What is Ethics?

Ah, now I get it. So it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, so we should attempt to harm the least number while benefiting the greatest number.

there are some problems with Utilitarianism. Killing Bill Gates (painlessly) and distributing a million dollars to 34000 people would make a lot of people very happy. Mr. Gates family members would suffer, and he of course would be dead, but that bit of suffering would pale in comparison to the joy of making 34000 people millionars. do you want to say that we SHOULD do that?

Also, under utilitarianism, if you can kill a person and harvest their organs to save two or more lives, you should do so. Even as theyre begging you not to kill them, utilitarianism requires you must do so, to save the most lives.

And then there is the probelm of defning “happiness”. Lets take two possible worlds: World A’s population consists of just one “happy” family. Nice, normal content people. Not a huge amount of “happiness”.
World B has a billion sado-masochists with 24 hour access to nonstop torture porn.
Just by sheer numbers, the amount of “happiness” in World B would eclipse the amount in World A. If we had to choose which world to make real, utilitarianism tells us we should make world B the actual world.

because of some of these problems, utilitarianism has split into two camps: act and rule utiliatarianism. And theres also “consequentalism”, which doesnt focus on pleasure or happiness as much as the consequences of an act.

Trying to explain what common sense is, well that’s about as difficult as trying to describe what the color red looks like to a person who has been blind all their life. How do you go about that? This is all about common sense! I think you people are nuts!

@Cmdr:

You did a very good job of describing Hedonism.  You need to go back and read up more on Utilitarianism however.

If you can avoid causing harm/pain, then that trumps any level of pleasure you give by your action.

Allowing two people to die by not killing a third is the more ethical argument under Utilitarianism.  Under Hedonism, however, you should murder to save 11 lives. (The average corpse has enough material to save 11 lives, at least that’s what I’ve been told.)

Remember, this is the GREATEST GOOD.  Not how much good can be done if we just allow ourselves to do harm.  The only time it is ethical to do harm is if, and only if, all choices result in harm and then it is ethical only to do those actions that cause the least amount of harm.

Hedonism and utiliarianism are very closely related because they both place “pleasure” as the end goal. Heodnism, though, is very self-centered. Under hedonism, I should kill Bill Gates and steal all his money, to bring about the most pleasure for myselkf.

Utilitairnism is doing the act that brings about the MOST pleasure. under utilitrianism, I should kill Bill Gates and distribute his money to as many people I can to bring about the most pleasure. A utilitarian would reprimand a hedonist who simply stole the money for their own benefit- thats not bringing about the most pleasure!

Also, a hedonist would kill someone and harvest their organs for their own beneift. A utilitarian would do so with no benefit at all to themselves, as long as the number of lives saved outnumbers the people killed.

Since we usually have qualms abot killing people for theior organs (even if more lives can be saved), utilitarisnism has some problems, which is why you see “rule” and “act” utilitarinsim.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm
http://www.utilitarianism.com/actutil.htm

http://www.utilitarianism.com/hedutil.htm

Theyre so similar its splitting hairs.

Egoism is fascinting though. Is it possible to do a nonselfish act? Or is everything we do to gain pleasure/avoid pain? Even a mother sacrificing her life for her child could be viwed as a selfish act- deep down, maybe she knows she can’t live with the guilt of letting her child die. So even self-scarifice is guided by the pain/pleasure principle.