Utilitarian - Revision history

Fractalguy at 21:25, 10 August 2025

2025-08-10T21:25:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 10 August 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently, so it serves as a good reference point. Unlike Sam Harris, the application of this [[idea]] is [[culturally neutral]] instead of chauvinistic. How each [[culture]] [[Evolve\|evolves]] towards an [[evidence-based best practices]] approach will be unique, and using some overstated "[[objective]] [[morality]]" to pit them against each other is unproductive.		Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently, so it serves as a good reference point. Unlike Sam Harris, the application of this [[idea]] is [[culturally neutral]] instead of chauvinistic. How each [[culture]] [[Evolve\|evolves]] towards an [[evidence-based best practices]] approach will be unique, and using some overstated "[[objective]] [[morality]]" to pit them against each other is unproductive.

	The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].		The [[wiki]] also has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].

	The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].		The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].

Fractalguy at 21:24, 10 August 2025

2025-08-10T21:24:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 10 August 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].		Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].

	Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently, so it serves as a good reference point.		Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently, so it serves as a good reference point. Unlike Sam Harris, the application of this [[idea]] is [[culturally neutral]] instead of chauvinistic. How each [[culture]] [[Evolve\|evolves]] towards an [[evidence-based best practices]] approach will be unique, and using some overstated "[[objective]] [[morality]]" to pit them against each other is unproductive.

	The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].		The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].

Fractalguy at 21:17, 10 August 2025

2025-08-10T21:17:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 10 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Doug_Forcett.jpg\|thumb\|right\|What if Doug Forcett wrote a Wiki?]]		[[File:Doug_Forcett.jpg\|thumb\|right\|What if Doug Forcett wrote a Wiki?]]

	The [[ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism], which in its simplest definition seeks the ''greatest [[good]] for the greatest number of people'', based on the [[consequences]] of a given act. Maximizing that which is good is an obvious [[goal]] for any system of [[ethics]]; less obvious is how we define good, how we quantify it, and [[Theoretical people\|which people are included]] in the [[Generating equation\|equation]].<blockquote>''“Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally.”'' -[[wikipedia:John_Stuart_Mill\|John Stuart Mill]]</blockquote>Utilitarianism is used as a shorthand since it is the more commonly recognized term. Those who seek [[philosophical]] precision will recognize the [[ethical]] [[perspective]] described here as [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|Consequentialism]], or more specifically a version of [[wikipedia:State_consequentialism\|State Consequentialism]], where ethics are considered in terms of how they would impact the [[happiness]] of a whole [[society]] if they were enforced through the [[legal]] system or via [[social norms]]. This resolves the dichotomy between [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|consequentialism]] and [[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]], since both seek to find a rule-based system that can be "[[wikipedia:Universal_law\|universal law]]," rather than considering isolated [[ethical]] dilemmas. It is also practical, since our [[ethical]] values are most commonly implemented in the state [[legal]] system.		The underlying [[ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism], which in its simplest definition seeks the ''greatest [[good]] for the greatest number of people'', based on the [[consequences]] of a given act. Maximizing that which is good is an obvious [[goal]] for any system of [[ethics]]; less obvious is how we define good, how we quantify it, and [[Theoretical people\|which people are included]] in the [[Generating equation\|equation]].<blockquote>''“Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally.”'' -[[wikipedia:John_Stuart_Mill\|John Stuart Mill]]</blockquote>Utilitarianism is used as a shorthand since it is the more commonly recognized term. Those who seek [[philosophical]] precision will recognize the [[ethical]] [[perspective]] described here as [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|Consequentialism]], or more specifically a version of [[wikipedia:State_consequentialism\|State Consequentialism]], where [[ethics]] are considered in terms of how they would impact the [[happiness]] of a whole [[society]] if they were enforced through the [[legal]] system or via [[social norms]]. This resolves the dichotomy between [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|consequentialism]] and [[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]], since both seek to find a rule-based system that can be "[[wikipedia:Universal_law\|universal law]]," rather than considering isolated [[ethical]] dilemmas. It is also practical, since our [[ethical]] values are most commonly implemented in the state [[legal]] system.

	Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].		Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].

	Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently.		Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently, so it serves as a good reference point.

	The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].		The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].		The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].

	For modern examples of "bad utilitarianism" see [[wikipedia:Rationalist_community\|Rationalist Community]] and [https://www.lesswrong.com/w/timeless-decision-theory Timeless Decision Theory]. The framework presented here is meant to appeal to the same [[rational]] impulse for answering [[moral]] questions with [[evidence]], while avoiding the anti-[[humanist]] rabbit holes that making unknowable [[future]] speculations while ignoring human [[emotions]] ~~leads to~~.<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}		For modern examples of "bad utilitarianism" see [[wikipedia:Rationalist_community\|Rationalist Community]] and [https://www.lesswrong.com/w/timeless-decision-theory Timeless Decision Theory]. The framework presented here is meant to appeal to the same [[rational]] impulse for answering [[moral]] questions with [[evidence]], while avoiding the anti-[[humanist]] rabbit holes that you go down when making unknowable [[future]] speculations while ignoring human [[emotions]].<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}

	[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].		[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].

Fractalguy at 15:36, 1 August 2025

2025-08-01T15:36:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 1 August 2025
Line 75:		Line 75:

	This is why there can never be a justification for [[war]] or [[genocide]]. Every [[evil]] act has ''"greater good"'' at the heart of it that and ''"the ends justifies the means"'' as an excuse. The new saying should be ''"the means are the ends"'' to reflect the fact that we must live with the choices we make in pursuit of our goals.		This is why there can never be a justification for [[war]] or [[genocide]]. Every [[evil]] act has ''"greater good"'' at the heart of it that and ''"the ends justifies the means"'' as an excuse. The new saying should be ''"the means are the ends"'' to reflect the fact that we must live with the choices we make in pursuit of our goals.

			== Calculating Expected Value is a Waste of Time ==
			Utilitarianism is nice if you actually have [[time]] to sit down and explore the pros and cons of a [[moral]] decision, and actually enjoy doing this kind of analysis.

			If you don't have the [[time]] or the inclination to over-analyze your decisions, or it is obvious that whatever decision you make will not have a significant difference in utilitarian value, then you will obviously be less [[happy]] if you waste a lot of time deliberating trivialities.

			This is where [[wikipedia:Virtue_ethics\|Virtue Ethics]] becomes a handy shortcut. When in doubt, follow your virtues and don't violate anyone's rights. This allows you to make instant decisions that will produce the highest value outcomes in the vast majority of cases.

			Utilitarianism really just provides the [[mathematical]] underpinnings for our [[ethics]]. It is rarely a practical way to make real-world decisions.

			See [[wikipedia:Decision_theory\|Decision Theory]] for more [[philosophy]] about how we make decisions and different frameworks that have been proposed for optimal decision strategies.

	== Extra People is Not Extra Happy ==		== Extra People is Not Extra Happy ==

Fractalguy at 14:15, 1 August 2025

2025-08-01T14:15:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 1 August 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].		The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].

	The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}		The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].

			For modern examples of "bad utilitarianism" see [[wikipedia:Rationalist_community\|Rationalist Community]] and [https://www.lesswrong.com/w/timeless-decision-theory Timeless Decision Theory]. The framework presented here is meant to appeal to the same [[rational]] impulse for answering [[moral]] questions with [[evidence]], while avoiding the anti-[[humanist]] rabbit holes that making unknowable [[future]] speculations while ignoring human [[emotions]] leads to.<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}

	[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].		[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].

Fractalguy: /* A Model for Utilitarian Rights */

2025-07-04T10:22:44Z

A Model for Utilitarian Rights

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 4 July 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	The fact that it is hard to base a [[legal]] system on [[complex]] [[moral]] calculations that have only recently been quantified does not mean that those calculations aren't the most accurate way to make informed [[ethical]] decisions that consider the relevant [[evidence]].		The fact that it is hard to base a [[legal]] system on [[complex]] [[moral]] calculations that have only recently been quantified does not mean that those calculations aren't the most accurate way to make informed [[ethical]] decisions that consider the relevant [[evidence]].

	~~Just because~~ it is theoretically possible for the utilitarian [[math]] to offer a repugnant conclusion, the actual [[mathematics]] of human [[emotion]] avoids those outcomes in the real world. If your [[Impossible hypotheticals\|hypothetical]] assumes people are just going to be cool with hurting or violating the rights of others, then [[empathy]] has been ignored like friction in a [[Physics]] 101 problem.		Despite the fact that it is theoretically possible for the utilitarian [[math]] to offer a repugnant conclusion, the actual [[mathematics]] of human [[emotion]] avoids those outcomes in the real world. If your [[Impossible hypotheticals\|hypothetical]] assumes people are just going to be cool with hurting or violating the rights of others, then [[empathy]] has been ignored like friction in a [[Physics]] 101 problem.

	== Emergent Utilitarianism ==		== Emergent Utilitarianism ==

Fractalguy at 10:10, 4 July 2025

2025-07-04T10:10:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 4 July 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently.		Many of the [[arguments]] made here and on other pages reflect a similar [[point of view]] to the one expressed in [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris]. While most [[philosophers]] agree that this [[book]] leaves many relevant questions unresolved, it is a popular [[book]] that makes many of the points made here more eloquently.

	The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].~~<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}~~		The [[wiki]] has the advantage of providing unlimited space to address all of the popular counterarguments to utilitarianism. Additional critique and response based on the arguments and criticisms of [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7785194-the-moral-landscape The Moral Landscape] can be found under [[Objective Morality]].

	The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to ~~basic~~ utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]] and the [[universal in-group]].		The case is made that "bad utilitarianism" and the morally repugnant outcomes it produces either ignores the realities of human [[emotions]] and [[psychology]], prioritizes the needs of a limited [[in-group]], or prioritizes the [[happiness]] of [[future people]] over the living. The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to bad utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]], the [[science]] of [[psychology]], and the [[universal in-group]].<br>{{#ev:youtube\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI\|\|center\|Philosophy Crash Course - Utilitarianism\|frame}}

	[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].		[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].

Fractalguy at 18:27, 24 February 2025

2025-02-24T18:27:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 24 February 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:

	The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to basic utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]] and the [[universal in-group]].		The following sections address the many [[problems]] and counter-arguments to basic utilitarianism that are resolved by state [[consequentialism]] and the [[universal in-group]].

			[https://www.wi-phi.com/series/utilitarianism/ This educational series on utilitarianism on Wi-Phi] gives a good introduction to the subject from [[wikipedia:Julia_Markovits\|Julia Markovits]].

	== What is Good? ==		== What is Good? ==

Fractalguy: /* What If Hurting This Guy Makes 2 People Happy? */

2025-02-11T12:49:48Z

What If Hurting This Guy Makes 2 People Happy?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 11 February 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:
	== What If Hurting This Guy Makes 2 People Happy? ==		== What If Hurting This Guy Makes 2 People Happy? ==

	This is the most common hypothetical counterexample that entirely too many people see as disproving [[utilitarianism]]. However, [[like]] many moral hypotheticals, it posits a situation that is fundamentally impossible given the way our [[brains]] have [[evolved]] and how [[societies]] [[work]].		This is the most common hypothetical counterexample that entirely too many people see as disproving [[utilitarianism]]. However, [[like]] many moral hypotheticals, it posits a situation that is fundamentally impossible given the way our [[brains]] have [[evolved]] and how [[societies]] [[work]].<blockquote>''"Naïve calculations that justify some harmful action because it has good [[consequences]] are, in practice, almost never correct"'' -[[wikipedia:William_MacAskill\|William MacAskill]]</blockquote>Humans are [[empathetic]], [[social]] creatures. There is no way for us to harm another human without [[Emotions\|emotional]] repercussions on ourselves. Only a psychopath can blithely torture or kill another human and not feel their pain. And, being a psychopath, they're [[probably]] not [[feeling]] very [[happy]] either. So that's no way to go.

	Humans are [[empathetic]], [[social]] creatures. There is no way for us to harm another human without [[Emotions\|emotional]] repercussions on ourselves. Only a psychopath can blithely torture or kill another human and not feel their pain. And, being a psychopath, they're [[probably]] not [[feeling]] very [[happy]] either. So that's no way to go.

	Then you must also consider the ramifications of implementing this hypothetical within the [[legal]] framework of a [[society]]. Let's say you think that killing and taking the organs from one drifter in order to save 5 [[parents]] of young children and prevent them from being orphaned yields a net positive in [[happiness]]. The drifter has no [[family]] or [[friends]] and won't be missed by anyone, while the parents who were saved will go on to have fulfilling lives, and their [[kids]] won't end up in foster [[care]]. Within this superficial closed system, it appears that [[utilitarianism]] would support this choice.		Then you must also consider the ramifications of implementing this hypothetical within the [[legal]] framework of a [[society]]. Let's say you think that killing and taking the organs from one drifter in order to save 5 [[parents]] of young children and prevent them from being orphaned yields a net positive in [[happiness]]. The drifter has no [[family]] or [[friends]] and won't be missed by anyone, while the parents who were saved will go on to have fulfilling lives, and their [[kids]] won't end up in foster [[care]]. Within this superficial closed system, it appears that [[utilitarianism]] would support this choice.
Line 41:		Line 39:
	However, if it is right for one person to kill a drifter for their organs if it saves a few lives, then it has to be right for [[everyone]] to do it. And what does a [[society]] look like where it is legal to harvest the organs of the unhoused? Not like one that anyone would actually want to live in. Because it wouldn't actually make us [[happy]], it would be morbid, fearful, and lawless.		However, if it is right for one person to kill a drifter for their organs if it saves a few lives, then it has to be right for [[everyone]] to do it. And what does a [[society]] look like where it is legal to harvest the organs of the unhoused? Not like one that anyone would actually want to live in. Because it wouldn't actually make us [[happy]], it would be morbid, fearful, and lawless.

	Any [[society]] that benefits from harming others, through forced [[labor]], unfair [[taxation]], [[grift]], [~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Rent-seeking rent-seeking], etc. will never be as [[happy]] as one that treats all people fairly and minimizes the burden of obligations that contradict a person's [[Freedom\|desires]] and [[Free will\|self-determination]].		Any [[society]] that benefits from harming others, through forced [[labor]], unfair [[taxation]], [[grift]], [[wikipedia:Rent-seeking\|rent-seeking]], etc. will never be as [[happy]] as one that treats all people fairly and minimizes the burden of obligations that contradict a person's [[Freedom\|desires]] and [[Free will\|self-determination]].

	While the hypotheticals posit more people winning than losing, [[historically]] these unfair arrangements have always been pyramid shaped, with the beneficiaries at the top and the people being harmed at the bottom. And a billionaire on ecstasy at a yacht party is not sufficiently [[happy]] to [[mathematically]] make up for the desperation and toil of the thousands of workers who make that lifestyle possible.		While the hypotheticals posit more people winning than losing, [[historically]] these unfair arrangements have always been pyramid shaped, with the beneficiaries at the top and the people being harmed at the bottom. And a billionaire on ecstasy at a yacht party is not sufficiently [[happy]] to [[mathematically]] make up for the desperation and toil of the thousands of workers who make that lifestyle possible.

Fractalguy at 13:29, 6 February 2025

2025-02-06T13:29:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 6 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Doug_Forcett.jpg\|thumb\|right\|What if Doug Forcett wrote a Wiki?]]		[[File:Doug_Forcett.jpg\|thumb\|right\|What if Doug Forcett wrote a Wiki?]]

	The [[ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism], which in its simplest definition seeks the ''greatest [[good]] for the greatest number of people'', based on the [[consequences]] of a given act. Maximizing that which is good is an obvious [[goal]] for any system of [[ethics]]; less obvious is how we define good, how we quantify it, and [[Theoretical people\|which people are included]] in the [[Generating equation\|equation]].<blockquote>''“Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally.”'' -[[wikipedia:John_Stuart_Mill\|John Stuart Mill]]</blockquote>Utilitarianism is used as a shorthand since it is the more commonly recognized term. Those who seek [[philosophical]] precision will recognize the [[ethical]] [[perspective]] described here as [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|Consequentialism]], or more specifically a version of [[wikipedia:State_consequentialism\|State Consequentialism]], where ethics are considered in terms of how they would impact the [[happiness]] of a whole [[society]] if they were enforced through the [[legal]] system or via [[social norms]]. This resolves the dichotomy between [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|consequentialism]] and [[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]], since both seek to find a rule-based system that can be "[[wikipedia:Universal_law\|universal law]]," rather than considering isolated [[ethical]] dilemmas.		The [[ethics]] of [[metaculture]] is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarianism], which in its simplest definition seeks the ''greatest [[good]] for the greatest number of people'', based on the [[consequences]] of a given act. Maximizing that which is good is an obvious [[goal]] for any system of [[ethics]]; less obvious is how we define good, how we quantify it, and [[Theoretical people\|which people are included]] in the [[Generating equation\|equation]].<blockquote>''“Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally.”'' -[[wikipedia:John_Stuart_Mill\|John Stuart Mill]]</blockquote>Utilitarianism is used as a shorthand since it is the more commonly recognized term. Those who seek [[philosophical]] precision will recognize the [[ethical]] [[perspective]] described here as [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|Consequentialism]], or more specifically a version of [[wikipedia:State_consequentialism\|State Consequentialism]], where ethics are considered in terms of how they would impact the [[happiness]] of a whole [[society]] if they were enforced through the [[legal]] system or via [[social norms]]. This resolves the dichotomy between [[wikipedia:Consequentialism\|consequentialism]] and [[wikipedia:Deontology\|Deontology]], since both seek to find a rule-based system that can be "[[wikipedia:Universal_law\|universal law]]," rather than considering isolated [[ethical]] dilemmas. It is also practical, since our [[ethical]] values are most commonly implemented in the state [[legal]] system.

	Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].		Of course there are more detailed distinctions that could be made, but the point here is to demonstrate an [[ethical]] system that is robust and subject to empirical [[evidence]], so we can find more satisfying [[moral]] answers with [[science]] then we have been able to with [[philosophy]] or [[religion]].