PDA

View Full Version : Philiosophical Beliefs



Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 07:30 AM
I see a lot of talk about religious beliefs, I was wondering what people's philosophical beliefs are.

I am a Negative Utilitarian of sorts.

What school of philosophy do you affiliate yourself with?

Once we get a few different types hopefully we can debate the merits of them.

KC
09-05-2012, 02:54 PM
I'm not sure I can peg myself at a ny specific philosophical doctrine, I still have so much more to learn before I can do that. Right now I think the closest thing I've got to an affiliation is with the Secular Humanist movement, which I only see as a vague umbrella term. I'd love to debate the merits of Utilitarianism sometime, although my only reference point is John Stuart Mill's writings on Utilitarianism. If I'm not mistaken, negative utilitarianism is somewhat different from the morality Mill espoused. Would you care to share more about your worldview, so that we can properly dissect it?

Captain Obvious
09-05-2012, 06:07 PM
Skepticism, less "textbook" and more "life experience", "new and improved" generally means "cheaper and different".

I'm still working on the definition for this.

Chris
09-05-2012, 08:13 PM
Sounds like Zen Buddhism, Obvious.

Skepticism is the basis of my libertarianism.


I'm skeptical of utilitarianism, positive or negative, in that calculating max happiness or min suffering abstracts from individuals who experience them.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 06:14 AM
I would certainly agree with your skepticism. I am skeptical of most claims made by people. It is because I can experience things myself (a phenomenological trait) that I became a negative utilitarian.

If I can experience pain, pleasure, and other emotions, and creatures that exhibit behaviour like mine when I experience these things are likely also capable of experiencing such things. Out of mutual self-interest (no species, save humans, kill without cause; i.e. cause the least amount of harm whilst surviving), I cause the least amount of harm whilst survive.

So this means the only reasont to kill if it is linked to self-preservation. That's why I say I am a NU 'of sorts.' Because I use observation to determine this way of life.

Chris
09-06-2012, 11:46 AM
If I can experience pain, pleasure, and other emotions, and creatures that exhibit behaviour like mine when I experience these things are likely also capable of experiencing such things. Out of mutual self-interest (no species, save humans, kill without cause; i.e. cause the least amount of harm whilst surviving), I cause the least amount of harm whilst survive.

What is the basis of your assuming my subjective valuing of pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering is the same as yours? This assumption suffers the psychologist's fallacy. It's the very problem with any sort of utilitarianism I earlier explained, in order to calculate utility you must abstract away from individual subjective value and assume we all value things the same.

KC
09-06-2012, 05:23 PM
What is the basis of your assuming my subjective valuing of pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering is the same as yours? This assumption suffers the psychologist's fallacy. It's the very problem with any sort of utilitarianism I earlier explained, in order to calculate utility you must abstract away from individual subjective value and assume we all value things the same.


Couldn't you also assert that while the particular amount of value we place on something, for example, physical pain, varies, while the sorts of things we value remain constant? I don't think anyone wants pain inflicted on him/herself without consent, and I think to a large degree we're programmed to avoid pain, at east when we don't do so at the cost of survival, propagation of the species, etc.

Using that sort of assumption we could certainly justify utilitarianism to a degree, though I'm not sure that entirely lets the rest of its program/me off the hook.

Chris
09-06-2012, 05:34 PM
Couldn't you also assert that while the particular amount of value we place on something, for example, physical pain, varies, while the sorts of things we value remain constant? I don't think anyone wants pain inflicted on him/herself without consent, and I think to a large degree we're programmed to avoid pain, at east when we don't do so at the cost of survival, propagation of the species, etc.

Using that sort of assumption we could certainly justify utilitarianism to a degree, though I'm not sure that entirely lets the rest of its program/me off the hook.

But utilitarianism purports to maximize pleasure/happiness, or minimize pain/suffering, the amount, not the sort.

I'm not sure the sorts of things we value are the same either. Some may value money over leisure, and vice versa, and each to a degree as marginal utility lessens. And then there's the means to those ends that can vary. Pursuit of happiness allows for that variation, abstract utilitarian functions lend themselves to coercing conformity--the way a trend line hides variations. I think.

I'm not arguing against maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering, according to a do no harm, Golden/Silver Rule principle I think we all share, just think/believe we should have the liberty to pursue it individually.

Savitri Devi
09-11-2012, 06:34 AM
What is the basis of your assuming my subjective valuing of pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering is the same as yours? This assumption suffers the psychologist's fallacy. It's the very problem with any sort of utilitarianism I earlier explained, in order to calculate utility you must abstract away from individual subjective value and assume we all value things the same.

By your standard then, I do not know whether YOU feel pain. And further to your standard, if I don't grant you consideration based on that, then I can do whatever I want to you without recourse. You can pick the society you would like to live in.

Savitri Devi
09-11-2012, 06:50 AM
But utilitarianism purports to maximize pleasure/happiness, or minimize pain/suffering, the amount, not the sort.

I just find minimizing harm to be a lot more consistent. As well as most people's happiness tends to come at the expence of another's suffering (i.e. eating animal products).


I'm not arguing against maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering, according to a do no harm, Golden/Silver Rule principle I think we all share, just think/believe we should have the liberty to pursue it individually.

Well I believe in personal liberty as long as you do not violate anyone else's personal liberty (i.e. cause unnecessary harm).

Of course the concept of harm/pain/suffering is only relevant. The only way to determine this is through observation.