tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2337787333506984798..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Aristotle vs Rawls and the meaning of fairness, part IUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90417995327952292442013-01-18T01:44:11.956-05:002013-01-18T01:44:11.956-05:00What I was getting at -- and the tent pole analogy...What I was getting at -- and the tent pole analogy is a good way to express this -- is that "utility maximizing" is not necessarily an egalitarian pursuit.<br /><br />Supposing we had a tent that needed to cover a large area, and a 100-foot pole that we could cut up in any way needed to cover that area. Asma's interpretation of utilitarianism, applied to tents, would imply that the best way to do it would be to cut the pole into 50 2-foot lengths. That way, we could distribute the poles around the area in a very egalitarian fashion, so the sag between the poles is minimized, and this meets Asma's straw-man definition of utilitarianism that "I should reduce my own family’s life to a subsistence level, just above the poverty line, and distribute the surplus wealth to needy strangers." Now nobody has room to stand up, but everybody's need to be able to get around is met -- they just have to crawl. Leaving the pole at 100 feet is the other extreme, but now the tent is just hanging loosely at the top like a flag, and everybody gets wet when it rains. A true utilitarian would find it better to use, say, 10 10-foot poles to hold up the tent.<br /><br />By the same token, I don't think a society in which everybody is equally unable to afford the college education needed to become a doctor or an engineer or a physicist is better, even in a utilitarian sense, than one in which Massimo can save as much as it takes in order to send his daughter to the best school possible. But the extreme where 1% of the population is spending their money on yachts and private jets while the other 99% are spending their time doing the dirty work for the 1% is also not very attractive.<br /><br />In other words, I don't think utilitarianism (as an idea) needs "tempering". But, in practice, measuring "utility" requires establishing metrics, and I think it is crucial that the metrics be chosen wisely.<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6349220567406269792013-01-17T14:49:42.945-05:002013-01-17T14:49:42.945-05:00At the very least, I would think that Asma's a...At the very least, I would think that Asma's argument <i>tempers</i> utilitarianism.<br /><br />For example, he refers to research that suggests that a "crucial ingredient in human happiness...[is] strong social bonds" and that "the most important element in a good life (eudaimonia) is close family and friendship ties." <br /><br />While I would agree that that's by no means a smoking-gun refutation of utilitarianism, I would also be very surprised if a narrow-minded pursuit of strong social bonds turned out to be "utility-maximizing" in the strict egalitarian/other-neutral sense that utilitarians often seem to prescribe to us as the gold standard of moral behavior.<br /><br />By the same token, Asma (or virtue ethicists, in general) might have to temper his emphasis on favoritism and "positive nepotism" somewhat, so as to make it possible to distribute our chances for achieving happiness more equitably.<br /><br />I suspect that, in Part 2, Massimo will provide a resolution somewhere along those lines.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49518516075623213392013-01-17T13:51:39.406-05:002013-01-17T13:51:39.406-05:00Richard, that's why I refer to the all or noth... Richard, that's why I refer to the all or nothing fallacy and to A.Rand. <br /> Note how people who criticize utilitarianism/consequentialism themselves are using consequentialist arguments!<br /> Utilitarianism then perforce would deny anyone the right to overcome the rights of people for the sake of others. Why then that would be a straw man against it! Epicurianism and Utilitarianism and Sam Harriss' ethic all favor our flourishing as does Aristotle's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10203796316042841092013-01-17T13:39:47.247-05:002013-01-17T13:39:47.247-05:00I don't think Asma's argument -- and he ha...I don't think Asma's argument -- and he has some valid points -- undermines utilitarianism. A tent pole lifts some parts of the tent higher than others; does that mean the person sleeping under it is not getting the utility he needs from it? Similarly, your daughter's college fund might not be directly helping the poor, but that doesn't mean it isn't an investment that has an expectation of benefiting society in the long run. I think it's a very rigid interpretation of utilitarianism that says we must maximize utility by distributing the wealth as uniformly as possible. It may turn out that such an approach isn't maximal after all.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042619745483254124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90848791782177481002013-01-16T23:34:23.581-05:002013-01-16T23:34:23.581-05:00brainoil:
Is it a good if there's an extremel...brainoil:<br /><br /><i>Is it a good if there's an extremely powerful man who cares only for kith and kin?</i><br /><br />Of course not.<br /><br /><i>Asma is calling what we are already doing morality.</i><br /><br />Except that we're <b>not</b> all doing it, as demonstrated by domestic violence statistics, for example.<br /><br />This is more or less the difference between: (A) recognizing in the course of rational reflection that there is some set of moral standards; and (B) actually meeting those standards in practice. <br /><br />In my speaking of virtue ethics as "intuitive" (albeit, not exclusively so), I was referring to (A), not to (B). mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84877396433708198422013-01-16T20:08:25.930-05:002013-01-16T20:08:25.930-05:00mufi,
//It's possible for a moral agent to be...mufi,<br /><br />//It's possible for a moral agent to behave morally in the public domain and immorally in the private domain.//<br /><br />One example that comes to mind is Ghandhi. He didn't care much for his family. But he saved the world.<br /><br />//AI might be the only suitable purpose for utilitarianism. :-)//<br /><br />The reason utilitarianism is preferred for AIs is because it is dangerous to the world if there's an extremely powerful non-utilitarian agent. So you should at least begin to wonder whether it is a good idea to have extremely powerful non-utilitarian men. Is it a good if there's an extremely powerful man who cares only for kith and kin? I don't think so, unless I'm in his inner circle.<br /><br />//it resonates fairly strongly with some of my intuitions//<br /><br />No doubt. That's why I'm saying that Asma is calling what we are already doing morality. In our ancestral environment we lived in small groups. Even now, if you take the world population, most of us live in villages. So there's no wonder that we have virtue ethical intuitions. That doesn't mean it's best for the world.<br /><br />Seth_blog,<br />//I think discussion gets stuck when we classify one idea like 'utilitarianism' as the correct moral way.//<br /><br />True, but it's Asma who said that utilitarianism is not moral. This is a response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20013508154484002912013-01-16T15:22:13.869-05:002013-01-16T15:22:13.869-05:00I'm definitely going to look into Sidgwick'...I'm definitely going to look into Sidgwick's ideas Ian. Gotta keep up the defense for utilitarianismpetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12969621709127674152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60610178108118969512013-01-16T15:21:35.034-05:002013-01-16T15:21:35.034-05:00Thanks for letting me know Massimo. I'm defini...Thanks for letting me know Massimo. I'm definitely going to look into virtue ethics a bit more to get a better idea of it.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12969621709127674152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74556369228362048802013-01-16T12:03:38.141-05:002013-01-16T12:03:38.141-05:00brainiol
Because we are human I think we can be...brainiol<br /><br /><br /><br />Because we are human I think we can better gauge the ultimate utility of our favors the more closely within our circle we apply them. This does not mean we should limit the scope of our vision regarding an expanding circle. I think there are favors we can apply to our inner circle that help those inside see a larger circle.<br /><br />I think discussion gets stuck when we classify one idea like 'utilitarianism' as the correct moral way. By taking this stance we then look for the conflict to shoot down another idea. Instead I think the conflict presents on opportunity to explore how the two ideas may complement each other.<br />Seth_bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562316879162720028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9232122983801018962013-01-16T11:32:45.268-05:002013-01-16T11:32:45.268-05:00So can we at least agree that utilitarianism is be...<i>So can we at least agree that utilitarianism is better for an AI than kith and kin morality, at least when the AI is not built by us?</i><br /><br />AI might be the <i>only</i> suitable purpose for utilitarianism. :-)<br /><br />But, seriously, I don't really have a horse in this philosophers' race. All three of the major normative theories (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology) sound plausible to me in different degrees, depending upon the situation, and based on my lay person's knowledge of them. <br /><br />If I sound here like an advocate for virtue ethics, that's partly because of the framing, but also because it resonates fairly strongly with some of my intuitions - more so than I expect a strict utilitarian or deontologist would allow or admit.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66463016338373886162013-01-16T11:05:32.188-05:002013-01-16T11:05:32.188-05:00PS: Another way to put this is:
Premise: It'...PS: Another way to put this is: <br /><br />Premise: It's possible for a moral agent to behave morally in the public domain (or outside of one's affective community) and immorally in the private domain (or inside of one's affective community).<br /><br />This sounds plausible to me (e.g. imagine a moral agent who makes great personal sacrifices for some noble cause, like fighting Third-World poverty or defending innocent victims abroad against an aggressor, but who neglects or abuses his/her children). It needn't be a common problem (although I suspect that it's more common that you suggested) in order for the argument to hold that we have ethical obligations to kith and kin that ought not be neglected.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80544308424662242842013-01-16T11:02:02.003-05:002013-01-16T11:02:02.003-05:00//If so, then any theory that ignores, takes for g...//If so, then any theory that ignores, takes for granted, or makes light of our obligations to kith and kin is, in my opinion, a flawed one.//<br /><br />See, here's the problem. I cannot say this statement is flawed without grounding my argument on another system of morality. Similarly that statement of yours is already grounded in some system of morality. If we're from two planets, and have completely different mind designs, there is no way either of us can persuade the other.<br /><br />But we are human, so we perhaps want same things. So would you prefer it if the Iraqis made an artificial super-intelligence that favours Iraqis over all others, and would obliterate the rest of the world if that's what was necessary to save the Iraqis? So can we at least agree that utilitarianism is better for an AI than kith and kin morality, at least when the AI is not built by us?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1377151754849989532013-01-16T10:26:58.919-05:002013-01-16T10:26:58.919-05:00I think you allude to a larger question here, whic...I think you allude to a larger question here, which is: What, if any, effect does reading moral philosophy have on one's behavior? It's an empirical question, which is not necessarily limited to any particular philosopher, school, or normative theory (e.g. utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology).<br /><br />But, let's assume for the sake of argument that the effect is significant. If so, then any theory that ignores, takes for granted, or makes light of our obligations to kith and kin is, in my opinion, a flawed one.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35220988446979620382013-01-16T03:34:22.807-05:002013-01-16T03:34:22.807-05:00Most of those who neglect their obligations to the...Most of those who neglect their obligations to their kith and kin, do know that they have an obligations to their kith and kin, unlike psychopaths. They just don't care. I'm pretty sure that the reason they don't care is not because they have read too much Peter Singer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57243466120575022532013-01-16T03:25:27.438-05:002013-01-16T03:25:27.438-05:00You can of course find inconsistencies and ineffic...You can of course find inconsistencies and inefficiencies of a moral system, without the use of another moral system. Still you need another moral system to claim that a moral system is immoral.<br /><br />Asma is not utilitarianism humanly impossible, incomplete or inconsistent. He's saying that it’s not actually moral. To make that claim, one must subscribe to a system of morality that explicitly states that. If you're saying that the fact that utilitarianism okays promise breaking as soon as the utility interval for doing so becomes positive, and that it's immoral, you need to have adopted another moral system that condemns such actions.<br /><br />So given my goal of achieving a higher standard of living for the entire human species and its robotic descendants, why would I want to subscribe to Asma's kind of moral philosophy?<br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13186939731168757892013-01-15T22:10:44.024-05:002013-01-15T22:10:44.024-05:00There are lots of ways to botch one's obligati...There are lots of ways to botch one's obligations to kith and kin and many folks do just that (e.g. consider abuse, neglect, and crimes of passion). Whether they're clinically diagnosable as psychopaths or not (many are not), I would say that they're all in a (virtue-ethical) sense "immoral."mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47665032283085955952013-01-15T21:46:09.910-05:002013-01-15T21:46:09.910-05:00 Yes ,the Ayn Ryans and the Ayn Rand Pauls sure re... Yes ,the Ayn Ryans and the Ayn Rand Pauls sure revel in that swill! <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74740034761374070632013-01-15T20:14:27.382-05:002013-01-15T20:14:27.382-05:00No I'm not. What I said Asma is calling what w...No I'm not. What I said Asma is calling what we are already doing morality. It's prescriptive. There's no such thing as descriptive morality, as you know better than I know. What I'm saying is there's no reason to do that. You don't have to tell a human being that "you should value other human beings more than you value other species." Vast majority of them already do. You don't have to tell a person "you should eat food." He's already doing it. Asma's morality can be useful though to anyone who doesn't want moral progress, and petty politicians who play tribal politics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-910868137047774702013-01-15T19:31:26.408-05:002013-01-15T19:31:26.408-05:00Asme is an all or nothing person like A. Rand!
My... Asme is an all or nothing person like A. Rand!<br /> My " tribe " is everyone on the planet: I strongly favor Paul Kurtz's planetary ethic. Yes, I am a utilitarian, albeit an eclectic one.<br /> I spend mainly on myself as I have little money but I give what I can to charity. <br /> People can give their daughters shoes and yet give to charity say, a hundred dollars a year. One does what one can-not Asme's straw man!<br /> We erred with Iraq the second time. We could have waited and perhaps ,later do what we did for Libya. We must consider others. Collateral damage can be too high! That's why we question the drone attacks in Pakistan.<br /> I care more for Malala Yousafzaf than for Asme. She transcends her tribe.<br /> By te way, make that Social Spencerism than Social Darwinism, that blasphemy against him! Oh, and one can also call S.S. Spencer-Randism. She was worse than he with her egoism. <br /> Didn't Bishop Butler eviscerate egoism?<br /> My system calls for that eclecticism. Google and perhaps, vet covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism.<br /> Googling Lamberth's naturalist arguments gives my other naturalist arguments.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848209397234371879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90839270507918782362013-01-15T18:14:25.483-05:002013-01-15T18:14:25.483-05:00I think utilitarianism, as Asma points out, allows...I think utilitarianism, as Asma points out, allows for infinite rationalizing loopholes, if anything.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78278959030406292412013-01-15T18:12:35.121-05:002013-01-15T18:12:35.121-05:00I thought Asma's article was great. I also, co...I thought Asma's article was great. I also, contra Massimo, think Rawls is overrated; as part of that, I thought Walter Kaufmann blew him out of the water decades ago in "Without Guilt and Justice."<br /><br />Per Massimo's writing about Rawls, starting with the "veil of ignorance," I think Rawls is speaking in terms of hypotheticals far more than reality.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62187541341973388772013-01-15T10:11:48.532-05:002013-01-15T10:11:48.532-05:00>To respond to you, there is nothing in the uni...>To respond to you, there is nothing in the universe that would prove utilitarianism to be immoral unless you adopt a moral system that explicitly says that.<br /><br />There is some reason to think that utilitarianism is, at least, incomplete. I say this as an enthusiastic sympathizer of preference utilitarianism.<br /><br />For example, it's possible to argue that promise-keeping behaviour is ethically (and rationally) indispensable, while the classical utilitarian theories are willing to break a promise as soon as the utility interval for doing so becomes positive.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90934260728710787232013-01-15T09:49:34.782-05:002013-01-15T09:49:34.782-05:00Hear, hear!
You might want to check out Henry Sid...Hear, hear!<br /><br />You might want to check out Henry Sidgwick's writings; he was an even better developer of utilitarian ideas than Mill IMHO, despite Mill & Bentham's much greater fame.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39584234726483334442013-01-15T08:35:20.305-05:002013-01-15T08:35:20.305-05:00brainoil,
> A person who has never read a phil...brainoil,<br /><br />> A person who has never read a philosophy book would be doing just what you're doing - favouring his daughter over other people's daughters. <<br /><br />Again, missing the point. Asma is making a positive (prescriptive) argument, not just describing a matter of fact. That, apparently, is also what Piety completely missed in her response.<br /><br />pete,<br /><br />> I know you state in the article that you are not a utilitarian, but I was wondering if you think the idea has any worth or could point us in some way towards true understanding of morality? <<br /><br />I don’t think there is such thing as “true” morality, but there are better and worse ways to think of it. I rank utilitarianism better than deontological systems, but prefer virtue ethics. I explain why I think morality isn’t about truths, but should be thought as a way of reasoning about our problems, here: http://goo.gl/qXlmp. Also check this entries in the same series, on utilitarianism: http://goo.gl/ANAEW, and on virtue ethics: http://goo.gl/wv4Z3.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20153112871975748712013-01-15T06:29:26.236-05:002013-01-15T06:29:26.236-05:00I am somewhat surprise that Asma's position is...I am somewhat surprise that Asma's position is so controversial. I remember taking a class on self-interest and egalitarianism where there were many articles making a somewhat similar point to what Asma is making. For example, I know Nagel believes egalitarianism is something that societies should strive for in their policies yet is not something that should completely dictate an individual's actions. There was another article that showed someone being a good husband for purely egalitarian reasons, and the problems that arise from judging the individual's self-interests to those close to them by egalitarianism (especially with concepts of love).jermoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12260256232935630988noreply@blogger.com