I study math, and in my math textbook there are mathematical jokes/absurdities on some pages (I guess they put them in there to lighten up the mood a bit).
Anyway, one of them features a picture of a teacher in front of his pupils in a classroom, and the teacher says: “Anna buys a motorcycle, calculate how fun she would have had if she had bought a horse instead!”
Now bare in mind that this is just supposed to be a joke, so to speak, but isn’t this exactly what utilitarianism tries to do?
Now I’m no moral philosopher or anything but isn’t it just pure madness to think one could do that?
Indeed, that is more or less what it involves. Pair-wise utility comparisions are also possible, but they lack the scientific credibility of measuring utility in cardinal numbers. I think some economists allege to be able to measure utility, but they usually do so by means of the most artificial standards.
I don’t like math and I aint’ no economist. I approach things from a moral/philosophical aspect. I’d say that utilitarians try their hardest to make everyone happy by figuring out what makes MOST people happen. You can’t do it. You are happy studying math whereas I am happy working in a garden. One guy finds riding motorcylces particularly thrilling whereas another might detest them and wants to ride horses.
I would be happy if all utilitarians and statist jumped off a cliff and left me the hell alone.
Just curious, have many of you here read J S Mill’s Utilitarianism or John Harsanyi’s Does Reason Tell Us What Moral Code to Follow and, Indeed, to Follow Any Moral Code at All? They’re quite important IMO in understanding utilitarianism. I’m not a utilitarian personally, but the moral system is often unfairly brushed aside.
My own knowledge if fairly limited on the subject, but thats kinda the reason I started this thread, so please tell me the unfairly brushed aside issues!