Philosophy Now Forum

"But there is no level of aggregate material well-being that causes liberty to fall off the list of goods to be sought and enhanced."

When an increasingly larger group depends on an increasingly smaller group for food, shelter, etc., and you couple this with the notion of 'greatest good for greatest number', you end up with Workers, Consumers, and Directors.

Workers are selected carefully, have access to a greater share of resources, are overt cogs.

Directors direct (resources, populations, etc.) and have unlimited access to resources.

Consumers consume (a strictly controlled amount of resources) and are the stock from which future Workers and (some) Directors come.

Utilitarianism (communitarianism) is the foundation for 'ant hill'....subsistence for most, sumthin' more substantial for the useful, everything for the politburo.

henry quirk wrote: When an increasingly larger group depends on an increasingly smaller group for food, shelter, etc., and you couple this with the notion of 'greatest good for greatest number', you end up with Workers, Consumers, and Directors.

That's just basic economic progress. We have 95% of our population dependent on others for food because we are a rich society. We no longer need to have 90% of our people employed in agriculture. So we can afford doctors, social workers, media consultants and reality TV personalities. More importantly, not only can we purchase those services, but we can make a living if we decide to become providers of them.

There are strong UT grounds for continuing that progress. And for enabling people to choose careers that make them happy.

"That's just basic economic progress."

But not the only kind.

"enabling people to choose careers that make them happy."

They largely can't do that now and they certainly won't do it at all in a utilitarianism/communitarianism.

henry quirk wrote:"enabling people to choose careers that make them happy."

They largely can't do that now and they certainly won't do it at all in a utilitarianism/communitarianism.

You seem to be just assuming that utilitarianism entails some bleak dystopia, but you haven't explained any of the reasoning.
It doesn't help that you seem to assume everything else also ends in death camps to judge by your previous comments about single payer medical insurance.

Flash,

As I say up-thread...

In a world of finite, not easily won, resources (our world), that which does the most good for the most people could mean everyone gets a small roof, three meals, a set of clothes, a basic education, minimal medical treatment, and nuthin' more (anything more could, in fact, be mightly discouraged on the grounds that 'more' for one means 'less' for another, making one more or less 'happy' than another).

Consider: to ensure the basics for the common folk, some will need extra resources (teachers, doctors, etc.)...a method of selecting the best folks for these jobs will have to be found, a means of reliably testing for talent, inclination, and intelligence, and, of course, this neccessitates the need for administrators (let's just call them 'politburo).

I could go on, but I'm time-pressed and tired (and, right now [Wed, 18th], have the flu)...you get my point, I think.

The utillitarian utopia is just another communitarian hell, one in which I would feel obligated to put sugar in gas tanks, spikes in trees, and throw bombs.

The technocratic approach can certainly feed and house and educate and treat seven billion bodies, but it will also degrade seven billion souls, and encourage the already deviant to be even more so.

No, the best solution is to leave each to suss out his or her 'code', and to become proficient in self-defending against others with opposing 'codes'. Not a perfect systen, but one that's natural and most in keeping with the human individual.

#

And: where, in-forum, did I mention single-payer or 'death camps'?

I've been critical of the ACA, yes, but the ACA is not single-payer, and, I don't think I've talked about 'death camps' at all.