Ethics - What is best in life?

[kuronosan]

Yes, exactly.

[Andalusian girls]

a minor point of pedantry, Aristotle's ethics predate both stoicism and epicureanism; he did not synthesize the two. he did heavily influence the epicureans in their shared egoism (despite differing greatly on what constituted self-interest). he may have tangentially influenced the stoics in their epistemic logic, but that is a contested assertion.

substance to follow

[Andalusian girls]

to wit! i agree with the majority here, and what i strongly suspect is the majority of society, that utilitarianism forms the basis for any non-egoistic school of normative ethics. to maximize human happiness/well-being/utility, and minimize human suffering, should be the baseline of all moral activity. unfortunately it is also an incomplete code that requires both deontological termini and a resolution of competing models of well-being when the individual is placed within a broader society (with an assist from virtue ethics in defining happiness/well-being/utility).

the inadequacy of utilitarianism can be illustrated with a rudimentary model concerning the institution of slavery. say a majority of the populace in a given society of 100 individuals favors the institution and derives a certain benefit from the practice, one we arbitrarily set at +10. now the slaves themselves likely suffer a far greater negative impact, one we set at -20. anti-slavery activists in the country decry the practice but are largely immunized from its symptoms, a -5 of distaste. given utilitarianism is concerned with net utility in the aggregate we see that so long as the slave owners outnumber the slaves themselves by a 2:1 margin net utility will be 0 and the society will be morally neutral. adjust the ratio to 3/5 slave owner, 1/5 slave, 1/5 anti-slave activist, and we see a society positively beaming with utilitarianism, a net benefit of +1 utility per person (60x10 – 20x20 - 20x5 / 100). as stated the figures are entirely arbitrary, the instructive nature of the exercise is to display that an institution no modern moral figure would possibly countenance could be vindicated on the basis of utilitarianism.

in another formulation we could endorse Nazi experimentation, (or as every introductory psychology textbook will demonstrate inculcating an infant with multiple phobias and vivisecting dogs to establish the principles of classical conditioning) so long as the utilitarian benefit as a whole outweighs whatever injuries are down to the most unfortunate of individuals.

to prevent such abuses of the individual i turn to universal values, both the Biblical notion of do unto others as you would have them do unto you (though marred as it lacks the lightening note of empathy; what you want may not be what others want), and more substantively to the Kantian categorical imperative. your actions must be influenced by rationally applying your behavior to a universal extent (if i own slaves all will own slaves and so all will be slaves), and never to treat another human as a means to an end, but as an end in themselves; the antithesis of the spirit of slavery, rape, murder, burglary, assault (really most of humanity’s most troubling behaviors would be resolved by following that simple maxim).

the excesses of utilitarianism thus kept in check by one or two universal laws we turn to what well-being actually means, and its societal significance. in maximizing my own well-being i embrace happiness in its Platonic/Aristotelian sense, that excellence is the best of things and a life devoid of self-improvement is an empty life indeed (Maslow’s self-actualization by another name). i desire to be a better chess player than i was a year ago, i desire to be a better basketball player than i was a month ago, i desire intellectual advancement in all areas of interest until my physiology betrays me. i will develop both the conditional and unconditional virtues in myself, not so that i may be the most compassionate or most intelligent man in the world, things i shall never be, but simply so that at any point i may be said to be more compassionate or intelligent than i previously was. as applied to others i likewise want them to be the best possible entities they can be, whatever their given avocations or occupations, and as an aggregate utilitarian my well-being has no more significance than their own.

but who is to say my definition of well-being is superior to another’s? i have no interest in child-bearing but if another desires to establish a family and make their child a better individual than they were (while being content to stagnate on a personal level) who am i to assault their concept of utility, particularly when it comes to structuring society through government? i suppose this is at the heart of why i embrace a classically liberal approach to politics as opposed to the modern liberal basis the majority of you tote, i am uncomfortable using the aggregated powers of government to favor my version of utility at the expense of another’s, and primarily see politics as a valuable tool for safeguarding negative rights (id est the enshrinement of those universal maxims), while the heavy-lifting of synthesizing competing definitions of utility will take place in the private communicative arenas of a healthy citizenry still concerned with such matters, like this one.

[Andalusian girls]

well that went longer than anticipated

[thetruepandagod]

[Gredival]

LAYMAN HERE-

With the amount of uninhabited land in the continental US and other whoamg huge countries, what's stopping us from just populating and breeding livestock there? The entire northwest region of the US map is barely populated. 3rd world countries and islands seem fucked (especially when you take global warming into account), but if we can cram millions of people into places like NYC and feed them, what's stopping us from doing the same in the idle ass areas like the Montanas?

This is a bit back in the thread's older posts, but this is relevant to your issue:

http://secondnexus.com/ecology-and-s...e-the-world/6/

The with populating land is a lot more complex than just how we cram people places.