Home › Society › Philosophy ›
Thoughts on Utilitarianism?
Thoughts on Utilitarianism?
Started by Anonymous · · 👁 4 views · 16 replies
#2 ·
Does anyone know anything about this? What exactly is utilitarianism? Is it just about the numbers, or is there more to the story? ????????
Does anyone know where I might be able to find some info on this? What exactly is utilitarianism? Is it just about maximizing happiness? Can someone help me out here? I've been scouring the web, but I'm coming up empty. Any leads?
Hey there.
Don't make mistakes like that on this forum. You'll have wolves circling you ready to swallow you whole, just like Little Red Riding Hood.
Otherwise, if we're talking about things here... Ever wondered what makes utilitarianism actually tick? Here’s a quick link to dive into the concept. Can't seem to find exactly what you're looking for? What exactly defines utilitarianism? Is it just about the numbers, or is there more to the equation? Maybe your best bet is to head over to a local library and track down some books on this specific school of ethics. Wouldn't that be worth a look?
Does anyone know where I might be able to find some info on this? What exactly is utilitarianism? Is it just about maximizing happiness? Can someone help me out here? I've been scouring the web, but I'm coming up empty. Any leads?
Hey there.
Don't make mistakes like that on this forum. You'll have wolves circling you ready to swallow you whole, just like Little Red Riding Hood.
Otherwise, if we're talking about things here... Ever wondered what makes utilitarianism actually tick? Here’s a quick link to dive into the concept. Can't seem to find exactly what you're looking for? What exactly defines utilitarianism? Is it just about the numbers, or is there more to the equation? Maybe your best bet is to head over to a local library and track down some books on this specific school of ethics. Wouldn't that be worth a look?
#3 ·
So, if you want to look at utilitarianism in its broadest sense, it’s basically just this idea that the whole point of being a moral person is to maximize "whatever is most useful" . You’ve got your individualistic version and then the social side of things—plus pragmatism, which kind of acts as a middle ground. Honestly, the best way to wrap your head around it is to start with Enlightenment-era utilitarianism (think Paul Holbach) and just work your way forward from there chronologically.
If you can sharpen up your question a bit, I can definitely give you a much more specific answer. 😁
If you can sharpen up your question a bit, I can definitely give you a much more specific answer. 😁
#5 ·
Pragmatism? Well, if you’re talking about the kind championed by James, John Dewey, and Charles Sanders Peirce—you know, that whole era from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s—then it doesn't actually overlap with the Enlightenment-style utilitarianism I brought up in my last post as much as you might think. It was more of a byproduct of that massive wave of optimism during that period—you know, all that faith in industrial civilization and modern tech—and the entire value system that grew out of it.
This brand of pragmatism really grew out of positivism (the big thing there is a strict insistence on hard facts and concrete data), and it focuses heavily on how practical any theory actually is—basically, its measurable, real-world value.
Under this principle, the worth of an idea depends entirely on its results. An idea that's useless—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer any tangible benefit in the eyes of these pragmatists—is essentially considered "untrue" in their view. Why? Because they reduce truth to usefulness or effectiveness. Knowledge becomes all about how well something can be adapted or put to work.
Now, "usefulness" isn't just one single thing; depending on the context, it could mean something beneficial for an individual, or something meant for the community at large.
The first major critique of pragmatism came from Max Horkheimer (who, as most people know, was a heavyweight social theorist in the vein of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas—part of that famous Frankfurt School). He has this great little story about a young boy staring up at the sky and asking, "Dad, what should the Moon advertise?" 😁
To me, that's such a perfect symbol of what happens to the relationship between humans and nature when we formalize our thinking this way. When you look at the world through that lens, nature itself is stripped of any inherent meaning or value; it only gains significance based on how useful it is to us. On the flip side, humans end up being driven by nothing more than pure survival. Everything gets funneled into reshaping the world into a tool to achieve that one goal.
So, all things considered, pragmatism is actually much closer to positivism than it is to that Enlightenment version of utilitarianism.
This brand of pragmatism really grew out of positivism (the big thing there is a strict insistence on hard facts and concrete data), and it focuses heavily on how practical any theory actually is—basically, its measurable, real-world value.
Under this principle, the worth of an idea depends entirely on its results. An idea that's useless—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer any tangible benefit in the eyes of these pragmatists—is essentially considered "untrue" in their view. Why? Because they reduce truth to usefulness or effectiveness. Knowledge becomes all about how well something can be adapted or put to work.
Now, "usefulness" isn't just one single thing; depending on the context, it could mean something beneficial for an individual, or something meant for the community at large.
The first major critique of pragmatism came from Max Horkheimer (who, as most people know, was a heavyweight social theorist in the vein of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas—part of that famous Frankfurt School). He has this great little story about a young boy staring up at the sky and asking, "Dad, what should the Moon advertise?" 😁
To me, that's such a perfect symbol of what happens to the relationship between humans and nature when we formalize our thinking this way. When you look at the world through that lens, nature itself is stripped of any inherent meaning or value; it only gains significance based on how useful it is to us. On the flip side, humans end up being driven by nothing more than pure survival. Everything gets funneled into reshaping the world into a tool to achieve that one goal.
So, all things considered, pragmatism is actually much closer to positivism than it is to that Enlightenment version of utilitarianism.
#7 ·
Wait, since when did you jump ship to the liberals?? 😁 But seriously, this actually reminded me of how people constantly mislabel liberals as being part of the "leftist" camp. See, the political spectrum isn't just a flat horizontal line—you know, that simple left-to-right axis—it’s got a vertical dimension too. One end goes toward total authoritarianism, while the other dips down into pure anarchism. So, yeah, it is totally possible to be a right-winger and still be a liberal. 😉
I'd say liberalism sits somewhere below the center point (where those X and Y axes meet on a graph—the zero mark). Honestly, the easiest way to pin it down is this: a liberal is someone who values individual freedoms over the needs or the integrity of the collective. To them, the individual stands above society—in a sense, society is actually subordinate to the person. It's the complete opposite of conservatism, where the community takes precedence and defines the individual.
I'd say liberalism sits somewhere below the center point (where those X and Y axes meet on a graph—the zero mark). Honestly, the easiest way to pin it down is this: a liberal is someone who values individual freedoms over the needs or the integrity of the collective. To them, the individual stands above society—in a sense, society is actually subordinate to the person. It's the complete opposite of conservatism, where the community takes precedence and defines the individual.
#8 ·
I’m also really interested in diving deep into everything related to neo-pragmatism—specifically the work of Quine, Richard Rorty, and Donald Davidson—as well as the broader field of pragmatism in general.
One thing I’m still really struggling to wrap my head around when it comes to Quine is this:
Eliminative materialism. It’s a heavy concept, but essentially, it's the idea that our common-sense understanding of the mind—things like beliefs, desires, and intentions—doesn't actually exist. Instead, these aren't just "wrong"; they are completely misplaced concepts that will eventually be replaced by pure neuroscience. Think of it like how we used to talk about "phlogiston" to explain fire, only to realize later that it was all just oxygen and chemical reactions. Eliminativists argue that once we fully map the brain, terms like "belief" will become obsolete, much like how we stopped talking about "caloric fluid" once we understood thermodynamics.
2. Scientism.
Language collision.
Behaviorism.
The rigid dogmatism inherent in logical empiricism.
So, here are the core questions driving his philosophy.
It would be great if you could walk me through a "simple" and logical example of Quine's doctrine of the "indeterminacy of translation." There’s one specific instance that I just can't wrap my head around: the idea that the term "rabbit" might carry vastly different meanings, or could potentially refer to a whole variety of different "rabbits." In what context is this actually being argued? I am genuinely stumped.
Regarding eliminativism—I know Quine connects it to the concept of the indeterminacy of translation, but I’m honestly struggling to wrap my head around what that term actually means.
Quine argues that every term essentially exists in two different states: the intended and the expressed. To help clear things up, let me break down what those actually mean with a quick example. Think about the word "bank." When you have an **intended** meaning, you have a specific concept in your head. You might be thinking of a financial institution like Chase or Wells Fargo. That’s the mental target you're aiming for when you speak. However, once you actually say the word out loud—the **expressed** part—you run into the messy reality of language. If you tell someone, "I'm going to the bank," they might think you're heading to an ATM, or they might think you're going to sit by the edge of the Mississippi River. Even though your *intent* was strictly about money, the *expression* itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation. In short: intention is what you mean; expression is what actually comes out of your mouth and how the world receives it.
What exactly is reductionism?
Think of it this way: an analytical truth is true simply because of what the words actually mean, regardless of anything else happening in the world. For example, if I say, "All bachelors are unmarried," I don't need to go out and conduct a survey or check anyone's marriage license to know I'm right. The definition of the word itself provides the answer. On the other hand, a synthetic truth is something that depends entirely on actual facts and observation. If I say, "The guy living next door is a bachelor," I can't just rely on the dictionary to prove it. I actually have to look at him, check his status, or observe his lifestyle to see if the statement holds up against reality. One is true by definition; the other requires real-world evidence.
Pragmatism has always been fundamentally anti-positivist.
What does "anti-positivist" actually mean?
Anti-essentialism, anti-realism, and detranscendentalization—these are all core pillars of post-structuralist thought. Since you're new to these concepts, let me break them down for you in plain English. Here’s a quick primer on what they actually mean: **Anti-essentialism** This is the idea that things don't have an unchanging, "built-in" essence that defines what they are. In traditional philosophy, people often assumed that objects, identities, or even social categories had a fixed nature. Anti-essentialists argue that these identities aren't set in stone; instead, they are constructed through language, culture, and social processes. Basically, there is no "true self" or "fixed nature" waiting to be discovered; identity is something that is constantly being shaped by the world around us. **Anti-realism** In a nutshell, anti-realism challenges the notion that there is a single, objective reality that exists independently of our minds or our language. While a "realist" believes that the world has a definite structure that we simply observe, an anti-realist argues that our understanding of "reality" is always filtered through our perceptions, social frameworks, and linguistic structures. We can't step outside of our own perspectives to see the world exactly as it is, so "reality" becomes something we interpret rather than something we just find. **Detranscendentalization** This one sounds intimidating, but think of it this way: it’s the rejection of any "transcendental" authority or foundation. Historically, philosophers looked for a "God's eye view"—a supreme truth, a universal logic, or a divine source—that could ground all knowledge and give it absolute certainty. Detranscendentalization is the move away from those "top-down" certainties. It suggests that there is no ultimate, external anchor for truth; everything is grounded in local, human-made systems of meaning rather than some higher, universal principle.
THANKS A TON!
One thing I’m still really struggling to wrap my head around when it comes to Quine is this:
Eliminative materialism. It’s a heavy concept, but essentially, it's the idea that our common-sense understanding of the mind—things like beliefs, desires, and intentions—doesn't actually exist. Instead, these aren't just "wrong"; they are completely misplaced concepts that will eventually be replaced by pure neuroscience. Think of it like how we used to talk about "phlogiston" to explain fire, only to realize later that it was all just oxygen and chemical reactions. Eliminativists argue that once we fully map the brain, terms like "belief" will become obsolete, much like how we stopped talking about "caloric fluid" once we understood thermodynamics.
2. Scientism.
Language collision.
Behaviorism.
The rigid dogmatism inherent in logical empiricism.
So, here are the core questions driving his philosophy.
It would be great if you could walk me through a "simple" and logical example of Quine's doctrine of the "indeterminacy of translation." There’s one specific instance that I just can't wrap my head around: the idea that the term "rabbit" might carry vastly different meanings, or could potentially refer to a whole variety of different "rabbits." In what context is this actually being argued? I am genuinely stumped.
Regarding eliminativism—I know Quine connects it to the concept of the indeterminacy of translation, but I’m honestly struggling to wrap my head around what that term actually means.
Quine argues that every term essentially exists in two different states: the intended and the expressed. To help clear things up, let me break down what those actually mean with a quick example. Think about the word "bank." When you have an **intended** meaning, you have a specific concept in your head. You might be thinking of a financial institution like Chase or Wells Fargo. That’s the mental target you're aiming for when you speak. However, once you actually say the word out loud—the **expressed** part—you run into the messy reality of language. If you tell someone, "I'm going to the bank," they might think you're heading to an ATM, or they might think you're going to sit by the edge of the Mississippi River. Even though your *intent* was strictly about money, the *expression* itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation. In short: intention is what you mean; expression is what actually comes out of your mouth and how the world receives it.
What exactly is reductionism?
Think of it this way: an analytical truth is true simply because of what the words actually mean, regardless of anything else happening in the world. For example, if I say, "All bachelors are unmarried," I don't need to go out and conduct a survey or check anyone's marriage license to know I'm right. The definition of the word itself provides the answer. On the other hand, a synthetic truth is something that depends entirely on actual facts and observation. If I say, "The guy living next door is a bachelor," I can't just rely on the dictionary to prove it. I actually have to look at him, check his status, or observe his lifestyle to see if the statement holds up against reality. One is true by definition; the other requires real-world evidence.
Pragmatism has always been fundamentally anti-positivist.
What does "anti-positivist" actually mean?
Anti-essentialism, anti-realism, and detranscendentalization—these are all core pillars of post-structuralist thought. Since you're new to these concepts, let me break them down for you in plain English. Here’s a quick primer on what they actually mean: **Anti-essentialism** This is the idea that things don't have an unchanging, "built-in" essence that defines what they are. In traditional philosophy, people often assumed that objects, identities, or even social categories had a fixed nature. Anti-essentialists argue that these identities aren't set in stone; instead, they are constructed through language, culture, and social processes. Basically, there is no "true self" or "fixed nature" waiting to be discovered; identity is something that is constantly being shaped by the world around us. **Anti-realism** In a nutshell, anti-realism challenges the notion that there is a single, objective reality that exists independently of our minds or our language. While a "realist" believes that the world has a definite structure that we simply observe, an anti-realist argues that our understanding of "reality" is always filtered through our perceptions, social frameworks, and linguistic structures. We can't step outside of our own perspectives to see the world exactly as it is, so "reality" becomes something we interpret rather than something we just find. **Detranscendentalization** This one sounds intimidating, but think of it this way: it’s the rejection of any "transcendental" authority or foundation. Historically, philosophers looked for a "God's eye view"—a supreme truth, a universal logic, or a divine source—that could ground all knowledge and give it absolute certainty. Detranscendentalization is the move away from those "top-down" certainties. It suggests that there is no ultimate, external anchor for truth; everything is grounded in local, human-made systems of meaning rather than some higher, universal principle.
THANKS A TON!
#9 ·
If you look at the top of this subforum, you will find the "philosophical lexicon." That is where you will find most of the definitions you are searching for.👋
#10 ·
Eric Wells3 said: Under this specific framework, the inherent value of any given idea is dictated entirely by its practical efficacy. An idea that proves utterly useless—take metaphysics, for instance, which offers zero tangible benefit within the parameters defined by those particular pragmatists—becomes, in essence, a false idea, because truth itself is reduced to nothing more than utility or successful application. The very foundation of theoretical knowledge rests upon one's capacity for adaptation and functional implementation.
To put it bluntly in a single sentence: an idea is nothing more than a blueprint for action.
#11 ·
Edina said:What is the actual definition of a liberal?
One must understand that liberalism operates on two distinct planes: the economic and the political. When we discuss political liberalism, we are referring to the points previously raised by Obelix. However, economic liberalism, at its core, advocates for minimizing state interference in the distribution of resources and goods.
The extreme right-wing iteration of economic liberalism—which we commonly identify as neoliberalism—demands an absolute withdrawal of the federal government from the economic sphere entirely. In this view, the state’s involvement in the economy should be strictly limited to maintaining the police and the military to ensure basic order and national defense; everything else, including healthcare and education, ought to be fully privatized.
Conversely, the extreme left-wing version of economic liberalism—or rather, the total absence of it—is socialism. And for heaven's sake, I really shouldn't have to explain what that entails.😁
#12 ·
obelix said:The easiest way to pin down a liberal is someone who puts personal freedoms above the collective good or social integrity. Basically, the individual comes first, and society is just... there to serve them. It’s the total opposite of conservatism, where the community takes precedence over the person, which defines that whole worldview.
I think we’ve got a massive problem here. Look, a "collective" is nothing more than a bunch of individuals lumped together. And honestly? The shared interests of a group usually outweigh what one single person wants. You're talking about multiple people's interests vs. just one.
If you go the other way, society just falls apart like a house of cards... which makes that kind of liberalism a complete political oxymoron. Anyway, personally, I'm leaning toward a different take on liberalism—the kind that pushes for getting rid of the state entirely to achieve total freedom.
#13 ·
Edina said:Also, I'm super interested in anything related to neo-pragmatism (Willard van Orman Quine, Richard Rorty, and Donald Davidson), and just pragmatism in general.
Regarding Quine...
So, look, I was actually posting here a little while ago, and I tried to give you an answer then too. Maybe someone a bit more of an expert can jump in and explain things way more clearly than I can.
#14 ·
Intriguing topic... Obelix put it quite elegantly. 🙂
Obelix, would you mind walking me through how truth is defined within pragmatism? I’d appreciate a bit more depth if you're up for it—it’s clear you have a handle on the philosophical lexicon. Of course, anyone else who feels they have a better grasp on the pragmatic definition of truth is more than welcome to weigh in. I’d be grateful.
Obelix, would you mind walking me through how truth is defined within pragmatism? I’d appreciate a bit more depth if you're up for it—it’s clear you have a handle on the philosophical lexicon. Of course, anyone else who feels they have a better grasp on the pragmatic definition of truth is more than welcome to weigh in. I’d be grateful.
#15 ·
Michael Jones66 said:Intriguing topic... Obelix put it quite elegantly. 🙂
Obelix, would you mind walking me through how truth is defined within pragmatism? I’d appreciate a bit more depth if you're up for it—it’s clear you have a handle on the philosophical lexicon. Of course, anyone else who feels they have a better grasp on the pragmatic definition of truth is more than welcome to weigh in. I’d be grateful.
Too bad Obelix isn't on this forum anymore. Maybe he's lurking under a different handle?
I'd love to have a real debate with him, but looking back at his old posts, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be able to hold a candle to him.
#16 ·
Nature doesn't inherently possess any deep significance or intrinsic value—it just exists. It only starts to gain meaning or "value" based on how useful it turns out to be to us. Humans, on the flip side, don't really have any grand purpose beyond just staying alive. Everything we do ends up being about reshaping the world into a tool to serve that one goal of self-preservation.
When you look at the big picture, pragmatism actually feels much closer to positivism than it does to Enlightenment-style utilitarianism.
So, where exactly—if anywhere—does this version of pragmatism part ways with existentialism?
#17 ·
The way I see it, the real distinction lies in how we define utility, especially if we assume pragmatism operates under the following principle:
So, when Camus says, "To create or not to create, it makes no difference," he’s actually highlighting a massive divide between the measurable, results-oriented world of pragmatism and the core of existentialism. In existentialism, you might talk about futility through the lens of the "absurd," staring down that ultimate, heavy question of meaning while feeling stuck on that endless, dead-end road we all find ourselves walking.
Do you think there's a clear-cut distinction there between pragmatism and existentialism, or am I missing some crucial nuance that might emerge if we looked at how the two interact differently?
Under this logic, the value of any idea is tied directly to its practical impact. A useless idea—take metaphysics, for instance, which doesn't offer much in terms of tangible benefits according to these pragmatists—becomes, in a sense, an untrue idea, because they reduce truth itself to mere usefulness or functional success.
So, when Camus says, "To create or not to create, it makes no difference," he’s actually highlighting a massive divide between the measurable, results-oriented world of pragmatism and the core of existentialism. In existentialism, you might talk about futility through the lens of the "absurd," staring down that ultimate, heavy question of meaning while feeling stuck on that endless, dead-end road we all find ourselves walking.
Do you think there's a clear-cut distinction there between pragmatism and existentialism, or am I missing some crucial nuance that might emerge if we looked at how the two interact differently?
🔗 Similar threads
- Negative utilitarianism vs. asceticism: thoughts? in Philosophy · Mar 1, 2017
- Are we reaching a breaking point with the "thoughts and prayers" era of sports? in Fans · Jul 28, 2026
- New PC build: Thoughts? in Desktops · Apr 3, 2023
- High homocysteine levels: what are your thoughts? in Health · Jan 14, 2023
- Fractal Design North build thoughts? in Desktops · Nov 7, 2021