Talk:Utilitarianism

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Utilitarianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 100 days

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Effective Altruism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

referencing Jeremy Bentham's INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION[edit]

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION, Jeremy Bentham, 1789.

from Preface:

"Note.—The First Edition of this work was printed in the year 1780; and first published in 1789. The present Edition is a careful reprint of 'A New Edition, corrected by the Author,' which was published in 1823."

also

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Introduction_to_the_Principles_of_Morals_and_Legislation

Peter Singer on giving benefit of the doubt to shrimp and oysters.[edit]

“ . . . and in the first edition of this book I suggested that somewhere between shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any. Accordingly, I continued occasionally to eat oysters, scallops, and mussels for some time after I became in every other respect, a vegetarian. But while one cannot with any confidence say that these creatures do feel pain, so one can equally have little confidence in saying that they do not feel pain. Moreover, if they do feel pain, a meal of oysters or mussels would inflict pain on a considerable number of creatures. Since it is so easy to avoid eating them, I now think it better to do so.” -Peter Singer, Animal Liberation. 1990, (171-174) http://www.wesleyan.edu/wsa/warn/singer_fish.htm

Precedence of Good and Number?[edit]

An obvious question, to which I couldn't find a ready answer in this article, is which takes precedence? The greater good for the lesser number, or the lesser good for the greater number? Or is this variable dependent on circumstance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how much greater and how many. Increasing the happiness of 10 people by 1 unit each beats increasing the happiness of 2 people by 4 units each. Some theorists refer to these units as hedons. According to the standard version, utilitarianism is about maximizing the sum-total of hedons. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Lies[edit]

Dear Phlsph7, lying is not as complicated as torture; my ref gave explanation and the lead is the proper place because there is Utilitarian Evil in utilitarianism and people should know it. May I proceed now?Zopyr (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zopyr and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. From your source: ... but there are some cases - white lies or mercy lies - where it may be OK to tell lies. This is an example of 'rule-utilitarianism'; considering every single action separately is 'act-Utilitarianism'. These two forms of Utilitarianism could lead to different results: An act-Utilitarian might say that telling a lie in a particular case did lead to the best results for everyone involved and for society as a whole, while a rule-Utilitarian might argue that since lying made society a less happy place, it was wrong to tell lies, even in this particular case.

This passage contradicts the very general claim you want to add, i.e. that "Utilitarians support the white lies". Phlsph7 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some utilitarians support the white lies. May I add it? Zopyr (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new version avoids the problem mentioned in my last reply but it has various other problems that were mentioned earlier. The lead of an article should provide a summary of the most important points of the article, see WP:LEAD. White lies are not discussed in the current article. So there is no good reason for adding this rather vague and uninformative claim to the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lying is probably one of the most common wrong acts that we carry out. People should know the stand of utilitarians about this. Lying is also an important subject in religions and Kantian ethics. Think about adding instead of deleting. Zopyr (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already presented my main arguments, linked them to the corresponding wikipedia guidelines, and provided suggestions for an alternative approach to this issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Key phrases[edit]

Every system needs key phrases that briefly describe it. May I proceed now? Zopyr (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not use keywords in this way. We have a short description (in this case "Ethical theory based on maximizing well-being"; and see WP:SDESC for further explanation). All other key elements should be mentioned in the lead (see MOS:LEAD). If you feel the current lead is inadequate, raise your issues here, but inserting a random "key phrases" section is not the way forward. GrindtXX (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]