Utiliitarianism - doctrine of irresponsibility?

[Blowtus]

If one lived in a generally utilitarian society, where the happiness (in the broadest sense) of each and every was to be accorded the same value by all, (within the constraints imposed by the ability to know such within a time of maximal beneft) is there not a relatively complete loss of responsibility for ones own specific happiness? 'Virtue' would consist in some sense of learning to enjoy the same satisfactions as others. One could choose to live a life without virtue, and the responsibility for ones happiness falls on the rest of society. So we seem to have both an encouragement of herd and victim mentality - in striking contrast to existentialism when I look at it this way, thus little wonder I guess why I felt it so wrong without understanding why for quite some time...

Does anyone have or has anyone read similar response to utilitarianism, or any defence from such response?

[Silver Incubus]

I think its a noble Ideal with good intentions, and can do some good but ultimately it fails to really do anything but harm and decay as we are seeing now. Without hardships how would anyone really learn or be motivated to do anything?

[WeAreTheLastMen]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

is there not a relatively complete loss of responsibility for ones own specific happiness?

responsibility for one's happiness? could you explain? because the idea that we have an "responsibility" to be happy seems ridiculous. I'm missing something here. Help me out.

[Cipher]

Dependency always creates moral hazard for one not to take care of one's own business. Such utilitarianism if enforced would be tantamount to slavery, and I for one will resist it to the death.

[razoredge]

communism was good in theory too, so was socialist, so was democracy, so was capitolism

its all a matter of how much faith you have in humans.... me ? .... 0%

I was extremely happy once and it took alot of work for not much monetary reward, but the internal reward was great, damndest thing was loss of that made me extremely unhappy, now I wish I never knew.

[Blowtus]

Originally Posted by WeAreTheLastMen

responsibility for one's happiness? could you explain? because the idea that we have an "responsibility" to be happy seems ridiculous. I'm missing something here. Help me out.

Only in that one could rely on others for it, not that one necessarily has a 'duty' to provide it for oneself. I find the view that we are responsible for our own state of affairs the only worthwhile explanation... if it is otherwise then even so, there is no use in *thinking* it otherwise, far as I can see.

edit: yeah, using a different sense of 'responsibility' in the thread title to that of another current thread probably wasn't ideal...

[Seditious]

I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread a little...

last year I was debating with a vegan who establishes his veganism on Utilitarianism. He made a claim which seemed to me simply deceptive, and I'm wondering what others who might know a little more about Utilitarianism than me know about it. (I consider it a pathetic and failed theory, so I haven't exactly followed its proponents)

He said that modern Utilitarians have done away with the 'two' criterion for good - 'greatest good' for 'greatest number'. But his statements revealed to my mind that he has merely couched his bias of 'good' inside the claim, and whenever someone presents the The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas example (one little girl suffers as a means to all the good things the Omelas enjoy) he just asserts 'one person suffering is always worse than any benefit to come from it' or 'one death is...' or whatever. When something he doesn't like is good for the greatest number, he says 'no, it's not reallllly good for the greatest number, because to me the suffering of one person as a means is not good for them'... so he's really just pretending that the two criterion don't exist.

does anyone think his claim to a single criterion is valid?

is this what Utilitarianism is asserted to be these days, but have I/he mischaracterized how that functions?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

is there not a relatively complete loss of responsibility for ones own specific happiness?

lol, interesting thought.
others have a duty to make sure I'm happy, in their pursuit to make the greatest happiness for the greatest number...why should I do anything? It's the welfare state problem--will you put me in jail for not contributing to the greatest good of the greatest number if I'm not being a criminal? will you let me starve to death? if not, should I bother working hard to make millions that will just be distributed to others to have their basic goods?
It's kinda like the same problem of communism where it really relies on a population of people who really believe in it and want to maintain it, rather than happily exploit it.

Originally Posted by Blowtus

Does anyone have or has anyone read similar response to utilitarianism, or any defence from such response?

naa, to be honest, this is a new and intrigueing perspective to me. I've always heard it faulted on logical grounds, and mocked it myself for its arbitrariness, but not heard 'stipulate it in existence, what are the consequences of this prima facie noble theory?' thoughts.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

Only in that one could rely on others for it, not that one necessarily has a 'duty' to provide it for oneself. I find the view that we are responsible for our own state of affairs the only worthwhile explanation...

Indeed.
Myself, I take 'our' (society's) responsibility to the affairs of others to exist only in the hypothetical sense spoken of in earlier threads---if you don't want people stealing and chopping your car for money, perhaps you should have a welfare scheme to dilute their desperation and hopefully make them complacent with mere poverty. No compassion/paternalism/etc. required. If people would just politely and quietly kill themselves when not maintaining a satisfactory state of affairs for themselves we wouldn't have any 'responsibility for their wellbeing' to be spoken of at all.

[Cipher]

The only responsibility individuals have to one another is not to initiate force or theft, barring that, we owe nothing. As for petty thievery, that is what handguns are for: when the paupers cannot keep their hands off the fruits of others' labour. If they cannot get their act together, that is their problem, not ours.

There is no responsibility for the affairs of others unless one decides to make it as such, the operative word being 'decide', whether as an individual or lumped together as a society. Call me irresponsible, but methinks this whole 'social responsiblity' thing is socialism in disguise.