16 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI answered that question. No, it is not just because God says, though
I am referring to this:
[b]I say this essay, as written, supports my beliefs in hedonism - that pain is evil and pleasure good - and opposes the Christian view that what God says is what's moral simply because God said it. Does anyone disagree?
I don't think I could have written this any clearer. How come you missed this question twice?[/b]
that would be enough; God tells what is good and bad because of
the end results. Pain and pleasure are not good markers for good and
evil. Now I have repeated myself twice, will this be enough?
Kelly
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, you did not. You did not talk about the essay at all. This is now three times you failed to answer my question.
I answered that question. No, it is not just because God says, though
that would be enough; God tells what is good and bad because of
the end results. Pain and pleasure are not good markers for good and
evil. Now I have repeated myself twice, will this be enough?
Kelly
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOkay, than let me say it this way you may understand this.
No, you did not. You did not talk about the essay at all. This is now three times you failed to answer my question.
There is no Christian view that says 'just because God said', as I have
pointed out to you twice now. So you are comparing something to
nothing and asking if it is agreeable.
Kelly
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOK. If good is not defined as adhering to what God says, and it's not defined in the hedonistic utilitarian sense, how is it defined?
Okay, than let me say it this way you may understand this.
There is no Christian view that says 'just because God said', as I have
pointed out to you twice now. So you are comparing something to
nothing and asking if it is agreeable.
Kelly
19 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis approach of coarse sounds good and it does work in certain situations, but it has its problems.
I do.
A true utilitarian would say that what is right can be determined by how treating one affects the majority.
In a military situation this works very well. Sacrifice the squad to save the division, etc.
In the civilian world it starts to break down. If a mob riots after a crime is committed is it ok for the authorities to grab an innocent man and accuse him of the crime in order to stop the trouble?
A true utilitarian would sacrifice the rights of one for the greater good. Most people would not always agree with this.
19 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI disagree. If that makes me not utilitarian, then fine. I believe that people are happier when there is less corruption in the government. They feel safer if this is the case. If the government started abusing it's power to shut up dangerous people, then in the long run these people will be less happy. Thus the guilty should be the one convicted and not some innocent man.
This approach of coarse sounds good and it does work in certain situations, but it has its problems.
A true utilitarian would say that what is right can be determined by how treating one affects the majority.
In a military situation this works very well. Sacrifice the squad to save the division, etc.
In the civilian world it starts to br ...[text shortened]... sacrifice the rights of one for the greater good. Most people would not always agree with this.
19 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, I agree. This is why true utilitarianism is not so great.
I disagree. If that makes me not utilitarian, then fine. I believe that people are happier when there is less corruption in the government. They feel safer if this is the case. If the government started abusing it's power to shut up dangerous people, then in the long run these people will be less happy. Thus the guilty should be the one convicted and not some innocent man.
19 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressBut notice how I referred to peoples' feelings; their happiness and their feelings of safety. Basing goodness on this is utilitarianism. Your analysis and mine are based on the same idea, but we came to different conclusions.
Yes, I agree. This is why true utilitarianism is not so great.
Utilitarianism is a great way to determine what is moral; you just have to avoid simplistic applications of it and look into longer term ramifications.
20 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would say that happiness is "good" and unhappiness is "evil". And I dont think pleasure always leads to happiness.
Checkbaiter linked this essay recently:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32893
Please notice how much emphasis the essay places on human conscience and pain and pleasure as they relate to morality and whether we should judge God. I say this essay, as written, supports my beliefs in hedonism - that pain is evil and ...[text shortened]... tian view that what God says is what's moral simply because God said it. Does anyone disagree?
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardWell, here we're discussing specifics of terminology. My utilitarian perspective involves all pleasant, satisfying, etc. feelings as pleasure or happiness. Security, freedom from worry, physical pleasure, ambition, excitement, etc are all "pleasure" to me.
I would say that happiness is "good" and unhappiness is "evil". And I dont think pleasure always leads to happiness.
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSuppose the rioting mob burns cars and business’ as they are doing in Paris right now. Suppose people are getting beaten and killed.
But notice how I referred to peoples' feelings; their happiness and their feelings of safety. Basing goodness on this is utilitarianism. Your analysis and mine are based on the same idea, but we came to different conclusions.
Utilitarianism is a great way to determine what is moral; you just have to avoid simplistic applications of it and look into longer term ramifications.
What grief does this cause the victims, the innocents who are killed, the property owners who loose everything, the loved ones who morn?
Sacrificing the happiness of the innocent to save the long term happiness of the masses would be utilitarian.
20 Nov 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI dont think living in a society based on utilitarianism can bring you security and freedom from worry, because you live with the knowledge that you can always be sacrificed for the pleasure of the masses.
Well, here we're discussing specifics of terminology. My utilitarian perspective involves all pleasant, satisfying, etc. feelings as pleasure or happiness. Security, freedom from worry, physical pleasure, ambition, excitement, etc are all "pleasure" to me.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseNo one chooses to answer my question but instead attacks utilitarianism. This thread is not about me defending utilitarianism; we can make another thread if you want to criticize it. What this thread is is me pointing out that the essay in question assumes utilitarianism is correct. As some Christians point to this essay as something they agree with, I am trying to emphasize that people are instinctively utilitarian.
Sniffing cocain is pleasurable, is it good? For a masochist, there are many means of pleasure, are they good?