Normative Ethical Positions

Following the intriguing discussion brought from my metaethics thread, I thought I'd try one on normative ethics.

What normative ethical theory/theories do you believe?

Why do you believe them?

Do you believe that there is an objective reason for people to prefer this normative ethical position over others?

Famousdebater: What normative ethical theory/theories do you believe?

I identify as a utilitarian.

Why do you believe them?


It seems to be inclusive of a lot of other normative ethical theories and it coincides with a lot of my beliefs.

Do you believe that there is an objective reason for people to prefer this normative ethical position over others?

No. Though I do subjectively believe that it is preferable due to it's coincision with my beliefs.

Famousdebater: I identify as a utilitarian.
How do you define utilitarianism?

Bi0Hazard: The belief that moral actions are actions that promote and foster happiness.

Famousdebater: What normative ethical theory/theories do you believe?

You mean what makes things right or wrong? Well, the only standard for right and wrong is what God says. He determines what's right and what's wrong. There's no other logical standpoint.

The belief that moral actions are actions that promote and foster happiness
Don't take it personally or get hurt feelings over this, but that's a very foolish idea. I would have to wonder "whose" happiness you are talking about. Hitler was happy when he murdered Jews. Stalin was happy when he murdered millions of his own people. Thieves are happy when they steal a lot of money. Their happiness didn't make it right though.

Krazy: Hitler was happy when he murdered Jews. Stalin was happy when he murdered millions of his own people. Thieves are happy when they steal a lot of money. Their happiness didn't make it right though.

To paraphrase you: don't take this personally or get hurt feelings over this but that's a very foolish response.

The suffering of the Jews outweighs the happiness of Hitler. Utilitarianism is called the greatest happiness principle. There has been more suffering than happiness as a result of the holocaust so therefore it would still be wrong because Hitler's happiness is vastly outweighed by the suffering.

Famousdebater: The suffering of the Jews outweighs the happiness of Hitler.
Why, in your mind, is happiness higher than suffering? According to evolution, happiness is just a chemical. It's completely arbitrary to support one chemical over the other.

There has been more suffering than happiness as a result of the holocaust so therefore it would still be wrong because Hitler's happiness is vastly outweighed by the suffering.
So if the amount of suffering was equel, then that would be okay. Say, if one person suffered, and not millions. That would make it alright according to that thinking.

Krazy: Why, in your mind, is happiness higher than suffering? According to evolution, happiness is just a chemical. It's completely arbitrary to support one chemical over the other.

That's the entire point. It's a normative ethical position so it's subjective. I don't believe in any fixed, objective reason to believe it. And using evolution as an argument when you don't even support it yourself is odd.

There has been more suffering than happiness as a result of the holocaust so therefore it would still be wrong because Hitler's happiness is vastly outweighed by the suffering.

Nope. Because suffering is still not equal to happiness. Let's say the degrees of suffering go from 0 (no suffering, no happiness) to -10 (torturous suffering) and 10 (complete happiness). Depending on the level of suffering it can be justified. But anyway, rule utilitarianism states that actions such as murder and rape can never be outweighed by happiness so it doesn't really matters - those actions are always unjustified since they are considered to be such immoral actions that happiness can't outweigh them.

Famousdebater: I don't believe in any fixed, objective reason to believe it.
Well then why do you believe it?

And using evolution as an argument when you don't even support it yourself is odd
But you believe it; I'm just trying to see it from your perspective.

Nope. Because suffering is still not equal to happiness.
Why did you quote yourself and then argued against your own quote?

But anyway, rule utilitarianism states that actions such as murder and rape can never be outweighed by happiness so it doesn't really matters - those actions are always unjustified since they are considered to be such immoral actions that happiness can't outweigh them
But why do you believe they are immoral? Your saying that rape and murder are immoral so therefore happiness can't outweigh them. But you were previously saying that happiness determines morality. Which is it?

Krazy: Well then why do you believe it?

Well since I believe that all perceptions of morality are subjective (and there is no objective morality) the fact that I don't believe it for any objective reason isn't something unexpected. The reason that I believe it is that I subjectively believe that it has the best application when applied to politics and our everyday life situations.

Why did you quote yourself and then argued against your own quote?

I didn't actually argue against myself there. I reinforced the point - I was intending to argue against a point of yours but I quoted the wrong bit.

But why do you believe they are immoral? Your saying that rape and murder are immoral so therefore happiness can't outweigh them. But you were previously saying that happiness determines morality. Which is it?


I stated that I believe that when determining actions as moral we use happiness. When determining actions as immoral we have to use the opposite of happiness. The opposite of an action that promotes/fosters happiness (according a utilitarian) would be an action that promotes/fosters suffering. Happiness determines what is moral and suffering determines what is immoral - I thought that was self explanatory.

Famousdebater: Well since I believe that all perceptions of morality are subjective (and there is no objective morality)...
If there's no absolute right and wrong, then is it okay if I kill you?


I stated that I believe that when determining actions as moral we use happiness
Yes, I know, but why? You believe that happiness and depression or suffering are just chemicals. What makes one chemical structure higher than another?

Krazy: If there's no absolute right and wrong, then is it okay if I kill you?

Not by my subjective moral standards and not by the laws subjective moral standards. But no it wouldn't be intrinsically wrong.

Krazy: What makes one chemical structure higher than another?

I know that I (and the majority of people) subjectively prefer happiness to suffering, so it makes a sound and logical system of subjective morality based on this premise.

Famousdebater: But no it wouldn't be intrinsically wrong
And you believe that goes for anything, right? Nothing is intrinsically wrong, murder, rape, stealing, pedophilia, lying, etc?

I know that I (and the majority of people) subjectively prefer happiness to suffering, so it makes a sound and logical system of subjective morality based on this premise
Yeah, that didn't really answer my question. I asked you what makes one chemical structure higher than another according to evolution. The fact that you "subjectively prefer" one over the other doesn't make it higher.

Krazy: And you believe that goes for anything, right? Nothing is intrinsically wrong, murder, rape, stealing, pedophilia, lying, etc?

Subjectively, I think that it's completely wrong. Intrinsically, no.

I asked you what makes one chemical structure higher than another according to evolution.

Well like I've been saying, there is nothing objective about why I am a utilitarian. I know that most people view happiness as something that is good. And that suffering is bad since it objectively causes harm to a human (and harm is negative according to most people). So it is completely logical to state that moral actions are those that promote/foster happiness because these actions are those that most people view as good actions (including me). The same goes for suffering being bad. Neither are objectively higher than the other. But subjectively happiness is usually considered as good and suffering is usually bad.

Famousdebater: Do you believe it is moral to remove and experiment the brains(basically, kill) of 1% of the population for the benefit of the rest? If the suffering of the 1% was outweighed by the pleasure of the 99%?
If not, then wouldn't it be immoral to impose a system(a government organized in a specific way) that a number of people would not be happy with in your view?

Bi0Hazard: Do you believe it is moral to remove and experiment the brains(basically, kill) of 1% of the population for the benefit of the rest? If the suffering of the 1% was outweighed by the pleasure of the 99%?

Nope. Like I said previously in this thread, I am a rule utilitarian meaning that there are certain actions (including murder) that can never be outweighed by happiness.

If not, then wouldn't it be immoral to impose a system(a government organized in a specific way) that a number of people would not be happy with in your view?

If the majority of people in that area do not want that system of government and are unhappy as a result of it then the answer is possibly. If the vast majority of people want a new system of government and would be happier with this then it could be moral but if the new system that these people wanted would result in a net decrease in happiness then it wouldn't be moral (utilitarianism requires a lot of thinking ahead and consequence analysis).

Famousdebater: So, its okay to force a certain system of government on people even if they don't like it(if the majority want it), but not okay to kill someone for the benefit of the rest?
Imposing a system on someone against their will can be outweighed in happiness, but never with murder, right?
How are you measuring happiness(pleasure) and suffering? How do you know that any amount of happiness can never outweigh killing someone?
Is murder considered infinite suffering?

Bi0Hazard: So, its okay to force a certain system of government on people even if they don't like it(if the majority want it), but not okay to kill someone for the benefit of the rest?

If the majority want something and it'll be a net benefit for them, then yes that system of government should be introduced. And yes, it is okay to kill somebody for the benefit of the rest - though it isn't okay to murder somebody for the benefit of the rest. Murder and kill are different terms with different meanings.

Imposing a system on someone against their will can be outweighed in happiness, but never with murder, right?

Well it's better to do something good in the best interest of the majority than do something good or bad for the minority. The former is always better. And yes, murder is never allowed.

How are you measuring happiness(pleasure) and suffering? How do you know that any amount of happiness can never outweigh killing someone?

John Stuart Mill (one of the key founders of modern utilitarianism) said:

“If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

Kasmic (another utilitarian) said:

"There are epistemological limitations. This does not however eliminate the objective nature of truth. For example, a ten year old may be able to do basic arithmetic but not be able to do college algebra. Does this mean there is no truth or objective answer to algebra? Of course not! The same is true of this question."

So in the words of a utilitarian and a found of utilitarianism we can see that a utilitarian can measure happiness - even if it can involve some subjectivity in more difficult and complex cases.

To answer the second part of the question, within rule utilitarianism cases such as murder are not applied to the greatest happiness principle. It is simply a rule that cases that are considered innately immoral by utilitarians (such as murder) are always wrong. This means that you cannot be a rule utilitarian and believe that murder is okay (though very view people believe this - even within other branches of utilitarianism).

Is murder considered infinite suffering?

It can be. Though the important thing to note is that murder is simple considered as innately wrong by rule utilitarians.

Famousdebater: Name the things you believe to be innately wrong.