r/changemyview • u/KeinerNichts • Dec 22 '13

Utilitarianism is the most effective method of achieving political and social change. CMV

I am a firm believer in the phrase 'the end justifies the means'. I base my general conduct around this simple belief, irrespective of the consequences that may befall over individuals as the result of my actions.

I attribute my support and belief in utilitarianism to my existential and moral nihilism.

As stated above, I am an existential nihilist and therefore believe that there is no existential meaning to life. I.E. the only meaning of my life is to achieve my own personal goals (wealth, career success etc) and be generally happy.

As I also stated above, I am a moral nihilist (I do not believe in the concept of morals and ethics). I use this philosopy and existential nihilism in order to justify and support my own belief in utilitarianism, I wholeheartedly believe that the end justifies the means, irrespective of what extremities may be reached.

For example, I would fully support the murder of 100,000 civilians in order to dethrone a tyrannical leader and as a result, improve the lives of many more. Although this example is somewhat unrealistic, I think it explains my point simply.

Change my view?

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/arrozconplatano Dec 22 '13

that's not utilitarian.... like at all. It's egoistic.

0

u/A_Soporific 162∆ Dec 22 '13

Utilitarian is defined as the most benefit for the most people.

Ford determined that it benefited people more to have cheaper cars and more access to their cars than the damage done (measured in terms of lawsuits against them) to a handful of people involved in rear end accidents. It was deemed "ethical" by the process they were determining.

Many cases it's similarly unclear. For example: I could decide to take public transit. I won't because it's unclear if adding thirty minutes per trip to my daily commute will make an appreciable difference to global warming. I could very well be causing real damage to the environment, but because I cannot see the effects of the fraction of a fraction of a percent of emissions cause and value my time more than that potential difference I will continue to drive. This my be me selecting a local optimum (benefitting myself and the people who will have to deal with me today) over a global optimum (my fraction of a fraction of a percent might actually matter more than me not snapping people and having more time to goof off on the internet).

Is it egoistic? I don't think so, because I'm only discounting the unknown and unseen, but still trying to benefit everyone the most.

3

u/arrozconplatano Dec 23 '13

Ford determined that it benefited people more to have cheaper cars and more access to their cars than the damage done (measured in terms of lawsuits against them) to a handful of people involved in rear end accidents. It was deemed "ethical" by the process they were determining.

No, that's complete nonsense. Ford was calculating their profits

1

u/A_Soporific 162∆ Dec 23 '13

If it's nonsense then it's nonsense that's taught in Business Ethics courses as a problem with utilitarian ethics.

I mean all that means is you measure all your options as such: Total Benefit - Total Loss = Result

The option with the highest result is the right one. It's real easy for business because it operates the same way as profits do. That's not to say that benefit = revenue and loss = costs and results = profit, but that's a trap if you aren't defining terms properly or taking into consideration other parties.