Utilitarianism vs Objectavism

[Sabre]

Long story short, I am a Utilitarianist. That means I believe in the greater good of many over the few, the ends justifies the means ect ect.

However, I often come across people talking about Objectavism. I did some research and I can't work out the difference. Reality is real and you make ethical choices based on logic. Sounds exactly like Utilitarianism to me.

If anyone could clear this up for me I'd appreciate it.

[Kursed]

I donno but you better look out for the other races that seek to destroy your greater good Tau commander.

[ThePointingMan]

So are you an act utilitarianist, or a rule one?

[Sabre]

Act.

Also I am a Tau player for that reason. Also I like science over magic, which the tau also do.

[Kursed]

Act.

Also I am a Tau player for that reason. Also I like science over magic, which the tau also do.

looks lik i hit it dead center . I honestly don't know i'll have to look up the two words later.

[Rapidfire]

If you're speaking of ethical objectivism, then one might make the argument that utilitarianism overlaps with it at some junctures. Both esteem reason as the primary means of deciding what is proper, for instance. The two part ways depending on the type of ethical objectivism--say, Plato versus Rand. Plato's version attributes intrinsic value to everything with a kind of mathematical precision, irrespective of what it is and irrespective of any extenuating circumstances (thus the Forms). Aristotle's thin account in the Nicomachean Ethics almost passes itself off as ethical objectivism, though the argument could be made that it is subjective due to the accusation of cultural relativity.

Rand's account of ethical objectivism is narrow in its own way, and owes a great deal to Plato and Aristotle. All men have the choice to reason, and reason is the only way a man can know how to survive, since it is unique to man. Rand suggests that an application of reason to a situation will ensure that a person does what is in his/her best interests and not necessarily in the best interests of others. This guarantees that people neither slavishly neglect themselves for other nor live indulgently.

[Sabre]

Rand's account of ethical objectivism is narrow in its own way, and owes a great deal to Plato and Aristotle. All men have the choice to reason, and reason is the only way a man can know how to survive, since it is unique to man. Rand suggests that an application of reason to a situation will ensure that a person does what is in his/her best interests and not necessarily in the best interests of others. This guarantees that people neither slavishly neglect themselves for other nor live indulgently.

So, instead of the greater good of everyone, you do what's the greatest good for yourself? Surely that's exactly the same thing because it's in your interest to keep everyone else happy, healthy and knowlagable?

[ThePointingMan]

And that's how the utilitarianists think, however the objectivists, don't think that way. To an utilitarianist, then

Surely that's exactly the same thing because it's in your interest to keep everyone else happy, healthy and knowlagable?

would be a true statement.

[Rapidfire]

So, instead of the greater good of everyone, you do what's the greatest good for yourself? Surely that's exactly the same thing because it's in your interest to keep everyone else happy, healthy and knowlagable?

To be clearer, objectivism elevates egoism. If I have a pie and a bunch of hungry children, I can go the objectivist route and say the devil with the kids; I'm hungry so I'm going to eat this pie myself. If I'm a utilitarian, we're all going to share it.

[Sableye]

Isn't Utilitarianism similar to Commuism? Same to Objectavism.

[Sabre]

No. Comunism is a form of goverment, Utilitarianism is a form of ethics.

[DZComposer]

I always thought that Moral Objectivism was the belief that there is ethical truth that exists as a static part of the world we live in, while utilitarianism determines the morality of an action based on its contribution to your own utility (which sounds an awful lot like a branch of moral subjectivism).

Communism, in it's pure form, is based on a set of moral beliefs that the good of all is above the good of one and that each should contribute to society in what ways they can so that no one is oppressed by anyone else. Of course, in practice, Communism fails to materialize and you get the bastardization of it that I like to call Stalinism that stems from lust for power.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Long story short, I am a Utilitarianist. That means I believe in the greater good of many over the few, the ends justifies the means ect ect.

However, I often come across people talking about Objectavism. I did some research and I can't work out the difference. Reality is real and you make ethical choices based on logic. Sounds exactly like Utilitarianism to me.

If anyone could clear this up for me I'd appreciate it.

If you're speaking of ethical objectivism, then one might make the argument that utilitarianism overlaps with it at some junctures. Both esteem reason as the primary means of deciding what is proper, for instance. The two part ways depending on the type of ethical objectivism--say, Plato versus Rand. Plato's version attributes intrinsic value to everything with a kind of mathematical precision, irrespective of what it is and irrespective of any extenuating circumstances (thus the Forms). Aristotle's thin account in the Nicomachean Ethics almost passes itself off as ethical objectivism, though the argument could be made that it is subjective due to the accusation of cultural relativity.

Rand's account of ethical objectivism is narrow in its own way, and owes a great deal to Plato and Aristotle. All men have the choice to reason, and reason is the only way a man can know how to survive, since it is unique to man. Rand suggests that an application of reason to a situation will ensure that a person does what is in his/her best interests and not necessarily in the best interests of others. This guarantees that people neither slavishly neglect themselves for other nor live indulgently.

I always thought that Moral Objectivism was the belief that there is ethical truth that exists as a static part of the world we live in, while utilitarianism determines the morality of an action based on its contribution to your own utility (which sounds an awful lot like a branch of moral subjectivism).

Communism, in it's pure form, is based on a set of moral beliefs that the good of all is above the good of one and that each should contribute to society in what ways they can so that no one is oppressed by anyone else. Of course, in practice, Communism fails to materialize and you get the bastardization of it that I like to call Stalinism that stems from lust for power.

Duuuuuh, me not understand all this *picks nose*    :banghead:

[Sabre]

I'll admit, you lost me on this bit.

I always thought that Moral Objectivism was the belief that there is ethical truth that exists as a static part of the world we live in

Duuuuuh, me not understand all this *picks nose* 

It's ethics basicly, but dressed up in long words.

[DZComposer]

I was taught that Moral Objectivists believe in objective moral truth. By that, I mean that there IS a REAL right or wrong that is independent of interpretation.

For instance, the example used in my philosophy class was genocide. I think everyone here would agree that genocide is wrong. But why is it wrong. Is it wrong because it is wrong within the fabric of the universe? Is it wrong because our society views killing people en masse because they're different as stupid and barbaric?

Basically, a Moral Objectivist views a moral dilemma like a math problem. 2+2=4 (in base 10...). It always does. This is an empirical truth. I can demonstrate it. If I have 2 Wiimotes, and I get 2 more Wiimotes, I most definably have 4 Wiimotes. You can say 2+2=25 if you want, but it is wrong no matter what you say, as I would have 4 Wiimotes if I added 2 to 2.  The objectivist would say that genocide is wrong is as true as 2+2=4, and is just as emperical.

Basically, Objectivists believe that there are moral facts.

My beef with this view is that it is not demonstrable. You can demonstrate 2+2=4, but you cannot empirically demonstrate that genocide is wrong.

Now, let's imagine a country. Let's call it 2Fort. There are two ethnic groups that live in the land of 2Fort: the REDs and the BLUs. The Holy Book of BLU states that the all evildoers in the word are marked with a red color, and that it is the duty of a true BLU believer to rid the world of evil, which is marked with the color red. So, BLUs start killing REDs en masse because they are red in color. In their eyes, the BLUs are doing the right thing: They're ridding the world of evil. But, in the eyes of the REDs and of the rest of the world, it is oppression and genocide.

Who's right? I personally think it's genocide, as most of you do. But is it empirical?

Or...

Is it a FACT, as the objectivists say, or is it an OPINION?

I subscribe to Moral Relativism. This theory states that morality is determined by society. Basically, neither side is "right." It is just what each side believes. IE, morality is a set of opinions.

You can go further with this, and that is into the world of Moral Subjectivism, which states that morality comes from the individual. I personally feel that that is a little too granular.

EDIT: I found a quote about Utilitarianism that makes me wrong: "the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility." This actually makes it a form of Relativism rather than Subjectivism.

If this stuff facinates you, I recommend a book called Whatever happened to Good and Evil? by Russ Shafer-Landau. The author is objectivist, but he lays out the whole thing pretty nicely. He doesn't discuss utilitarinism, but he goes into Nihilism (there's no such thing as morality).

If this is all too complex, you can think of it in the simplest form: Moral Objectivism vs. Moral Skepticism. Objectivists believe that morality is a set of facts, while skeptics believe it is a set of opinions. The other forms I mentioned are forms of Moral Skepticism.

[DZComposer]

Isn't Utilitarianism similar to Commuism? Same to Objectavism.

Karl Marx (the man synonymous with Communism) on Utilitarianism:

Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is "useful," "because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law." Artistic criticism is "harmful," because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, "nulla dies sine line!," piled up mountains of books

In a nutshell, he feels that it is too negative and makes thing immoral that don't make sense to be immoral, IE criticizing of art.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

It's ethics basicly, but dressed up in long words.

Ah, thank you.

Heck, I went to Christian schools all my life,

and they never even TRIED to

teach me about ethics *Bdum-tish/rimshot* 

in all seriousness, I never studied ethics in school...I wonder why... :?

[DZComposer]

Religious schools tend to be Objectivist. "It's wrong Because of God's law." I wouldn't expect them to go into this kind of stuff because it contradicts many religious teachings.

But this stuff is a little different than ethics itself, it's deeper than that. This is Philosophy. It's what are the foundations of ethical claims. IE, is stealing wrong because it is wrong, or is it wrong because society or the individual rejects thievery?

Basically, ethics is "How do you determine if this is right or wrong?", while morality is "what are right and wrong?"

Utilitarianism is ethics, and seeming built upon Moral Relativism for morality.

Objectivism and Utilitarianism are incompatible because the later uses societal measures to determine morality. IE, prostitution may increase total utility, but it sure could be called immoral by an objectivist.

[Guest FoXXX]

Religious schools tend to be Objectivist. "It's wrong Because of God's law." I wouldn't expect them to go into this kind of stuff because it contradicts many religious teachings.

But this stuff is a little different than ethics itself, it's deeper than that. This is Philosophy. It's what are the foundations of ethical claims. IE, is stealing wrong because it is wrong, or is it wrong because society or the individual rejects thievery?

Basically, ethics is "How do you determine if this is right or wrong?", while morality is "what are right and wrong?"

Utilitarianism is ethics, and seeming built upon Moral Relativism for morality.

Objectivism and Utilitarianism are incompatible because the later uses societal measures to determine morality. IE, prostitution may increase total utility, but it sure could be called immoral by an objectivist.

Ah, I understand now what you guys are talking about, thanks lol

[Sabre]

Ah, thank you.

Heck, I went to Christian schools all my life,

and they never even TRIED to

teach me about ethics *Bdum-tish/rimshot* 

in all seriousness, I never studied ethics in school...I wonder why...

We were taught at my school, but it was all psudo intellelectual bollocks. It was there I was taught Utilitarianism doesn't work, only to relise it does. You can spot this crap if they ask deep sounding stock questions that they cannot answer themselves.

4eg. If you could cure all the worlds desiese, but you have to kill a single inocent child, would you?

Answer no and the kid dies anyway

Answer yes and they up the number

To suggest doing a cost-denifit study is 'evil' apparently, but I don't see why.

Another favourite is the stealing medicine question.

@DZ. Love the 2fort example.