Utilitarianism?

[Hawkland]

Hey everyone

 

I apologize if this has been debated before, but I did not see any threads on this.

 

And I am very new to writing about and discussing philosophical issues, so bear with me if I present some of the premises unclearly.

 

The question I want to ask is what seems to me as a utilitarian aspect of Stef’s philosophy:

 

An example that is often referred to as analogous to the immorality of the state is the immorality of slavery. Based on the fact that slavery is inherently immoral, it did not matter who would end up picking the cotton or any other consequences that would follow an abolishment. Likewise, the state is an inherently immoral institution, and whatever anarchical society structures that may follow an abolishment … well, fun to discuss, but fundamentally secondary to the core moral issue.

 

Now I am having difficulty understanding how empiricism can fit into this:

 

In the Introduction to Philosophy podcast series there is a segment on how one can empirically verify moral questions. For example, if you argue against property rights, then you have to explain why societies that have respected property rights generally have done better throughout history.

 

Sure, I accept that following the non-agression principle empirically has positive outcomes for all parties (win-win), but I fail to see how using empiricism does not fall into the category of utilitarianism. Not that there would be any problem with positive outcomes, of course. But then using empiricism, I guess, you are conceding that it does kind of matter what will be the likely consequences of an abolishment?

 

Anybody want to help me clarify this?

 

As far as I can understand, Stefan rejects utilitarianism, but I have not heard him put a label on the philosophy that he is putting forward, that is - neither deonthology nor virtue ethics. Is it a combination of the two latter?

 

Thank you

 

[Will Torbald]

Empiricism is used to test the validity and universality of a moral principle. It is not used to see if it provides the greater good or something utilitarian like that. For example, if a moral theory resulted in empirical contradictions, but hag some degree of 'utility' for society or whatever - it would still be a false morality and thus we would reject it in principle. So no, the framework that Stef proposes called Universally Preferable Behavior does not work according to a predicted set of consequences, but if the consequence is that it is impossible to universally follow a moral rule, it rejects it.

[Hawkland]

Thank you. I get it, even though it is easy to confuse consequentialism and empiricism.

 

Now is UPB to be defined as deontology?

[Will Torbald]

Thank you. I get it, even though it is easy to confuse consequentialism and empiricism.

 

Now is UPB to be defined as deontology?

 

From what I understand, it would be negative deontology. You have a duty to NOT initiate force.

[Frosty]

I don't think UBP necessarily promotes maximal utility, in a free society people are free to make bad choices and suffer the consequences, freedom comes with inherent risk as you become responsible for the consequences of your actions. So in that sense UPB it's not utilitarian. And certainly if you wanted to maximize your own utility at the expense of others UPB is a barrier to doing that, and that's the crux of why utilitarianism is an inconsistent moral position, because people have conflicting desires and so there is no maximal utility, often utility for one person is at the expense of another.

Incidentally the issue of freedom coming with inherent risk seems to be the issue that some (I'd argue a lot) of lefties/statists have with freedom, that some people simply aren't capable of handling it and so they need a nanny state. I got into a debate about plane regulations with someone and they insisted the only way we could regulate air travel safety is if we had a government. I suggested that private safety auditing is perfectly possible, he argued that airliners wouldn't use it and just be unsafe, to which I responded that if the public has a demand for safe air travel they'll pick an airliner which is audited and if there's a demand for it the free market would provide. His response was predictable, "but what about people who don't have time/effort/knowledge to check?", to which I replied that those people who incur higher risk flying unreliable airlines and that's the fundamental disagreement, that he thought that was a problem where as I was fine to let people make their own choices and incur the consequences of their actions.

 

It's no wonder that UPB is so unattractive to some people, with world views like that. Just given me an idea for a new thread actually, stand by.