Negative Utilitarianism

[PatrickR]

Just to quickly introduce myself - this being my first post in this section of the forums (I joined mainly for GSTK) - I'm a Philosophy and Ethics A2 Student from the UK currently preparing for my exam and I have a question, one entirely unrelated to my exams, that I'd be interested to put to you. It is this - is Negative Utilitarism, a Utilitarian system created by the venerable Sir Karl Popper (who was also a creator of the Falisification theory) that focuses on the removal of suffering - a good system to run a country with? Personally, I believe that it is and I was wondering on what other people thought.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Popper... a trustworthy epistemologist, but not a cool ethicist.

Removal of suffering sounds like removal of conflict which leads to removal of freedom(which is inherently contradictory since Popper himself argued for a ''Free Society'').

He, Berlin, Russell and most of the British School of ''late utilitarians'' fail IMO miserably at an actual defense of Liberal Society by trying to turn it into a Politically Correct Society.

[PatrickR]

On the other hand, you'd think that removal of suffering is a good basis on which to found a welfare society - suffering is worse than not having pleasure, after all.

Edit: Furthermore, as can be observed in unfree socities, you often see a build-up of suffering in the time that repression goes on - you can't argue that the DPNK or Belarus are societies in which suffering doesn't exist.

[Claudius Gothicus]

On the other hand, you'd think that removal of suffering is a good basis on which to found a welfare society

You could also argue that constructing a non-harm society would be prohibiting all activities that create harm, effectively destroying social relationships.

- suffering is worse than not having pleasure, after all.

Removal of suffering implies not allowing people to conduct harmful, or suffer-producing activities. Like Love.

Edit: Furthermore, as can be observed in unfree socities, you often see a build-up of suffering in the time that repression goes on

I see totalitarianism as immoral because it denies people of their individual dignity. The harm that those Systems create appears because of the denial of the subject.

- you can't argue that the DPNK or Belarus are societies in which suffering doesn't exist.

Suffering exists, but it also exists in Welfare States, in Neo-Liberal Societies and in Populist Pseudo democracies. The aim of any State would be to respect the intangibility of the individual subject and the empowerment and improvement of the Whole(society).

That's why the concept of citizenry(rights and obligations/community and individuality) is such a, IMO, positive concept because it implies a dialectical overcoming of oppresive Universalization and Individual disintegration.

[PatrickR]

But, then again, free human contact also removes the element of suffering that lack of human contact creates. In my view, social relationships relieve this more damaging cause of suffering more than the ending of said relationships creates it. All actions tend to produce some kind of suffering, if you think about it. You just need to find which ones produce the least of it and I would say that removal of individual dignity creates suffering more than it removes it. Under a rationalised Negative Utilitarianism system, I can't see why a liberal Democracy is any less desirable than under the system which you seem to operate under.

[Claudius Gothicus]

But, then again, free human contact also removes the element of suffering that lack of human contact creates.

Hardly, since harm exist as a social concept. There can't be any ''harm'' if there's no freedom to exercise it towards others. What I'm aiming at is that ''removal of harm'' is not ethically liberal, it is just a bold statement that can lead you to either justify incarceration of serial killers or deny the possibility of sentimental relationships because of the possible psychological harm that those might generate, would you punish a lover because his/her partner suicided out of despair due to direct influence of said relationship?

In my view, social relationships relieve this more damaging cause of suffering more than the ending of said relationships creates it.

Relationships do not remove harm because relationships are an ''a priori''. You live in a world of socialization there's no previous situation to that(which is why contractualist thinking fails).

All actions tend to produce some kind of suffering

Debatable, me privately :wub: to some porn that was produced by sex workers doing so willingly under a fair pay is not harmful in anyway. That ''SOCIAL'' actions produce or might produce harm is a given, because those usually produce conflict and conflict is the birthgiver of history.

You just need to find which ones produce the least of it and I would say that removal of individual dignity creates suffering more than it removes it.

The least for some, is the more for others. That's the problem of utilitarianism, you either fall into the Individualist Methodology of Personal Utility or make an aggregate for ''collective good''(which can justify overruling individual liberties in the name of ''the greater good'').

Under a rationalised Negative Utilitarianism system, I can't see why a liberal Democracy is any less desirable than under the system which you seem to operate under.

I'm a strong defendant of Liberal Democracies and Social Democracies... but ''rationalizing'' ethics doesn't sound like very intelligent to me. Ethics treat the universal and transcendental areas of our existence you can't make predictive calculations around them.

[PatrickR]

And yet, Ethics is an area which should be applicable and to be applicable it has to take into account the norms of the society where it is being applied and in most societies, social contact is the norm. That I am considering socialistion as being a given is not a weakness because I'm simply thinking about practically applying this ethical system in my current enviroment, as I should be. So, if I'm working my ethical system around the framework of the society in which I am in, I cannot deny people social relationships, even if they cause suffering, because the suffering caused by the withdrawal of the right to carry out social relationships which we assume would be greater than the suffering caused by an individual relationship.

As for rationalising ethics not being intelligent, I would disagree. - ethics is an area of philosophical thought which should be applicable because it concerns the rights and wrongs of human actions. What use is an Ethical system if you cannot use it?

Sorry if my arguments appear unclear - it's late in the day and I may have had a drink or two - and thank you for engaging with me.

[Claudius Gothicus]

And yet, Ethics is an area which should be applicable and to be applicable it has to take into account the norms of the society where it is being applied and in most societies, social contact is the norm.

Social contact is not the norm, social contact is an a priori, a situation that comes before any kind of any other situation. Like Kantian Categories. Ethics are the product of systematic relationships and the conclusions that thinkers might draw around them, I'm not denying Utilitarianism it's merit they did try to make an argument for a completely secular system(not even Kant's Nuomena accomplished that).

That I am considering socialistion as being a given is not a weakness because I'm simply thinking about practically applying this ethical system in my current enviroment, as I should be.

The problem is that when talking about ethics you can't make a ''case by case'' system. You have to follow ''universals'', because if you do the first you fall into relativism and blending morals. Every Western Philosopher out there tried to find an Universal Ethical System(From Plato to Kant) so that ideas like ''justice'', ''good'' and ''dignity'' surpassed any kind of earthly power. Thank god all of them failed(if not Philosophy would be nothing more than a descriptive knowledge)

So, if I'm working my ethical system around the framework of the society in which I am in, I cannot deny people social relationships, even if they cause suffering, because the suffering caused by the withdrawal of the right to carry out social relationships which we assume would be greater than the suffering caused by an individual relationship.

If you are aiming to find a PERSONAL ethic system for you PERSONAL behavior then you should take into account that Utilitarianism can have a tendency to take a relativist approach to present harm for future pleasure. So be warned, there's no mathematical calculation for ethics, you either screwed up or you didn't.

As for rationalising ethics not being intelligent, I would disagree. - ethics is an area of philosophical thought which should be applicable because it concerns the rights and wrongs of human actions. What use is an Ethical system if you cannot use it?

Rationalization as in Scientific Calculation. You can't calculate on the absolute and Universal. That's why Kant argued for keeping the nuomenical world out of the Phenomenical one.

[PatrickR]

I realise that there is no mathematical calculation for behaviour. However, when you talk about the absolute and the universal, you assume there is one. Would the variance in cultural standards in ethics across the globe suggest that a relativist approach, even if it such a cultural relitivist one, makes more logical sense. Why base your arguments around a separation of two diffferent worlds, a la the Kantian system, is there might not actually be two separate world, as the sheer variance of behaviour across the world suggests.

Also, why can't ethics fall into relivitism? We base our ethics on what is tangible, what we can see, feel and taste, because we are trying to find a system that can help guide us and what we see as tangible is relivitism - this is what the differences in culture, in religion and in ethics appears to suggest. Universalism is not empirically evident, so why attempt to find a universal system?

[Denny Crane!]

I think you are conflating two issues here, morality and politics. The problem with that is that implementing a philosophical system of morality into politics doesn't take into account the effects of legislation what should obviously work as a system of morality doesn't translate well and does not take into account behavioural effects of government and the rules they create.

So whilst you can of course argue for a particular system of ethics saying that would make a good political system is a giant leap of faith.

[Justice and Mercy]

I think you are conflating two issues here, morality and politics.

That's not exactly a stretch.

To establish a certain kind of political system is a choice, and ethics is how one decides which choice to make.

If one holds that the purpose of life (which means, the ethical standard of value) is A, they will also design a political system based on that standard of value that is A.

Without an ethical base of some form, no political system could or would exist.

Now, in a society totally devoid of moral principles (as the West is) replaced by some kind of mongrel, pragmatist ethical system what you end up with is some kind of mongrel, pragmatist form of politics.



To address the OP: Absolutely not. "Negative utilitarianism" which holds that your ethical standard of value, which means the purpose of your life, is the lack of other people's suffering, is a very brazenly evil ethical philosophy. It means that your energy, your time, your labor, your life are to be spent in service to anyone who claims any kind of suffering. You're a slave and your master is suffering.

There is no basis in reality for accepting this ethical philosophy, and it's no surprise that a man as epistemologically dead as Popper would come up with it.

[Blau&Gruen]

... to be spent in service to anyone who claims any kind of suffering

Do you consider compassion as ethically problematic?
Isn't "anyone" in reality not always someone?
We need to consider the psychological effects and conditions of destructive compassion without doubt.
Still, I meant compassion as one among other elements of ethical outlooks was a value related decision, too.
How desperate would be our situation, when we could not weep or laugh with other beings?

[Justice and Mercy]

Do you consider compassion as ethically problematic?

No. Compassion is a psychological issue, not an ethical one.

Whether or not it is problematic depends on a number of issues: Compassionate towards whom, and for what?

Anyone is in reality always someone.

...yes?

Let's exclude the psychological side of destructive compassion, here.

Why are we talking about psychology at all? This is a question of ethics.

I'm simply being exact. To implement negative utilitarianism as a code of ethics would be to enslave yourself to suffering. Your life becomes a mortgage that any passerby has a right to harness as long as he does so in order to cease suffering.

Let me tell you, that's a big debt to pay. And why is this debt hoisted upon your shoulders? Because you live. Because you are capable of producing (which means, capable of sustaining life.)

Can this be anything other than slavery? No.

I meant compassion as one among other elements of ethical outlooks was a value related decision, too.

There must be some ultimate standard of value for any ethical system, or it falls into infinite regress.

How desparate would be our situation, when we could not weep or laugh with other beings?

And how desperate is it when their weeping is a mortgage on your energy?

Do not confuse individualism with anti-relationship or anti-society.

[Blau&Gruen]

I need to think about the line of your argument on the way to work - producing - now.

Good thoughts, not sure if I will agree fully, though.

Do not confuse individualism with anti-relationship or anti-society.

I agree.

[Denny Crane!]

That's not exactly a stretch.

To establish a certain kind of political system is a choice, and ethics is how one decides which choice to make.

It is though because imagine you think under your ethical system that drugs are bad, well we've seen that a war on drugs actually causes drug problems not solves them.

A purely ethical position does not describe what occurs in the real world and the effects of legislation.

[Justice and Mercy]

It is though because imagine you think under your ethical system that drugs are bad, well we've seen that a war on drugs actually causes drug problems not solves them.

A purely ethical position does not describe what occurs in the real world and the effects of legislation.

"What kind of government should I seek to establish, if any?" IS an ethical question. This doesn't translate into "anything that is bad by a certain ethical code should be illegal."

As an example, I think that it's evil for an individual to destroy their mind with drugs because they don't want to deal with reality. However, if I were to implement the illegalization of drugs as a legal policy, it would destroy the purpose of my government altogether, which is to allow men to live freely among one another, with value being one's claim to value, not the opposite.

Obviously, government should be established with a certain standard of value in mind. What should the government seek to achieve? Any particular ethical system will give you a particular answer. Negative utilitarianism, like most forms of altruism, generally leads to a welfare state of some sort, for instance.

Rational egoism leads you to capitalism.