Laws to protect the liberty of all those who wish to do no harm to others, is not the same as trying to make everyone happy. Both aims are incompatible.
But the ability to know how much Maximal happiness that an action cause is not easy. It's not the same as eating sweeties and cuddling your teddy bear. Which acts potentially have their own problems.
Morals can take account of human happiness but that state of mind is too fugitive and unpredictable in the long term. Morals are built on what is thought to be the truth a priori.
And laws have to be made and enforced fairly and evenly across the population regardless of individual instances of happiness.
This can include reference to the happiness of people, but cannot be subservient to it.

Lev Muishkin wrote:There are many people who think that happiness is not the b-all and end-all of moral truth, and your comment "those are the wrong people, those we try to get rid of so that people can be happy." would create chaos. It would empty the law courts and the police stations, social services...

Uhm no. Comments from little me are hugely unlikely to make chaos of any sort x) You should rewrite that sentence.

If you are insinuating that it would cause people to evaporate in thin air or somehow else just disappear all at once, then you're in a fantasy ^^ Like eating, eating too much at once kills and is certainly not comfortable, but eating sufficiently and nourshingly throughout life is well-rewarded for the most part with health and strength. Similarly, you change one person at a time, for as long as it takes, it's the sum of your life that matters.

Lev Muishkin wrote:One man's happiness is another woman's misery. Laws to protect the liberty of all those who wish to do no harm to others, is not the same as trying to make everyone happy. Both aims are incompatible.
But the ability to know how much Maximal happiness that an action cause is not easy. It's not the same as eating sweeties and cuddling your teddy bear. Which acts potentially have their own problems.
Morals can take account of human happiness but that state of mind is too fugitive and unpredictable in the long term. Morals are built on what is thought to be the truth a priori.
And laws have to be made and enforced fairly and evenly across the population regardless of individual instances of happiness.
This can include reference to the happiness of people, but cannot be subservient to it.

And what does this mean? You're just stating you like laws that are such and such, and also indicating that people will be less happy... that sounds very unattractive.

The Voice of Time wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:One man's happiness is another woman's misery. Laws to protect the liberty of all those who wish to do no harm to others, is not the same as trying to make everyone happy. Both aims are incompatible.
But the ability to know how much Maximal happiness that an action cause is not easy. It's not the same as eating sweeties and cuddling your teddy bear. Which acts potentially have their own problems.
Morals can take account of human happiness but that state of mind is too fugitive and unpredictable in the long term. Morals are built on what is thought to be the truth a priori.
And laws have to be made and enforced fairly and evenly across the population regardless of individual instances of happiness.
This can include reference to the happiness of people, but cannot be subservient to it.

And what does this mean? You're just stating you like laws that are such and such, and also indicating that people will be less happy... that sounds very unattractive.

No I'm not stating I like laws at all. I am stating they are necessary, and that there is very little room to consider using "happiness" as a rubric to enforce and devise laws.
Laws enable a secure environment in which people can do as they please without harming others. When when a law is broken you cannot forebear upon prosecution because it might make someone unhappy, no more that you can prosecute to make someone happy. Laws cannot regard happiness.
It might seem unattractive, but it is better than we have now, as many laws are enacted without regard to personal freedom. I suggest that regardless of the state trying to assess what will make people happy they need to allow people to be what pleases them.

Lev Muishkin wrote:
One man's happiness is another woman's misery. Laws to protect the liberty of all those who wish to do no harm to others, is not the same as trying to make everyone happy. Both aims are incompatible.
But the ability to know how much Maximal happiness that an action cause is not easy. It's not the same as eating sweeties and cuddling your teddy bear. Which acts potentially have their own problems.
Morals can take account of human happiness but that state of mind is too fugitive and unpredictable in the long term. Morals are built on what is thought to be the truth a priori.
And laws have to be made and enforced fairly and evenly across the population regardless of individual instances of happiness.
This can include reference to the happiness of people, but cannot be subservient to it.

It's actually the countries with a strong sense of fairness that have the most freedom, and greatest general well-being of the population. Bloated, greedy, so-called 'libertarians' don't seem to 'get' this simple fact, or more likely don't care.

Lev Muishkin wrote:No I'm not stating I like laws at all. I am stating they are necessary, and that there is very little room to consider using "happiness" as a rubric to enforce and devise laws.

Room for what?

I'm against laws as I've already expressed, so what are you actually arguing against? It must that you prefer laws, because arguing for a type of law would be derail from the discussion, as if you're starting your own monologue ^^

Lev Muishkin wrote:Laws enable a secure environment in which people can do as they please without harming others.

Why should they do as they please?

And why would this be against what I'm saying, security is one of the essences of what I'm talking about ^^

Lev Muishkin wrote:When when a law is broken you cannot forebear upon prosecution because it might make someone unhappy, no more that you can prosecute to make someone happy. Laws cannot regard happiness.

They can, not just the ones you might have in mind. But this is why I don't like laws, they don't serve any purpose except keep half-functioning societies together. They don't excellency. They are for the weak and the fragile, not for the strong and solid, the happy.

Lev Muishkin wrote:It might seem unattractive, but it is better than we have now, as many laws are enacted without regard to personal freedom.

As I find your direction inferior anyways, I can't really judge. The way I see it it is just changing one fuck-up with another fuck-up.

Lev Muishkin wrote:I suggest that regardless of the state trying to assess what will make people happy they need to allow people to be what pleases them.

Well that depends upon how it affects the people around them ^^ But indeed, if people are able to produce happiness for themselves and secure that happiness at low cost to the rest of the world and produce happiness for others, those people are very legitimately self-governed. I don't like states though, I find them to be inferior to co-operation. People must co-operate from a stance of common beliefs in the rules for reason, the state, regardless of its form, takes very little information, when it all comes down to it, into account, and creates unreliable dependencies instead of strength in its population. The state centralizes, while people must organize from wherever they are, at all places and for all kinds of reasons. Society works from organizations, and it must consist of organizations that co-operate through the mass of the organizing of their members and even members who partipicate in multiple organizations. There can never be a hierarchy of leadership, because that creates an illusion of representation. Everyone leads each other by the same idea of reason and from different capabilities.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's actually the countries with a strong sense of fairness that have the most freedom, and greatest general well-being of the population. Bloated, greedy, so-called 'libertarians' don't seem to 'get' this simple fact, or more likely don't care.

Imo pirate countries like Denmark have the best sense of fairness. Because they had to share the spoils and give each man a fair share according to injury too.

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's actually the countries with a strong sense of fairness that have the most freedom, and greatest general well-being of the population. Bloated, greedy, so-called 'libertarians' don't seem to 'get' this simple fact, or more likely don't care.

Imo pirate countries like Denmark have the best sense of fairness. Because they had to share the spoils and give each man a fair share according to injury too.

Interesting theory.

Can a place the size of Denmark really be compared with a place the size of the U.S.A. or Russia?


Is there fairness for the human species? Can there be?

prof wrote:Can a place the size of Denmark really be compared with a place the size of the U.S.A. or Russia?


Is there fairness for the human species? Can there be?

Possibly, as the USA is made up of a collection of little Denmarks under the aegis of the Federal authority.

As to the question of why I included gullibility in the list of ways to be immoral, see the discussion on this topic, and on the opposite of gullibility, namely skepticism, on pages 34-37 here:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf

Also, recall, in the thread here What is Morality?, at the outset it argues for the position that morality may be towards oneself as well as toward others. As explained in my Ethical Explorations paper, when one aims to be moral one is best-advised to develop a skeptical attitude, to value highly an evidence-based claim rather than one for which any evidence cannot be shown.

Your thoughts?

.