My main issue here is a linguistic one. I’ve considered myself a utilitarian for years. I’ve never seen anything like this UC, though I think I agree with it, and with a stronger version of premise 4 that does insist on something like a mapping to the real numbers. You are essentially constructing an ethical theory, which very intentionally insists that there is no amount good that can offset certain bads, and trying to shove it under the label “utilitarian”. Why? What is your motivation? I don’t get that. We already have a label for such ethical theories, deontology. The usefulness of having the label “utilitarian” is precisely to pick out those ethical theories that do at least in principle allow offsetting any bad with a sufficient good. That is a very central question on which people’s ethical intuitions and judgments differ, and which this language of utilitarianism and deontology has been created to describe. This is where one of realities joints is.
For myself, I do not share your view that some bads cannot be offset. When you talk of 70 years of the worst suffering in exchange for extreme happiness until the heat death of the universe, I would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. There is no part of me that questions whether that is a worthwhile trade. I cannot connect with your stated rejection of it. And I want to have labels like “utiliarian” and “effective altruist” to allow me to find and cooperate with others who are like me in this regard. Your attempt to get your view under these labels seems both destructive of my ability to do that, and likely unproductive for you as well. Why don’t you want to just use other more natural labels like “deontology” to find and cooperate with others like you?
I disagree but think I know what you’re getting at and am sympathetic. I made the following to try to illustrate and might add it in to the post if it seems clarifying
I made it on a whim just now without thinking too hard so don’t necessarily consider the graphical representation on as solid footing as the stuff in the post
I take it “any bad can be offset by a sufficient good” is what you are thinking of as being in the yellow circle implications. And my view is that it is actually red circle. It might actually be how I would define utilitarianism, rather than your UC.
What I am still really curious about is your motivation. Why do you even want to call yourself a utilitarian or an effective altruist or something? If you are so committed to the idea that some bads cannot be offset, then why don’t you just want to call yourself a deontologist? I come to EA precisely to find a place where I can do moral reasoning and have moral conversations with other spreadsheet people, without running into this “some bads cannot be offset” stuff.
My main issue here is a linguistic one. I’ve considered myself a utilitarian for years. I’ve never seen anything like this UC, though I think I agree with it, and with a stronger version of premise 4 that does insist on something like a mapping to the real numbers. You are essentially constructing an ethical theory, which very intentionally insists that there is no amount good that can offset certain bads, and trying to shove it under the label “utilitarian”. Why? What is your motivation? I don’t get that. We already have a label for such ethical theories, deontology. The usefulness of having the label “utilitarian” is precisely to pick out those ethical theories that do at least in principle allow offsetting any bad with a sufficient good. That is a very central question on which people’s ethical intuitions and judgments differ, and which this language of utilitarianism and deontology has been created to describe. This is where one of realities joints is.
For myself, I do not share your view that some bads cannot be offset. When you talk of 70 years of the worst suffering in exchange for extreme happiness until the heat death of the universe, I would jump on that deal in a heartbeat. There is no part of me that questions whether that is a worthwhile trade. I cannot connect with your stated rejection of it. And I want to have labels like “utiliarian” and “effective altruist” to allow me to find and cooperate with others who are like me in this regard. Your attempt to get your view under these labels seems both destructive of my ability to do that, and likely unproductive for you as well. Why don’t you want to just use other more natural labels like “deontology” to find and cooperate with others like you?
This isn’t deontology, it’s lexical-threshold negative utilitarianism.
https://reducing-suffering.org/three-types-of-negative-utilitarianism/
I disagree but think I know what you’re getting at and am sympathetic. I made the following to try to illustrate and might add it in to the post if it seems clarifying
I made it on a whim just now without thinking too hard so don’t necessarily consider the graphical representation on as solid footing as the stuff in the post
I take it “any bad can be offset by a sufficient good” is what you are thinking of as being in the yellow circle implications. And my view is that it is actually red circle. It might actually be how I would define utilitarianism, rather than your UC.
What I am still really curious about is your motivation. Why do you even want to call yourself a utilitarian or an effective altruist or something? If you are so committed to the idea that some bads cannot be offset, then why don’t you just want to call yourself a deontologist? I come to EA precisely to find a place where I can do moral reasoning and have moral conversations with other spreadsheet people, without running into this “some bads cannot be offset” stuff.