CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1.) Utilitarianism would suggest that it would be right for someone to kill themselves if their death were to save millions and produce the most happiness (a million people saved).
2.) It is instinctual for someone value themselves as being worth more than others.
3.) Since utilitarianism disregards this notion, then, therefore, it is disregarding instincts.
4.) So to say one is wrong because they don't combat their survival instincts is nonsensical.
5.) Therefore utilitarianism is nonsensical given that it disregards the laws of nature--which incorporates survival instincts.
5.) Therefore utilitarianism is nonsensical given that it disregards the laws of nature--which incorporates survival instincts.
You have shown that utilitarianism is against individual survival. It is not "nonsensical" just because it demands self-sacrifice for the good of the many.
Its disregard for individual value does make it non sensical as a moral foundation. Utilitarianism can justify genocide of a minority so long as the majority finds benefit in it. This isn't to say it doesn't have occasional utility itself.
You have shown that utilitarianism is against individual survival.
I have shown that utilitarianism disregards an individuals instincts because it requests one go against them for the sake of strangers.
It is not "nonsensical" just because it demands self-sacrifice for the good of the many.
(For the happiness of the many)
If it suggest that one, in the first person, give up their life for the happiness of a bunch of strangers--which goes against ones instincts to survive--and says that if that person doesn't go against their survival instincts then they are morally wrong, then it is nonsensical... It disregards that people have natural instincts to stay alive- which is nonsense.
I am looking at the detailed picture while you are looking at a more broad scope thereof.
Disregarding survival instincts is not tantamount to necessarily supporting actions that contradict survival instincts.
Utilitarian advocating contradictory actions shows their disregard for essential psychological components that would preclude said actions (its like insisting someone make 10x10=50--the insister is disregarding simple rules of logic).
Its ideology is articulated as if survival instincts are nonexistent: "just starve to death in front of a bunch of food because 5 others are on their way to eat it, it's quite simple" (obviously ones instincts will kick in when they are about to starve to death and they will disregard the 5 others, at least to an extent).
How is disregarding the laws of nature nonsensical?
It doesn't make sense to disregard instincts as if they aren't a factor that precludes conflicting actions from being executed- and it is even further nonsensical for then suggesting that if one does act on their instincts then they are morally wrong..
Utilitarian advocating contradictory actions shows their disregard for essential psychological components that would preclude said actions (its like insisting someone make 10x10=50--the insister is disregarding simple rules of logic).
They're not advocating going against the laws of nature, like your 10x10 analogy would suggest, and that's assuming that the laws of nature have to be followed by modern humans in the same way that we have to use logic as the framework of our reasoning, which you haven't exactly explained why yet.....
Its ideology is articulated as if survival instincts are nonexistent: "just starve to death in front of a bunch of food because 5 others are on their way to eat it, it's quite simple" (obviously ones instincts will kick in when they are about to starve to death and they will disregard the 5 others, at least to an extent).
Utilitarianism is not there to tell you what is happening, just to provide a metric on what should probably done under those circumstances; a proposed solution only comes after the problem is understood.
It doesn't make sense to disregard instincts as if they aren't a factor that precludes conflicting actions from being executed-
Seriously, why though?
and it is even further nonsensical for then suggesting that if one does act on their instincts then they are morally wrong..
That's not what utilitarianism advocates. Some, such as myself, regard maximizing utility as the best benchmark to make sense of right or wrong, or at least as the best metric for executing compassion efficiently. It does not state that acting on instincts is immoral, it carries no action axioms apart from maximizing utility.
They're not advocating going against the laws of nature, like your 10x10 analogy would suggest, and that's assuming that the laws of nature have to be followed by modern humans in the same way that we have to use logic as the framework of our reasoning, which you haven't exactly explained why yet.....
You are breathing right? You don't have to do you? But your brain will make it extremely difficult to just hold your breath until your dead. Why? So you can survive. It makes process of intentional death unpleasant so you ought not to do induce it, therefore, to say one should do otherwise in the event it will bring happiness to the majority is ignoring ones predisposition to try and not to die, and if they were to, in fact, try and not die, then they will be morally wrong.
To clarify: This is based on an example in the event of someone needing to willfully kill themselves for the happiness of the majority.
Utilitarianism is not there to tell you what is happening, just to provide a metric on what should probably done under those circumstances; a proposed solution only comes after the problem is understood.
I used that as an example on the pretense the guy knew 5 starving children would be coming.
Seriously, why though?
because instincts are an internal drive and foundation that dictates most of our actions and thoughts so we can individually survive.
That's not what utilitarianism advocates. Some, such as myself, regard maximizing utility as the best benchmark to make sense of right or wrong, or at least as the best metric for executing compassion efficiently. It does not state that acting on instincts is immoral, it carries no action axioms apart from maximizing utility.
If 5 children are starving and are on their way to my position for food and I am a huge person who would need to eat the whole dish, and I do so, then you would say I was morally wrong for not starving to death and letting the 5 children survive. But it is mere instinct to feed oneself at the brink of starvation, so how am I morally wrong...?
You are breathing right? You don't have to do you? But your brain will make it extremely difficult to just hold your breath until your dead. Why? So you can survive. It makes process of intentional death unpleasant so you ought not to do induce it, therefore, to say one should do otherwise in the event it will bring happiness to the majority is ignoring ones predisposition to try and not to die, and if they were to, in fact, try and not die, then they will be morally wrong.
To clarify: This is based on an example in the event of someone needing to willfully kill themselves for the happiness of the majority.
It's not really about being moral, as I've explained earlier, Utilitarianism can function as a benchmark for the optimal ethical approach or as a guide for the best way to execute acts of compassion.
Either way, it does ignore the instinct as the final say because it's a statement of "should", that being said, you still need to acknowledge the force of the instinct to assess the limits of what can be done, or will be done.
I used that as an example on the pretense the guy knew 5 starving children would be coming.
And Utilitarianism states what should be done, not what will probably be done, which seems to be the only authority that instinct actually has.
because instincts are an internal drive and foundation that dictates most of our actions and thoughts so we can individually survive.
So we should necessarily follow them because of that? That sounds more like an opinion than an objective assessment of why.
If 5 children are starving and are on their way to my position for food and I am a huge person who would need to eat the whole dish, and I do so, then you would say I was morally wrong for not starving to death and letting the 5 children survive. But it is mere instinct to feed oneself at the brink of starvation, so how am I morally wrong...?
I don't personally gear it as a moral philosophy, my view is that it serves as a good benchmark for action because it maximizes utility, and in my personal experience net happiness and physical pleasure have really been the only things that I can firmly place value on, so I advocate utilitarianism as not only a benchmark for action, but as the closest thing to human understanding of right and wrong, because doesn't absolutely have implications beyond a human context and has the most universal facet of human experience defined. I don't place that sort of imperative on instincts because I see them as a part "how" and not "why" things should be done.
Either way, it does ignore the instinct as the final say because it's a statement of "should", that being said, you still need to acknowledge the force of the instinct to assess the limits of what can be done, or will be done
I may be able to stop breathing so the children--lets say 5--in the enclosed spaced can breath up enough oxygen (and also not have too much C02) to survive until help comes (assuming it will), but the difficulty thereof is emphatically relevant, so to say in the event that he doesn't try to intentionally self-induce an oxygen deprived death would make him morally wrong is nonsense.
And Utilitarianism states what should be done, not what will probably be done, which seems to be the only authority that instinct actually has.
Yeah, and instinct hasn't been integrated with the nonsensical ideology Utilitarianism to meet their near-impossible propositions commit an action that produces the most happiness, even if your natural instincts suggests otherwise ("Kill your child because whole village hates it and would be happier if it were dead"- and you cant deny that that isn't a utilitarian rule "produce the most happiness").
So we should necessarily follow them because of that? That sounds more like an opinion than an objective assessment of why.
It is a matter of opinion to follow your instincts...? I am sure nature has equipped us with individual instincts for a reason. I should or shouldn't breathe even though it is near impossible to do otherwise? Or I should breathe lest I be taking the breath of the majority?
I don't personally gear it as a moral philosophy, my view is that it serves as a good benchmark for action because it maximizes utility, and in my personal experience net happiness and physical pleasure have really been the only things that I can firmly place value on, so I advocate utilitarianism as not only a benchmark for action, but as the closest thing to human understanding of right and wrong, because doesn't absolutely have implications beyond a human context and has the most universal facet of human experience defined. I don't place that sort of imperative on instincts because I see them as a part "how" and not "why" things should be done.
Do you not see all the complications with this? What if raping was the utility and one wanted to set the person being raped free, which would only bring her slight happiness, and the 20 people raping her would be quite unhappy. So by utilitarian rule the best thing to do to optimize the majority happiness would be to preserve the lady..
I may be able to stop breathing so the children--lets say 5--in the enclosed spaced can breath up enough oxygen (and also not have too much C02) to survive until help comes (assuming it will), but the difficulty thereof is emphatically relevant, so to say in the event that he doesn't try to intentionally self-induce an oxygen deprived death would make him morally wrong is nonsense.
This is starting to go in circles. If it doesn't bode well with your views on morality, fine, I just happen to see utilitarianism as being the most solidly grounded of normative ethical views.
Yeah, and instinct hasn't been integrated with the nonsensical ideology Utilitarianism to meet their near-impossible propositions commit an action that produces the most happiness, even if your natural instincts suggests otherwise ("Kill your child because whole village hates it and would be happier if it were dead"- and you cant deny that that isn't a utilitarian rule "produce the most happiness").*
The problem is that the village could be happier because a greater problem would arise if the child were alive. That being said, killing a child because it is disliked could lead to an outweighed loss of utility by poorer economic standing, infighting, a more lax approach to homicide, etc.
It is a matter of opinion to follow your instincts...? I am sure nature has equipped us with individual instincts for a reason. I should or shouldn't breathe even though it is near impossible to do otherwise? Or I should breathe lest I be taking the breath of the majority?
It can be, I suppose. Whether or not you place a value on following instincts, or regarding them as having a canonical significance is a matter of opinion.
What constitutes making "sense" is what serves the state of internal and external stimuli, which when put on a sliding scale seems basically equal to net utility, so it seems that Utilitarianism has the upper hand in making "sense", since it leaves as little to the abstract as possible.
What do you mean by "reason"? Purposeful or coincidental equipping?
Do you not see all the complications with this? What if raping was the utility and one wanted to set the person being raped free, which would only bring her slight happiness, and the 20 people raping her would be quite unhappy. So by utilitarian rule the best thing to do to optimize the majority happiness would be to preserve the lady..
The victims of rape will most likely suffer emotionally every day for years, and orgasms don't last very long. There is the need for extensive legalities if even a fraction of the rapists are incarcerated, and the cost of care for the victim post rape, if one of the guys has an STD there is medical care to deal with for many. The utility leans squarely in favor of not-rape.
If you start by acknowledging that there are an infinite number of conceivable moral codes, understanding that there are no apparent reasons to favor one over the other, and possessing some sense of compassion, you're likely to end with utilitarianism being the primary guiding force of your decision making.
What about biological altruism? Animals, especially those organized into complex social structures, often engage in behaviors that benefit the group at the cost of the individual.
An example would be animals that give warning calls when a predator is nearby. Some monkeys, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, and passerine birds will give warning calls. While this behavior benefits the group (by giving them advanced notice of the predator), it comes at the expense of the safety of the individual animal giving the call (it draws attention to itself and perhaps delays its escape).
Another example would be bees. In some species using the stinger causes terminal injury, yet the bees will still string attackers.
