Theory 10: Practical Applications of Utilitarianism When an Alien Threatens to Kill You. Part A: Viva L’Evolution
I have been giving the term “Internet surfing” new meaning as I wander from computer to computer over the last two weeks because my own Internet connection is down. My quality of life has suffered, and the quality in the Book of Mark has suffered.
To top it off, I haven’t been able to play any poker. I miss the Internet. I may actually be forced to do some revisions on Theory 9 and 10 when I am up and running again. Nonetheless, the show must go on, and so I ask you:
When it comes to judging people and humanity, are you a pessimist or an optimist?
I am both: First one, then the other. I am highly suspicious of just about anyone I don’t know. I just assume that most people are idiots, and I think the stats back me up. On the other hand, I believe in one force that VERY SLOWLY fixes everything and provides me with great optimism: Evolution.
I already talked about this in Theory #3. You may recall me ranting on about how we only grow through the freedom to make mistakes, as individuals, and as a society. Sure, evolution is painfully slow. It may even be so slow that we are moving backwards as a people through most of our lives without ever living long enough to see the resulting two steps forward. Still, I am somehow cheered up by the fact that we are part of the process of humanity becoming more than what we are.
At this point you are probably hoping I won’t try to bore you by spouting off some of the few things I remember from university. You should know better.
Somewhere around the turn of the 19th century some guy named Bentham came up with “The Greatest Happiness Principle”. He, along with John Stuart Mill’s dad thought that the right thing to do in every situation is one that causes the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. Simple and practical, n’est pas? Much like a Book of Mark theory.
Practical as it may sound, I have always disliked this theory because it is a bit TOO simple. Utilitarianism (with a slight nod of the head to John Stuart for trying to salvage it) is the basic idea of maximizing utility for all. It has often been criticized for lacking any kind of moral or principled approach. I agree. It might be better for ten people if you sacrifice one, but is it actually fair? And if it isn’t fair, is it really better? I vaguely recall that Star Trek used to love playing with this one.
Speaking of Star Trek, I should point out that, due to my complete lack of Internet, I have been watching more TV lately. There is a two hour time slot where there is pretty much nothing on except Law and Order. When you watch Law and Order, it is fairly common to hear defense attorneys say that the North American legal system (which I have studied but can safely say I know nothing about) is founded upon the principle that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. I can’t even begin to imagine how much that must suck for prosecutors, but it has always made for decent TV.
You might ask yourself why this is really better for society. In a practical sense, the math simply doesn’t add up. If 100 guilty people go free you have to assume, guilty bastards that they are, that they will utilize their freedom to run about and cumulatively do all kinds of incalculable damage to other innocent people. If we had just convicted them all (and sacrificed the one innocent guy, who statistically, you may remember, is probably an idiot anyway) we would be a lot better off. Crime begets more crime as its impact continues to live with its victims. We are just creating more criminals; all for the sake of one innocent. Any good utilitarian, by Bentham’s standards, should be all over this like a criminal lawyer on the Constitution.
Sadly, I actually believe all this stuff about society not convicting innocent people. I am one of the many people who think that when you cross that line you are headed in the wrong direction and morality is not a street with a lot of U-Turns. I CAN”T STAND when the government, or just about anyone, tries to create the greater good by inflicting controls on others FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. I also can’t stand when they sacrifice people or principles FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY. I grew up with the naïve but simply charming idea that we all have to take a principled approach in life in every single thing we do. We can’t turn our back on our principles and jump up and down saying the end justifies the means, no matter how compelling a read The Prince might be.
What’s more, I always liked to take the concept behind so-called utilitarianism and argue it to fit my own philosophy. I have always thought that the evolution (yup, we’re back to evolution) of both people and society is exactly what is best for the greatest number in the long run. Sure, you can argue that you can produce better results in the short run by convicting the odd innocent person, or by banning poker, or sacrificing certain principles for a better short term result. I just don’t think that is really what’s best for the greatest number in the long run. We are all a small part of the evolution of humanity in each and every seemingly meaningless decision that we make, and what is best for society is for us to do whatever foolish thing that we think is the correct moral choice. The most important thing we can do is to live by our own individual principles. That is the way we grow as a species. It doesn’t even matter if we are wrong in our choices. It isn’t our job to be right all the time and if it was we would fail. It is our job to feed the incalculably large and painfully slow evolution machine that keeps us moving forward.
As a young adult, I clung to these principles. The world was black and white and decisions you made were either right or wrong.
Unfortunately, with the wisdom of age comes the cowardice of compromise. One day in law school, while ignoring the things I would later learn watching Law and Order, a radical professor introduced me to a hypothetical question that he liked to use just for the purpose of screwing up idealistic people like me. He introduced me to the aliens, and they have forced me to start inserting surgical little contradictions into what is supposed to be a uniform philosophy. The aliens pretty much took my entire belief system and forced me to question it. They changed the Book of Mark, introducing some unwelcome chaos to a world once comprised only of philosophical law and order .
Stay tuned for Part 2 . .
To top it off, I haven’t been able to play any poker. I miss the Internet. I may actually be forced to do some revisions on Theory 9 and 10 when I am up and running again. Nonetheless, the show must go on, and so I ask you:
When it comes to judging people and humanity, are you a pessimist or an optimist?
I am both: First one, then the other. I am highly suspicious of just about anyone I don’t know. I just assume that most people are idiots, and I think the stats back me up. On the other hand, I believe in one force that VERY SLOWLY fixes everything and provides me with great optimism: Evolution.
I already talked about this in Theory #3. You may recall me ranting on about how we only grow through the freedom to make mistakes, as individuals, and as a society. Sure, evolution is painfully slow. It may even be so slow that we are moving backwards as a people through most of our lives without ever living long enough to see the resulting two steps forward. Still, I am somehow cheered up by the fact that we are part of the process of humanity becoming more than what we are.
At this point you are probably hoping I won’t try to bore you by spouting off some of the few things I remember from university. You should know better.
Somewhere around the turn of the 19th century some guy named Bentham came up with “The Greatest Happiness Principle”. He, along with John Stuart Mill’s dad thought that the right thing to do in every situation is one that causes the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. Simple and practical, n’est pas? Much like a Book of Mark theory.
Practical as it may sound, I have always disliked this theory because it is a bit TOO simple. Utilitarianism (with a slight nod of the head to John Stuart for trying to salvage it) is the basic idea of maximizing utility for all. It has often been criticized for lacking any kind of moral or principled approach. I agree. It might be better for ten people if you sacrifice one, but is it actually fair? And if it isn’t fair, is it really better? I vaguely recall that Star Trek used to love playing with this one.
Speaking of Star Trek, I should point out that, due to my complete lack of Internet, I have been watching more TV lately. There is a two hour time slot where there is pretty much nothing on except Law and Order. When you watch Law and Order, it is fairly common to hear defense attorneys say that the North American legal system (which I have studied but can safely say I know nothing about) is founded upon the principle that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. I can’t even begin to imagine how much that must suck for prosecutors, but it has always made for decent TV.
You might ask yourself why this is really better for society. In a practical sense, the math simply doesn’t add up. If 100 guilty people go free you have to assume, guilty bastards that they are, that they will utilize their freedom to run about and cumulatively do all kinds of incalculable damage to other innocent people. If we had just convicted them all (and sacrificed the one innocent guy, who statistically, you may remember, is probably an idiot anyway) we would be a lot better off. Crime begets more crime as its impact continues to live with its victims. We are just creating more criminals; all for the sake of one innocent. Any good utilitarian, by Bentham’s standards, should be all over this like a criminal lawyer on the Constitution.
Sadly, I actually believe all this stuff about society not convicting innocent people. I am one of the many people who think that when you cross that line you are headed in the wrong direction and morality is not a street with a lot of U-Turns. I CAN”T STAND when the government, or just about anyone, tries to create the greater good by inflicting controls on others FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. I also can’t stand when they sacrifice people or principles FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY. I grew up with the naïve but simply charming idea that we all have to take a principled approach in life in every single thing we do. We can’t turn our back on our principles and jump up and down saying the end justifies the means, no matter how compelling a read The Prince might be.
What’s more, I always liked to take the concept behind so-called utilitarianism and argue it to fit my own philosophy. I have always thought that the evolution (yup, we’re back to evolution) of both people and society is exactly what is best for the greatest number in the long run. Sure, you can argue that you can produce better results in the short run by convicting the odd innocent person, or by banning poker, or sacrificing certain principles for a better short term result. I just don’t think that is really what’s best for the greatest number in the long run. We are all a small part of the evolution of humanity in each and every seemingly meaningless decision that we make, and what is best for society is for us to do whatever foolish thing that we think is the correct moral choice. The most important thing we can do is to live by our own individual principles. That is the way we grow as a species. It doesn’t even matter if we are wrong in our choices. It isn’t our job to be right all the time and if it was we would fail. It is our job to feed the incalculably large and painfully slow evolution machine that keeps us moving forward.
As a young adult, I clung to these principles. The world was black and white and decisions you made were either right or wrong.
Unfortunately, with the wisdom of age comes the cowardice of compromise. One day in law school, while ignoring the things I would later learn watching Law and Order, a radical professor introduced me to a hypothetical question that he liked to use just for the purpose of screwing up idealistic people like me. He introduced me to the aliens, and they have forced me to start inserting surgical little contradictions into what is supposed to be a uniform philosophy. The aliens pretty much took my entire belief system and forced me to question it. They changed the Book of Mark, introducing some unwelcome chaos to a world once comprised only of philosophical law and order .
Stay tuned for Part 2 . .
Subscribe to my feed
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home