Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Y Chappell's avatar

Quick clarification: 'Utility' for philosophers means *well-being*, about which there are many different theories, hedonism being just one:

https://www.utilitarianism.net/theories-of-wellbeing

Expand full comment
Samuli Pahalahti's avatar

I've always felt this type of philosophical discussion about utilitarianism is like intellectual masturbation.

For example, take Nozick's experience machine. It's so unrealistic that it doesn't have any real-world meaning. It's completely imaginary. It's impossible to use it for anything that has utility in the real world. That's why most people don't answer it rationally. Instead, they search for an answer that feels good and then try to come up with reasons why it's a good answer.

I recommend Henry Hazlitt's book The Foundations of Morality (available online). It's the best book on rule utilitarianism that I've read. Of course, it could also be because it's the only one I've read... But anyway, it's pretty brilliant stuff. I don't know why nobody is familiar with it, even though Hazlitt is very well-known in the libertarian scene.

Utilitarian philosophy is much more utilitarian if you apply it to the rules of society instead of evaluating individual cases.

When you're looking at individual cases, everything quickly becomes a big mess. You can analyze each case forever and find different ways to look at them. There are no right or wrong answers. Does it help you to live a good life? No.

Rule utilitarianism is much better. You can look at and analyze the rules of society. What are their consequences in real life? What happens to most people when they abide by or break these rules? Sometimes the rules create bad results, so you can compare them with good results and see the net effect.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts