Asklemmy

43831 readers

729 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Will philosophy eventually be absorbed by the sciences? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by tomasz@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

A master's degree in Philosophy, specializing in ethical theory.

Take for example, the statement "he didn't deserve that". How do we find out if that's true?

Or we can look at the lack of epistemological grounding. If I bet you €5 that some building is taller than another, we can go online, find out who's right, and the money's paid out.

Now imagine I bet you that fur clothing is always morally wrong. How could the money get paid out? What evidence would make a publicly available conclusion?

[–] coldhotman@nrsk.no 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Moralism and ethics is difficult, but isn't even the question "what would bring the most utility to people?" in the spirit of Bentham a subjective one depending on what one feels about something? What gives you happiness or benefit could cause me immense grief and put me at an disadvantage, no?

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Right - the idea's not to conclude with 'tomatoes bring utility - let's make tomatoes'. The idea's to maximize total utility, given a population with different values.

[–] coldhotman@nrsk.no 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm very interested in this topic, how would you define the maximal total utility for a group with different values? And is there a limit to optimization for a group before it starts coming at a cost for subgroups?

I understand that it's easy to revert to an argument of a homogeneous group, but unless everyone is identical - even the slightest difference could lead to large splits. In a global perspective, the difference between i.e. catholics and protestants are comperatively small yet some experience a large divide.

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I’m very interested in this topic, how would you define the maximal total utility for a group with different values?

I'll try to condense what I've read with some bullet points:

Utilitarian theory has a lot to say about why this is possible in principle, but it's not always possible in practice. It's similar to physics, where everything has mass, but actual measurement is difficult (except Utilitarian theory isn't nearly as developed as any branch of Physics).
Actual methodologies typically use Economics tools, such as Game Theory. There's another hurdle to implementation - we can calculate a 'fair' wage for everyone in a corporation, depending on what they contribute, but the actual formula's difficult to compute once you get beyond about 10 people (or at least 10 roles).

even the slightest difference could lead to large splits.

Yes - every difference in someone's individual utility mappings can affect a given decision, but it's not all that crazy once you look at real-world examples.

And is there a limit to optimization for a group before it starts coming at a cost for subgroups?

Yes - and utilitarians won't add any suggestions on where to take the split.

5 people want to go to the cinema. 2 of them love Marvel, 1 hates Marvel. The currently playing films are ...

Mathematically, this example threatens to become insanely challenging, but we make these decisions every day, so clearly we're making some attempt to maximize utility, even if we're not 100% successful.

In a global perspective, the difference between i.e. catholics and protestants are comperatively small yet some experience a large divide.

This is an easy one - don't take global perspectives when making decisions, unless it's a question with a super-homogenous answer like 'should people get stabbed by rabbid monkeys?'.

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think no one is being vague except for you. Before even saying "he didn't deserve that", anyone from a philosophical background would ask a thousand questions to you, starting with "he who?", "what happened to him", "he did what?"

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So you're saying speach about Ethics isn't vague, because someone who's studied philosophy would ask one thousand questions about the situation. Is that what you're saying?

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those were like three basic questions that naturally come to mind when someone suddenly talks about justice... Dude please dont ever work in politics, please dont, please okay?

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why all the hate?

[–] altair222@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because I dont take authority appeal and bad faith arguments lightly

[–] Ghast@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago