thomblake comments on Sayeth the Girl - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Alicorn 19 July 2009 10:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (486)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 22 July 2009 03:16:42AM 2 points [-]

The sources you cited don't seem to support your definition, but rather use the sort more well known to ethicists. The one on Wikipedia does a good enough job:

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people

That is, it doesn't suggest what people actually do strive for, nor does it suggest that people are after their own happiness. Rather, it's an ethical theory for which the following are true:

  • An action is right if it leads to a good outcome
  • An outcome is good if it maximizes overall net utility

Of course, there are variations on Utilitarianism and different ideas of what 'utility' means (Jeremy Bentham believed more pleasure / less pain summed it up). But they're all variants on this theory.

The theory that each person only ever pursues what leads to their own happiness is commonly called 'psychological hedonism', and is of questionable worth since it's usually presented in a nonfalsifiable fashion.

Comment author: G_Ruby 22 July 2009 03:37:33AM *  0 points [-]

Hello,

I did not mean to imply that people generally seek their own happiness over the greater good for all. Nor did I mean to imply that there was a dichotomy between the two at all.

I keep alluding to people pursuing what they "perceive" as "most likely" bringing happiness. I tend to see people's perceptions as to what can make them happy as being inspired by their social and cultural influences --- Family, friends, lovers, associates, religion, economic and political views, social upbringing, etc.

But I do see what you're saying --- and I apologize. I should have elaborated further that my personal views on the role of utilitarianism in society partially deviate from traditional views of the abstract definition of utilitarianism. My primary usage is derived from Nietzsche's criticisms of utilitarianism and championing of the concept of the "Will to Power" as well as my views on the individual being influenced by their participation in a socio-cultural system and the cycle of interaction therein.

I will just call my methods of interaction with others, "reciprocal mutualism" from now on.

EDIT: I was mistaken in my use of "utilitarianism". I really meant to convey the sociobological concept of "reciprocal altruism". I'd like to extend further apologies for this mistake.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/134/sayeth_the_girl/ynt