According to utilitarianism as “the greatest good for the greatest number,” absolutely, you should take actions that maximize the well-being of all.
The terminology is mildly confusing here because we often use “utilitarianism” to refer to any sort of consistent consequentialism, and consequentialism can be selfish. But classic utilitarianism is very much altruistic.
How often are you in situations where you have two choices: option A gives you 1000000 units of happiness, and option B gives everyone on this planet 1 unit of happiness?
According to utilitarianism, I guess it would be better to choose B, but I think that in real life 99.9% of people never face the choice B, because for most of us, our actions simply don’t influence the whole planet. -- Perhaps if Bill Gates decided to make Microsoft Windows an open-source software, that would be an example of an action likely to benefit billions of people, at his own expense. Assuming that this choice would only cost him, say $1000000, I guess it would be an ethical thing to do.
In real life, most people on this planet will be in completely the same situation regardless of what I do.
How often are you in situations where you have two choices: option A gives you 1000000 units of happiness, and option B gives everyone on this planet 1 unit of happiness?
Probably rarely. But you and I are in a position where someone, somewhere, would get more units of happiness from our efforts than we would. You could be working night and day, without let up, to feed the hungry, to vaccinate the unprotected, to shelter the exposed,..
That is your lot in life, under the Utilitarian God. That is the debt you owe. And if you don’t pay it, day after day after day without let, without any hope of relief, you’re evil in his eyes, as you are in your own, as long as you choose to worship him and are consistent in your mind about the debt of servitude you owe.
Trying to maximize ethical behavior under utilitarianism would probably mean getting as much money as you can, and giving almost all (as much as you can, to remain able to do your job) to the most efficient charity. You can spend money on yourself only as much as is necessary to keep the process running; same about free time.
You are correct about the de facto servitude. No excuse for luxuries while someone else is suffering. (Except if you could show that enjoying the luxury increases your productivity enough to balance the spending.)
How often are you in situations where you have two choices: option A gives you 1000000 units of happiness, and option B gives everyone on this planet 1 unit of happiness?
You refrain from buying something, keeping its market price ever-so-slightly lower than if you bought it, and allowing a bunch of people on the margin to afford it who otherwise couldn’t?
(I am not an economist, so there might be something wrong with this.)
I think that’s a fallacy; humans aren’t good at adding up large numbers of small utilities. But by your logic e.g. the “salami-slice fraud” (stealing 0.1 cent from everyone on the planet) would be ethical—it increases your own happiness, and has no effect on everyone else.
If it really had absolutely no effect, then I guess our moral duty would be to steal that money and give it to efficient charity.
Just because humans are not good at observing something, that does not mean it doesn’t exist. Sure, in real life, the effects of losing 0.1 cent are invisible to humans, and probably the observation itself would be more costly than the 0.1 cent. But do it repeatedly, and the effects start being observable. Also, there is a problem of transaction costs.
Rational utilitarianism means maximizing your own expected utility. (Technically from the gene’s perspective; so caring for your children is selfish.) Social contracts (voting, laws against killing, etc) are just the game theoretical result of everyone acting selfishly.
According to utilitarianism as “the greatest good for the greatest number,” absolutely, you should take actions that maximize the well-being of all.
The terminology is mildly confusing here because we often use “utilitarianism” to refer to any sort of consistent consequentialism, and consequentialism can be selfish. But classic utilitarianism is very much altruistic.
Altruistic in that others count equally. Your happiness etc still counts.
As much as 7 billion other people in your calculations. 1/7billion—not very much.
Each of those 7 billion will be at 7e-9 equivalently; regardless of how much it is in comparison to the sum of all of them, each value is equal.
Didn’t I say that?
That’s quite an important point to gloss over. You’re “allowed” to cater to yourself 1 part in 7 billion.
How often are you in situations where you have two choices: option A gives you 1000000 units of happiness, and option B gives everyone on this planet 1 unit of happiness?
According to utilitarianism, I guess it would be better to choose B, but I think that in real life 99.9% of people never face the choice B, because for most of us, our actions simply don’t influence the whole planet. -- Perhaps if Bill Gates decided to make Microsoft Windows an open-source software, that would be an example of an action likely to benefit billions of people, at his own expense. Assuming that this choice would only cost him, say $1000000, I guess it would be an ethical thing to do.
In real life, most people on this planet will be in completely the same situation regardless of what I do.
Probably rarely. But you and I are in a position where someone, somewhere, would get more units of happiness from our efforts than we would. You could be working night and day, without let up, to feed the hungry, to vaccinate the unprotected, to shelter the exposed,..
That is your lot in life, under the Utilitarian God. That is the debt you owe. And if you don’t pay it, day after day after day without let, without any hope of relief, you’re evil in his eyes, as you are in your own, as long as you choose to worship him and are consistent in your mind about the debt of servitude you owe.
Trying to maximize ethical behavior under utilitarianism would probably mean getting as much money as you can, and giving almost all (as much as you can, to remain able to do your job) to the most efficient charity. You can spend money on yourself only as much as is necessary to keep the process running; same about free time.
You are correct about the de facto servitude. No excuse for luxuries while someone else is suffering. (Except if you could show that enjoying the luxury increases your productivity enough to balance the spending.)
You refrain from buying something, keeping its market price ever-so-slightly lower than if you bought it, and allowing a bunch of people on the margin to afford it who otherwise couldn’t?
(I am not an economist, so there might be something wrong with this.)
I think that’s a fallacy; humans aren’t good at adding up large numbers of small utilities. But by your logic e.g. the “salami-slice fraud” (stealing 0.1 cent from everyone on the planet) would be ethical—it increases your own happiness, and has no effect on everyone else.
If it really had absolutely no effect, then I guess our moral duty would be to steal that money and give it to efficient charity.
Just because humans are not good at observing something, that does not mean it doesn’t exist. Sure, in real life, the effects of losing 0.1 cent are invisible to humans, and probably the observation itself would be more costly than the 0.1 cent. But do it repeatedly, and the effects start being observable. Also, there is a problem of transaction costs.
Rational utilitarianism means maximizing your own expected utility. (Technically from the gene’s perspective; so caring for your children is selfish.) Social contracts (voting, laws against killing, etc) are just the game theoretical result of everyone acting selfishly.
It’s about selfishness not altruism.