A question on ethics...

[sorgoth]

Should the government (Or ruling body) make decisions based on what would make the largest number of people content (Avoiding sadness) or based on what would cause the most joy (Making people happy).


Anyone who makes decisions for a living knows that there is a huge difference between these two things. The latter is pleasing some people and displeasing other, while the former is to make everyone simply okay with the decision.

 

[Iacchus]

Should the government (Or ruling body) make decisions based on what would make the largest number of people content (Avoiding sadness) or based on what would cause the most joy (Making people happy).


Anyone who makes decisions for a living knows that there is a huge difference between these two things. The latter is pleasing some people and displeasing other, while the former is to make everyone simply okay with the decision.

How about a third choice: Leave it alone and let people figure it out for themselves? Of course to me this would almost be the same choice as "Making people happy."

 

[sorgoth]

I believe that's called Anarchy, and you should know that doesn't work. It might work with a select group of people, but for the masses...don't think so.

 

[Yahweh]

I voted for Avoiding Sadness (Negative Utilitarianism).

"Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" (promoting happiness, otherwise called Utilitarianism) really isnt as intelligent a Philosophy as it sounds.

 

[Iacchus]

I believe that's called Anarchy, and you should know that doesn't work. It might work with a select group of people, but for the masses...don't think so.

Basically all I'm saying is that the less government meddling the better.

 

[sorgoth]

The problem is, you can't really strike a balance between the two.

The first causes stagnation and the second causes unrest.

Myself, I'm unsure of what I think is better.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Avoiding sadness is cheaper. The other way involves a paradox, because if there's a stripper in everyone's house, who makes the strippers happy?

 

[plindboe]

I don't see how avoiding sadness will exclude happiness? Why can't one have both? A good decision to avoid sadness can easily lead to happiness as well. Can't it?

(Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your question)

 

[Christian]

I don't think it is the government's role to make us happy or content. Depending on which branch you are talking about, that is it's role. Whether, each roles makes most people happy or content, is tangential.

 

[spejic]

I don't think it is the government's role to make us happy or content. Depending on which branch you are talking about, that is it's role. Whether, each roles makes most people happy or content, is tangential.

Governments were not invented to be governments. They were invented in order to help us (that is, make us more happy or make us less sad). For example, you might say the Defense Department is there to maintain an army. But that is not an end in itself. It is a tool - a means to an utilitarian end. For example, with an army, we can invade a nation, take their oil, use it to travel around cheaply, and thus increase happyness.

Now I know that this is not often how it ends up. As a practical matter, the people in governments often make decisions that promote themselves or the government itself. But that does not mean we cannot expect that a government will help fulful utilitarian ends, or activly promote change in the government to make such ends more likely and match more closely our own personal wishes.

 

[Christian]

spejic wrote:
Governments were not invented to be governments. They were invented in order to help us (that is, make us more happy or make us less sad).

The State was created primarily to protect the individual from other individuals (social contract). It was created to be maker of he enforcible rules of conduct.

Happiness and sadness are subjective and have little relation to the role of the State.

For instance, all of the people of a State might be happy to kill one person. if it happens to be a European State, it will not allow it, even if it would make everybody else happy.

 

[spejic]

The State was created primarily to protect the individual from other individuals (social contract). It was created to be maker of he enforcible rules of conduct.

Doesn't protection from threats make me less sad? Doesn't knowing there is a set of rules that provides protection into the future make me happy? I don't really buy the socal contract stuff - government just evolved from toughest-guy-leads-the-herd which existed before humans were humans (just as happyness and sadness existed before humans were humans).

Happiness and sadness are subjective and have little relation to the role of the State.

For instance, all of the people of a State might be happy to kill one person. if it happens to be a European State, it will not allow it, even if it would make everybody else happy.

Seeing as how humans have different definitions of happyness, cannot see into the future, and have a limited amount of power in the here and now, I don't find it suprising at all that our attempts to maximize utility are not perfect and provoke disagreement as to how to carry it out.

 

[Christian]

Spejic wrote:
Doesn't protection from threats make me less sad?

No, not necessarily. Most times, laws make people more sad (e.g. security checkpoints or any security legislation for that matter, safety laws, taxes, etc.) Most people are not happy that they have to fill out a tax return document(s) every year.


Doesn't knowing there is a set of rules that provides protection into the future make me happy?

No, not really. Take this forum. I started posting at the time where there was almost no moderation of the posts. Most anyone who liked cursing, did so. Those of us who did not had to put up with it. If someone wanted to curse at you for as many posts as he wanted, he could. As I recall, the cursers were in the majority and the non, the minority.

Then came the government (please see that this is a mini version of a big one). They stepped in and banned cursing and insults to posters. Let me tell you (and probably you remember cause you are not a recent poster) the protest was immense. Most did not like the legislation and voiced it vehemently. Most where against that type of moderation. But, they had to get use to it. And have you noticed how with time, there are more and more moderators. This site is extremely moderated. But, that is another topic.

I don't really buy the socal contract stuff - government just evolved from toughest-guy-leads-the-herd which existed before humans were humans (just as happyness and sadness existed before humans were humans)

You may not buy it, but history show it. You can see the social contract right here, in the history of this forum.

 

[spejic]

No, not necessarily. Most times, laws make people more sad (e.g. security checkpoints or any security legislation for that matter, safety laws, taxes, etc.)

What an incredibly lame argument. If the laws did nothing but make people unhappy, then why do they exist? Did you sign a contract to be ruled by sadists? It is like saying that chocolate cake exists only by mandate as it couldn't possibly be desired because it causes sadness through weight gain. Everything has utility and dis-utility combined in it in some ratio or another. Just because security checkpoints create the dis-utility of longer waits and less privacy does not mean that most people think they have the greater utility of promoting safety, and demanded that they be put into place.

Doesn't knowing there is a set of rules that provides protection into the future make me happy?

No, not really. Take this forum. I started posting at the time where there was almost no moderation of the posts. Most anyone who liked cursing, did so. Those of us who did not had to put up with it. If someone wanted to curse at you for as many posts as he wanted, he could. As I recall, the cursers were in the majority and the non, the minority.

Then came the government (please see that this is a mini version of a big one). They stepped in and banned cursing and insults to posters. Let me tell you (and probably you remember cause you are not a recent poster) the protest was immense. Most did not like the legislation and voiced it vehemently. Most where against that type of moderation. But, they had to get use to it.

The forum isn't a democracy. The members of the forum simply have limited ability to change things to suit their own sense of utility, while the moderators had lots of power to suit their sense of utility. But American citizens do have power over the US government, and there is nothing wrong about trying to change it to suit our needs.

I don't really buy the socal contract stuff - government just evolved from toughest-guy-leads-the-herd which existed before humans were humans (just as happyness and sadness existed before humans were humans)

You may not buy it, but history show it.

So when did the Great Congress of Mankind take place that rationally decided to divide men into leaders and followers? I must have missed that day in history class.

You can see the social contract right here, in the history of this forum.

Only because you picked an example where the dis-utility of action (going to a new board, starting a new board, physically attacking the moderators) is far greater than the dis-utility of the swearing ban. It doesn't say much for a social contract with real governments when there are things like revolutions, illegal emigration , PACs, pan-national companies, NGOs, unpopular governments, and a-politcal slackers.

 

[Christian]

Listen, I'm only trying to point out to you that legislation does not have the end goal of making us happy or sad.

The ultimate goal of laws and those who dispense is justice not happiness.

 

[spejic]

The ultimate goal of laws and those who dispense is justice not happiness.

Why is justice an end in itself? Maybe justice is just a means to happyness (or, it is hoped to be).

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think if we wait for any government to do either of these things, we're in deep doodoo.