Social justice.

[eisanbt]

I've been inspired by another thread to give this debate thing another chance.

So GF, how do you think we should go about social ethics and justice? I present to you 3 common examples of a solution for running our lives as a community; Extreme Utilitarianism, Restricted Utilitarianism and Kantianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism

Extreme Utilitarianism is its original and perhaps puriest form. The idea is that when making decisions for a society (Or even personal decisions) then the action is only justified (Or right) if the net happiness of the group in question is at its maximum. Happiness (or otherwise satisfaction related to happiness) is seen to be the driving force behind all of our actions, giving justification to this goal. In order for this to work one must consider a number of things before taking action, that basics of which are as follows (In hierarchal order):

1)Intensity of the pleasure

2)Duration of the pleasure

3)Certainty/ Uncertainty

4)Propinquity (Remotness)

5)Fecundity (Will it be followed by more of the same sensation)

6)Purity (Will it cause negitive sensations for others)

And when Deciding an action for a society,

7) Extent (Number of people affected by the action)

Knowing that trying to please everyone is impossible, the logic here is to try and figure out which actions to take in order to reach the highest overall happiness (This does not necessarly mean for ALL peoples effected, or even distribution.)

Criticisms include the possibility for injustice to reach a calculated level of happiness, inconsitancy in calculations, inability to predict what so many people would accually want (Not just using personal bases of happiness) and the idea that you can create a formula for happiness.

Restricted Utilitarianism is much the same thing however it has in place the many social taboos which we consider today. One would not murder hundreds just to make thousands happy, respecting private property etc... The reasoning here is that these rules have developped and proven themselves to be ultimatly best for maintaining overall happiness and must only be questioned and analyzed when they come into conflict with one another (Straving family vs. stealing bread for example).

Kantianism is based on the philosphy of Immanuel Kant, an annoyingly wordy german philosopher. Firstly he believes that an action is moral because of the intent which produced it, regardless of the consequences and it is not praisworthy is the results are good if the intent was wrong.

Kant gives us a number of rules which we should follow however the 2 most importent being that we should;

1) Act in such a way that we would want our motivating principal to become universal law. Or in otherwords, be part of the solution for your ideal world and not part of the problem (If you don't like people stealing from you, don't do so yourself etc...)

2) Do not treat other rational beings as a means (of attaining our desires) since we, as rational beings, are both the authors of and SUBJECTS TO that which we execute through our will. (AKA: Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you)

I consider myself a passive-preferentialist, which will perhaps be explained later to those who don't know the philosophy. So what the **** do you folks think? Is our form of restricted utilitarianism the best route? Why/why not? got any better ideas? Is oligarchy a viable option?

1,2,3 debate GO!@@

 

[hugo]

None of the above, unless you consider minimal government restricted utilitarianism. The best way to maximize happiness is to maximize individual liberty and protect the rights of private property and punish crimes against persons. No wise elite, or magical 51%, has either the will or the inclination to maximize the happiness of all. The best solution is a minimal government that protects the citizens of the state from internal and external aggressors. Throw Kant away and pick up Locke or read JS Mill's "On Liberty" where he, by and large, rejects his Benthamite upbringing. Jefferson summed it up best "The government that governs best governs least".

Milton Friedman (see my signature) sums up why governments should have minimal powers.

 

[Gallytuck]

I believe it's entirely possible to make everybody happy. I like crayons.

 

[eisanbt]

WOW people accually responed.

I was not intending to limit our options to Kant or Utilitarianism, feel free to stray. So let us critize;

Ok restircted government, but what about the very real potential for economic polarization and especially with today's global market, region based classism? Wheres the happiness there? Where is the justice?

Let us also consider, again even more so with regional classism (Which would include their governments), inability to addaquatly protect the envrionment. While we can say that after initial developpment environmantal practices often improve it seems to be the case that those stuck in the past impact the globe in such a way as to jepordize our very existance let alone profitability. With limited government, what incentive would these business have not to keep pushing for profit in a failing economy?

 

[hugo]

Government must have a role in preventing third parties from being harmed by the parties to a contract. Pollution must be regulated by a governmental entity. They should incorporate market incentives in these regulations. Exchangeable credits for corporations who emit pollutants below a certain level is one solution that utilizes the profit motive. To sum up Adam Smith's famous quote greed makes the world go around.

When markets are free opportunities abound for all no matter what their current status is. Today's global market provides more opportunities than ever. It is up to the individual to find his niche.

 

[Gallytuck]

We shouldn't have to provide incentives to corporations to cut down on pollution. When you have to listen to the news on the radio every morning to find out how severe the smog is and whether the schools are closing down for the day or not I'd say we shouldn't have to ask politely.

 

[eisanbt]

Incentives are lovly but the temptation of short term gain (A flaw inherient in most humans) seems to be beyond the ability to resist for too many corporations, especially here in the west.

 

[TheJenn88]

We shouldn't have to provide incentives to corporations to cut down on pollution. When you have to listen to the news on the radio every morning to find out how severe the smog is and whether the schools are closing down for the day or not I'd say we shouldn't have to ask politely.

Well, that's just only slightly ideal. You don't actually believe for a second that we can trust people to do the "right" thing - do you? I mean, you might if you're in bed with Locke, but other than that, face reality. Many people will take whatever means necessary to achieve what is otherwise unattainable if following a path of "righteousness" (which most don't do).

You ought to just say, "why do we have a criminal code? Can't people just do the right thing?" People are never going to be perfect, and people are going to care more about their personal wants than that of the distant future of the safety, security and wellbeing of the planet and their predecessors. That's why people kill, steal, lie, cheat, etc. Because they want to. That's why businesses profit. Because they want to.

Is it a bad thing? ****, I don't know. But don't be so blind. If you wanna be part of the solution and not part of the problem, so to speak, do something other than getting your panties in a knot on a message board, eh?

 

[Gallytuck]

I'm not blind. I just have a whole lot more faith in the abilities of an individual human that most people would simply laugh. **** 'em. Let 'em laugh.

Why are you people so hung up on not being in control? Is it the ultimate goal of evolution to see how much money one can accumulate in a lifetime or how big of a plasma television one can own?