I'm beginning to suspect that you've educated yourself about utilitarianism only insofar as you need to in order to make coherent (though not necessarily accurate) complaints about it. I'm also beginning to suspect that you don't really have a firm understanding of philosophy in general. Apologies if that's inaccurate.
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist. That is a fact; it's impossible to prove that our senses represent reality, and so it is a fundamental fact that nothing about reality can truly be proven. However, retreating to this fact in the face of an argument about whether something is true or not is obvious sophistry. I am aware that you did not make this argument, but I want to make sure that you understand because it's an important part of epistemology. If you want to know more, look up "solipsism".
With that in mind, it's easy to see that I don't actually need to prove anything about the future; I just need to have a good justification for believing that my predictions are probable, and have a rough idea of how certain actions increases or decrease the probabilities of the ranges of utility values. I already stated my justification in the above comment.
Now, could I use my knowledge of statistics and probability to estimate the odds of a Biden victory, his future actions, etc. using available data? Yeah, probably. But frankly that's too much work because the differences in outcomes are stark enough that getting a more precise estimate won't change anything. It's like giving me a gun and politely asking me to shoot myself. I could figure out how likely I am to survive, but I don't need to do that before deciding to not comply for obvious reasons.
overwrought hedonism
WTF is wrong with hedonism that transfers over to utilitarianism?
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist.
solipsism gets us nowhere
Yes, that's the point; if we can't tolerate any uncertainty, then in essence nothing is provable and there's nothing to do. It's inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
When you say that you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy, correct?
It’s inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
there are ethical systems that can exist even if we don't. kantian ethics require only that you decide what should be universal law and act accordingly. that doesn't require that you know anything outside of yourself. by contrast, utilitarianism is fraught with epistemic problems.
Every set of axioms is independent of reality by definition. Deontology isn't special in that way; consequentialist systems are also axiom sets. Furthermore, every ethical system has the same problem when putting it into practice; if you don't know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
if you don’t know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
i suppose so, but if your axioms depend on the future, which by definition is unknowable, then it is empty.
Consequentialist axioms impose an ordering on world-states, almost all of which will never exist. I don't understand how you can think the axioms themselves depend on future events; by definition they wouldn't be axioms.
if you must do what will cause the most pleasure (or least displeasure), then your axiom depends on knowing the future.
No, acting upon the axiom requires "knowing the future" as you put it.
even knowing how to act requires knowledge of the future in such a paradigm.
Every ethical system requires knowledge of the world.
Knowledge of the world includes knowledge of the probability of future world states.
Future world states are subject to doubt.
Present world states are also subject to doubt.
There is no fundamental difference between the degrees of uncertainty about present and future events.
We can know with a high degree of certainty that without intervention, the sun will be destroyed. I can know with a high degree of certainty that your arguments come from a mind that is not part of a mind that I am part of. I can know with a high degree of certainty that the place I am currently located will not be subject to an event that will destroy me.
Privileging the certainty of nearer-term events is fallacious. It is true that any particular chosen event becomes more probable as its proximity to us increases, because there are fewer ways to avert it, but that does not mean all further-future events are less probable than all nearer-future events.
probability is never 100%, but the categorical imperative is always 100% certain.
Are you claiming that in a particular physically real situation, the categorical imperative can can tell you the correct course of action with 100% certainty? If so, please explain how that's possible when your personal certainty of the situation is (necessarily) less than 100%.
I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve educated yourself about utilitarianism
no, I'm degreed
WTF is wrong with hedonism
nothing. I am quite partial to it myself. but pretending you know what will create the most pleasure for everyone (or least displeasure) is just that: pretending. you might as well do what you want and make up a story about why it's going to benefits everyone because that's all that utilitarianism really is.
I'm beginning to suspect that you've educated yourself about utilitarianism only insofar as you need to in order to make coherent (though not necessarily accurate) complaints about it. I'm also beginning to suspect that you don't really have a firm understanding of philosophy in general. Apologies if that's inaccurate.
Alright so first of all: neither of us can prove to the other that our respective selves exist. That is a fact; it's impossible to prove that our senses represent reality, and so it is a fundamental fact that nothing about reality can truly be proven. However, retreating to this fact in the face of an argument about whether something is true or not is obvious sophistry. I am aware that you did not make this argument, but I want to make sure that you understand because it's an important part of epistemology. If you want to know more, look up "solipsism".
With that in mind, it's easy to see that I don't actually need to prove anything about the future; I just need to have a good justification for believing that my predictions are probable, and have a rough idea of how certain actions increases or decrease the probabilities of the ranges of utility values. I already stated my justification in the above comment.
Now, could I use my knowledge of statistics and probability to estimate the odds of a Biden victory, his future actions, etc. using available data? Yeah, probably. But frankly that's too much work because the differences in outcomes are stark enough that getting a more precise estimate won't change anything. It's like giving me a gun and politely asking me to shoot myself. I could figure out how likely I am to survive, but I don't need to do that before deciding to not comply for obvious reasons.
WTF is wrong with hedonism that transfers over to utilitarianism?
solipsism gets us nowhere
Yes, that's the point; if we can't tolerate any uncertainty, then in essence nothing is provable and there's nothing to do. It's inconsistent to assert that I must have perfect knowledge about something while acting as though I exist when you have no way of verifying that.
When you say that you have a degree, you mean specifically in philosophy, correct?
there are ethical systems that can exist even if we don't. kantian ethics require only that you decide what should be universal law and act accordingly. that doesn't require that you know anything outside of yourself. by contrast, utilitarianism is fraught with epistemic problems.
Every set of axioms is independent of reality by definition. Deontology isn't special in that way; consequentialist systems are also axiom sets. Furthermore, every ethical system has the same problem when putting it into practice; if you don't know anything about the world, your ethics system might as well be empty.
i suppose so, but if your axioms depend on the future, which by definition is unknowable, then it is empty.
Consequentialist axioms impose an ordering on world-states, almost all of which will never exist. I don't understand how you can think the axioms themselves depend on future events; by definition they wouldn't be axioms.
if you must do what will cause the most pleasure (or least displeasure), then your axiom depends on knowing the future.
No, acting upon the axiom requires "knowing the future" as you put it.
even knowing how to act requires knowledge of the future in such a paradigm.
Every ethical system requires knowledge of the world.
Knowledge of the world includes knowledge of the probability of future world states.
Future world states are subject to doubt.
Present world states are also subject to doubt.
There is no fundamental difference between the degrees of uncertainty about present and future events.
We can know with a high degree of certainty that without intervention, the sun will be destroyed. I can know with a high degree of certainty that your arguments come from a mind that is not part of a mind that I am part of. I can know with a high degree of certainty that the place I am currently located will not be subject to an event that will destroy me.
Privileging the certainty of nearer-term events is fallacious. It is true that any particular chosen event becomes more probable as its proximity to us increases, because there are fewer ways to avert it, but that does not mean all further-future events are less probable than all nearer-future events.
probability is never 100%, but the categorical imperative is always 100% certain.
Are you claiming that in a particular physically real situation, the categorical imperative can can tell you the correct course of action with 100% certainty? If so, please explain how that's possible when your personal certainty of the situation is (necessarily) less than 100%.
my focus was logic and scientific reasoning but the undergrad requirements covered ethics
no, I'm degreed
nothing. I am quite partial to it myself. but pretending you know what will create the most pleasure for everyone (or least displeasure) is just that: pretending. you might as well do what you want and make up a story about why it's going to benefits everyone because that's all that utilitarianism really is.