With the topic of utilitarianism (consequence-concerned ethic) vs. deontology (strict rule- concerned ethic), I think there are primarily two common flawed objections to utilitarianism.
One has more to do with false threat detection, i.e where someone believes in their particular moral rule, but they fail to see that they only believe in that rule, because there is already an underlying goal of wanting to achieve better consequences (i.e suffering reduction).
Our goal is always suffering avoidance, but they fail to detect that this is the underlying motivation of their action and believe there’s something else to life, e.g. the American flag causes a reduction of suffering from loneliness in someone, eliciting feelings of patriotism and group membership, rather than to acknowledge that the real good is the elevation of their sensation state, the person now comes to the conclusion that the American flag is the good.
Now, they get more upset about it being burned than they would get upset about a fully sentient chimpanzee being burned alive, this is delusional behavior, they fail to acknowledge the value is in elevation of their sensation, from one negative to less negative, not in the flag itself.
For example, a delusional religious terrorist might say he cares more about following god’s orders than reducing suffering, that’d be an example of deontological rule rather than consequentialism.
But the point is that if you dig deep enough, chances are you’ll find that he only cares about following god’s orders because he believes it’ll be conducive to reducing suffering, i.e if I do the terrorist attack, I’ll go to heaven, if I don’t kill the faggots, they’ll infest society with their AIDS and rape everyone, so he’s a not a real deontologist, there is no real deontologist, so to speak, we are always just trying to run away from suffering.
Authoritarians and libertarians both have the same goal I could argue, authoritarians believe that society must be ordered to not become too chaotic, then ultimately lead to more suffering, libertarians want to maximize freedom because being locked in a cage causes suffering, that’s the same goal, they just have different ideas about what will achieve that goal.
Even if they proclaim to know what they are supporting is not conducive to reducing suffering, but it feels ”just wrong” to not do x, then following their ethic is still an attempt of suffering avoidance, feeling ”just wrong” is in and of itself also a form of suffering, which they are trying to correct for by doing what intuitively feels ”just right”.
- But then there’s also the more egotistical, though delusional type of argumentation.
This is when someone openly declares that they only care about themselves, suffering in others is irrelevant. What is vital here is to find out why they ultimately try to avoid suffering, and then you can demonstrate an inconsistency in that type of thought pattern.
If suffering were only a problem because it happened to you in particular, then obviously you would also try to avoid pleasure, like getting an orgasm, because it’s in the same category logically speaking, i.e ”things that happen to you”. So if suffering is only a problem by virtue of happening to you, pleasure is equally a problem, because it also happens to you.
The fact of the matter is, you put your experience of suffering into the category ”worth preventing” based on something innate to those sensations, it’s a negative sensation, it does not make you feel better, that is why you try to avoid it, not because it happens to you in particular, you don’t try to avoid orgasms just because they happen to you in particular, so obviously that indicates strongly that it is about something more than it just happening to you.
If:
P1 – Suffering is worth preventing for you because it feels bad.
P2 – Suffering in other organisms also feels bad.
C – Suffering in other organisms is just as worth preventing.
Whereas if:
P1 – Suffering is only worth preventing because it happens to you in particular.
P2 – Pleasure also happens to you in particular, e.g. orgasms.
C – Pleasure and suffering are both equally worth preventing.
You put suffering into the ”worth preventing” category because of something innate to suffering, i.e because it feels bad, if you just avoided it because it happened to you, you would try to avoid pleasurable sensations just as much.
If suffering in meat suit A is worth preventing because it feels bad, then so is suffering in meat suit B worth preventing because it also feels just as bad, if suffering in meat suit A is only worth preventing because it happens in meat suit A, then so is pleasure in meat suit A also worth preventing because it happens in meat suit A.
- Here we can use many different metaphors to demonstrate this point, let’s use watering plants, bringing out the trash and cleaning toilets.
If water from water bucket A should be used to water plants because it’s water, then so is water from water bucket B fair to use for watering plants because it’s also water, if water from water bucket A should only be used to water plants because it’s in water bucket A, then so would you be obligated to use battery acid to water plants if it were in water bucket A, but you wouldn’t, because it’s about the content of the water bucket, not in which water bucket it is located.
If trash in trashbin A should be disposed of because it’s trash, then so should trash in trashbin B be disposed of because it’s also trash, if trash from trashbin A should only be disposed of because it sits in trashbin A, then so would you dispose of gold if you found it in trashbin A, but you wouldn’t, because it’s about the content of the trashbin, not the trashbin in which it is sitting on.
If you’re a toilet cleaner and shit in toilet A is worth flushing down because it’s shit, then so is shit in toilet B worth flushing down because it’s also shit, if shit in toilet A is only worth flushing down because it sits in toilet A, then so would you flush your credit card down toilet A if it were to fall into toilet A, but you wouldn’t, because it’s about the content of the toilet, the shit, not the toilet in which it is sitting in.
So we can do the same thing here as with any other scenario where someone says they value their particular rule over suffering, e.g. if they say breaking the law is wrong, ask if breaking the law would be wrong if it only lead to better consequences and never caused any suffering, in order to demonstrate that it’s not the breaking of the law itself that is bad, but suffering.
Same can be done here, if the egotistical psychopath would propose the rule ”suffering is bad if it happened to me, that’s why suffering is worth avoiding”, ask if pleasure is also worth avoiding by virtue of happening to them, obviously they don’t avoid sensations just because they happen to them, there is a clear subliminal understanding on their part that it’s suffering that is worth preventing, not every sensation that they experience is equally deemed worth avoiding – you avoid suffering, you seek pleasure, the relief of your suffering.
You are just one of many sensation containing toilets, if suffering is worth being flushed out of you because it’s something innate to suffering, how it feels that makes it worth being flushed away, rather than the fact that it happens to you, then obviously it is just as worth flushing away for everyone else, just like it’s about the content of the toilet, the shit.
If you shit in your toilet, and you say that is worth flushing down because it’s shit, then yes, obviously the obligation is just as loud and clear when it comes to any other toilet, shit in a different toilet still is shit, so the right thing to do here is to push the button as well, even if it’s a little more work, this is the obligation that logically follows.
Otherwise, you’re being contradictory, i.e shit is worth flushing down because it’s shit, but not in this toilet, suffering is worth preventing because it’s suffering, but not in this meat suit. That’s the wrongness, the falseness in that behavior, the different treatment of the same property.
Of course you’re biased towards yourself, you cannot directly experience someone else’s experience, only improve in your understanding that it is not in any way substantially different from your’s.
Different objects may cause different sensation states in different subjects, but the sensation is the same ultimately, i.e in you negative sensation might be caused by almonds, if you have an almond allergy, but in someone else it might be caused by peanuts, if they have a peanut allergy, but is the feeling really different?
No, you simply are able to notice your experience of suffering much more than anyone other particular organism’s experience of suffering, but ultimately the sensations are the exact same, if I save a cockroach from being stepped on, that’s as good as preventing my finger from being stepped on, if I save someone else from drowning, that’s as good as saving myself from drowning.
Take an example you are more disconnected from to see the absurdity to see value in preventing only your suffering, not suffering in general.
Let’s say we have two bugs, bug A and bug B, one of the two has to be squashed in order to prevent the entirety of all other organisms on planet earth from going to hell and being tormented for all eternity, squash bug A or bug B, the harm experienced by either will be the exact same, they have the same suffering capacity.
Which should you squash and what would be the rationale for favoring one bug over the other? You could say if we squash bug A it’s different because bug A will personally feel it, but if we squash bug B then bug B will personally feel it. True, but the feeling is exactly the same, so all you can really do is flip a coin here.
Let’s make it even more similar, let’s say we make an exact clone of you, exactly the same appearance and thought patterns, and we have to sacrifice one to prevent us all from going to hell and being tormented for all eternity. What’s the right answer here, should we take the clone because otherwise you’ll personally feel the suffering? Great, but then the clone will personally feel the suffering, and the suffering is the same – so what’s the difference?
You put yourself into the category ”worthy of protection from chainsaw in my anus” based on the characteristic ”sentience/consciousness”, so if you discover the existence of other sentient organisms around you that are obviously also in the same category of being sentient/conscious, they have to be put into the same category of ”worthy of protection from chainsaw in anus”, otherwise there is an error happening, it is false, a correctly functioning machine would now try to prevent as many chainsaws from going into anuses as possible.
In general, some idiots seem to believe that these types of excuses of just saying ”I’m selfish” are somehow more consistent and rational, they think they can just say ”I don’t care” in any ethical debate, and that means they are not contradicting themselves.
- ”I don’t care” is still a non-consistent philosophy and way of viewing reality.
If someone told you they were going to break into your house and rape you at knifepoint later on, and you then called the police, and the person then said ”but, I don’t care”, would you then abstain from calling the police, because if the perpetrator doesn’t care, you somehow wouldn’t care either?
It doesn’t matter if the perpetrator doesn’t care, their non-caring would still not deplete your caring about what will happen to you. So if you on the other hand, when you are in the position of the perpetrator, expect your victims to stop caring on the basis that you don’t care, you are contradicting yourself, because if you were in the position of the victim, the non-caring of the perpetrator would not deplete your caring either, you’d still want to be cared for even if no one else cared.
So if you say some stupid shit like ”pigs are gassed for bacon, whatever, I don’t care”, then you also have to accept being gassed for bacon as long as society said ”we don’t care”, but you wouldn’t, because again, deep down you recognize suffering itself to be the problem, deep down you argee that sentience/consciousness is the characteristic that demands care, if you can correct a negative condition, it’s good to do so, regardless of where it’s happening.
Saving your clone from being squashed is just as good as saving yourself from being squashed, and in terms of the property consciousness, we are all clones performing the same function, experiencing discomfort and comfort.
Counterintuitive conclusions 