morality_theory_and_general_utilitarianism stork daddy a criticism of utilitarianism is often posed in the form of the hypothetical in which one innocent man is made to suffer for the happiness of ten depraved men...there are a couple of reasons why utilitarianism as properly conceived can survive this attack. even accepting that in this specific case the happiness of the wicked contributes on the whole to the happiness of the rest of society more than the happiness of the innocent, a more appropriate form of utilitarianism is one that is aimed at what generally and not specifically produces happiness. it doesn't matter if one out of ten times a situation creates more happiness, what is important is that it generally does. this is what allows us to make general rules. so generally murder is bad, and generally stealing is bad. bad in the sense that they don't lead on the whole to happiness. my views on morality on the whole are certainly not those of a moral realist, so i have trouble saying why punishing an innocent person would always be wrong, other than it goes against my "sense" of right and wrong. i think this goes to a certain moral compass evolution has largely built into us. we score how good a person has been to us and to others and we dish out rewards and punishments accordingly. i don't think such a theory necessarily degrades into moral relativism either, since i think largely these emotions are universal and relatively stable. it's conceivable that some humans in the future could be of a mind that murder is great and makes them happy, but it is fairly unlikely. so while i suppose i lack an anchor less stable than a god or an abstract truth, this does not mean that there is no stability to a moral theory based on human happiness. now what happiness is composed of is trickier, and is what allows people to argue that clitorectomies and such are perfectly moral. i happen to disagree that they in general cause more happiness than grief, and so would by applying a general theory of utilitarianism find them immoral. 050913 ... unhinged when the analytical mind tries to quantify happiness they always come up short. that's because emotions do not adhere to logic. he fools himself into thinking that reducing all human relationhips to a costbenefit analysis deters him from being hurt. he talks himself into believing that it's okay to only come into contact with someone when that is of benefit to him because he knows that this is fundamentally wrong somehow. the sound of his own voice lulls him into a false sense of security. there is no benefit to unhappiness. he denys the existence of unhappiness by reducing it to a simple mathematic ratio. but he must talk himself into believing this because after years of practice this theory has still left him achingly unwhole. when viewed in this way, happiness becomes intangible as the lowest and highest of feeling is avoided to make way for the grey neutrality of a world filled only with benefit. living inside two diverging constructs, he became confused as to the conflicted result living in the beneficial world he had created caused him. (when thinking hurts the brain) 050913 ... Sin21 The_rule_of_Law... 050914 ... unhinged because my morals are high and my general usefulness is low all alone again *sigh* 100422 ... () () 100423 ... - - 110222 what's it to you? who go blather from