What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[Vinyadan]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/106

[Dr.Zero]

Well, if Bob wants to falsify an ethical theory he has his work cut out for him. Challenge accepted, though.

I suppose Bob would first have to prove that there is some objective ethical meaning to the universe and/or the human race.

Then he would have to prove that this objective ethical meaning was not, in fact, human happiness.

I'd suggest that Bob should try to discover God and have a chat with him about the above two points.

I'd suggest that Bob should try to discover God and have a chat with him about the above two points.
Then I suppose he'd have to prove that God actually had legitimate ethical control over the universe. I'm not entirely clear how Bob would go about accomplishing this step. But if he can then he's probably managed to falsify Utilitarianism.

If it's not clear by now, this isn't how ethical theories work. It's an inherently subjective discipline.

Sorry, but the existence of some function defining the max utility (ethically or not, but I hope there is some ethic involved) is not the basis of utilitarianism? Why should Bob, of all people, prove the existence of it?

Mind you, Bob might not be someone who wants to show utilitarianism is just empty words for the sake of it (like me), but he might be the one asked to sacrifice himself.

So, let us try to see the dialogue between Bob and the utlitarian asking him to be a victim of a sacrifice.

U: Good morning, Bob, I'm very proud to inform you that you must sacrifice yourself, for the sake of humanity.

Bob: Oh my. This really ruin my daily agenda. May I check how you come to this result, please?

U: Well, actually it comes as result of a function which maximizes utility, which no one knows, no one is able to define. And probably that will never will be defined, since it is supposed to order on a straight 1-dimensional line, some multidimensional variables.
Variables which, I dare to add, we don't even know exactly how many are, what ones are, and how important we should consider them respect to each other.

Bob: It doesn't seem to me a particularly sound method to decide that someone must be sacrificed...

U: Well, between you and me, we tend to play this stuff by ear a lot. You know, it's all subjective, after all.

Bob: Oh, great then! My subjectivity then says that I must not sacrifice myself. Have a nice day!

U: No, no wait. It doesn't work this way. It can be subjective when we make the choice, but if you want to invalidate our choice you must prove that there is an ethical God who doesn't agree with us.

Bob: I wonder how you can say all this stuff with a straight face.

U: I needed a lot of practice, actually.



Jokes aside, I want to point out again that the inability to give formulas, to create experiments, to measure, to test, basically the ability to verify (or falsify) the theory makes this a religious belief.

Since Popper.

I hope for something a bit more sound and a bit more worked out to decide if someone must be sacrificed or not.

[Cazero]

Sorry, but the existence of some function defining the max utility (ethically or not, but I hope there is some ethic involved) is not the basis of utilitarianism?

The basis of utilitarianism is that we ought to maximise utility. That basis is pretty much impossible to counter and the only reason the idea has value at all.
Because frankly, the idea that we can use utilitarianism at all is pretty laughable. We can't define or measure utlity properly, so maximising it is impossible.

[Dr.Zero]

To be completely honest, in my opinion that isn’t that inaccurate of a depiction of what Utiltarianism is. A lot of it is taken out of context and this is a blatant mockery of the subject, but aside form that noting you said is technically wrong (aside from the last sentence maybe). It is highly subjective though even if it is not inherently incorrect, and a very unreliable way to define it at best.

i would elaborate more on the religion subject, but forum rules.

I prefer to consider my dialogues humorous and ironic, maybe sarcastic, more than mocking. But I admit that it might sound like that too. The line between irony and mocking is quite fuzzy, sometimes.

The basis of utilitarianism is that we ought to maximise utility. That basis is pretty much impossible to counter and the only reason the idea has value at all.
Because frankly, the idea that we can use utilitarianism at all is pretty laughable. We can't define or measure utlity properly, so maximising it is impossible.

The sad point is that I'm sure all the ones who defend it in this thread think of it remembering fondly mr. Spock and his heroic sacrifice or have something similar in mind.

In real life, instead, some people -specially in a specific field which I don't want to name, because I don't know if naming it is against the forum rules (and no, it isn't religion)- have already defined quite well their utility function when they must sacrifice something or someone: "I nominate you, on the account of you not being me."

As The_weirdo experience shows so well.

And in my opinion it should be avoided to make it sound, even only hypothetically, their attitude right.

Edit: Oh, I forgot: this all to say that dwarwen traditions suck!

[The_Weirdo]

As The_weirdo experience shows so well.

To be sure, it seems like my experience isn't an example of utilitarianism per se and that I was wrong in thinking it were (not that that fact would improve my view of any mostly Lawful belief, utilitarianism included, what with me associating that very trauma with a Lawful belief system; I'm way past that).

[Fyraltari]

Barring some scenario where E convinces everybody to his way of thinking, E either needs to suck it up and live with what the group has decided, or accept an antagonistic relationship where the others give him nothing at all and he lives (or not) at their mercy. Might may not make right, but it does make authority. Its not the disagreement that removes you from society, its the unwillingness to abide by it in spite of your disagreement.

AH, so morality is not decided by an unanimous decision but by a majority agreement?
So Should A, B, C, and D decide it is right to beat E up whenever they so choose and he disagrees it is still right and moral? I mean he does not agree with the majority so clearly he is refusing to take part in their society and is being disruptive.

Let me get this straight. There is not equality -like an offer which puts them on the same level- between {A,B,C,D} and E?
Well, what happens is that {A,B,C,D} have decided to create a nation of their own, where they are equals and E is excluded.

Sure there is, both proposals were to put everyone on equal footing. At which point did A,B,C and D becomea group E was not part of? Were they not debating the morality of the society they were building?

So more or less what Keltest replied to this: they use their strength to abuse someone else.

But this has nothing to do with the previous example: Psycho1 has been offered and equal place in the agreement.

Finally, please, notice that E refusing the proposal of {A,B,C,D} doesn't create the same situation that got Psycho1 logically screwed: they cannot say: "Then we agree with you and, according to what you wanted (absence of a rule against killing), now we kill you."

Of course it has not: your example was chosen specifically because someone objecting to the particuliar rule would mean he could be removed from discussion, which appears to me as a gaping flaw.

I would also like to point out that by calling two of your hypothetical partners "Psycho" you yourself already passed a moral judgment on them.

My main issue with your thesis is that if morality comes from an agreement then absolutely everything could be moral: child murder, forced marriage, war, high prices on cheese even

[Keltest]

AH, so morality is not decided by an unanimous decision but by a majority agreement?
So Should A, B, C, and D decide it is right to beat E up whenever they so choose and he disagrees it is still right and moral? I mean he does not agree with the majority so clearly he is refusing to take part in their society and is being disruptive.

I specifically said that might doesn't make right. physical and societal authority/power are different from moral authority/power. Many societies try and have both, but it isn't an intrinsic function of society.

[Fyraltari]

I specifically said that might doesn't make right. physical and societal authority/power are different from moral authority/power. Many societies try and have both, but it isn't an intrinsic function of society.

So is morality decided by an agreement or is it not?

[Keltest]

So is morality decided by an agreement or is it not?

It is, but a separate agreement than the rules overseeing what people are or are not allowed to do. Saying "its bad to do this" is different from saying "you cannot do this by threat of force". And it doesn't need to be a universal agreement in either case, that's just not plausible across an entire society.

[Fyraltari]

It is, but a separate agreement than the rules overseeing what people are or are not allowed to do. Saying "its bad to do this" is different from saying "you cannot do this by threat of force". And it doesn't need to be a universal agreement in either case, that's just not plausible across an entire society.

I did not say anything about forcing anyone to do anything by threat of force.

[Keltest]

I did not say anything about forcing anyone to do anything by threat of force.

Yes you did. Your example was A, B, C and D beating up E because they were a majority and he couldn't stop them, and you asked if that was then moral because it was a majority decision.

[Fyraltari]

Yes you did. Your example was A, B, C and D beating up E because they were a majority and he couldn't stop them, and you asked if that was then moral because it was a majority decision.

No my example was A, B, C and D agreeing it was right for them to beat E up. Never said he could not stop them, never said they came to that decision because they were a majority, never said they would do it as a group.
All I said is that A, B, C and D happen to be of the same opinion on "Is beating E up right?" and E is not.
Which means, if morality is only something that the majority agrees on, that it is , indeed, right for anyone on the island to hit E in the face whenever they fancy.

And I do ask, is it moral for them to then beat him up?

If your answer is "no", then that means you agree that morality is not simply a matter of a majority agreeing, that a majority can be morally wrong.

[The_Weirdo]

high prices on cheese even

Well, you are French...

[Keltest]

No my example was A, B, C and D agreeing it was right for them to beat E up. Never said he could not stop them, never said they came to that decision because they were a majority, never said they would do it as a group.
All I said is that A, B, C and D happen to be of the same opinion on "Is beating E up right?" and E is not.
Which means, if morality is only something that the majority agrees on, that it is , indeed, right for anyone on the island to hit E in the face whenever they fancy.

And I do ask, is it moral for them to then beat him up?

If your answer is "no", then that means you agree that morality is not simply a matter of a majority agreeing, that a majority can be morally wrong.

But that's not what youre asking me. Youre asking me what my stance on the morality of the action is. If those five people are the only people in the world, then yes, I guess their definition of morality allows for it, but that's rather tautological. "if they decide their morality allows for beating up E, then their morality allows for beating up E".

[Dr.Zero]

AH, so morality is not decided by an unanimous decision but by a majority agreement?
So Should A, B, C, and D decide it is right to beat E up whenever they so choose and he disagrees it is still right and moral? I mean he does not agree with the majority so clearly he is refusing to take part in their society and is being disruptive.

Sure there is, both proposals were to put everyone on equal footing. At which point did A,B,C and D becomea group E was not part of? Were they not debating the morality of the society they were building?

This is not what I mean with equality and fairness.
Equality mostly uses universal quantifiers (ie: "whoever", "any", in logic there is a specific symbol for that: ∀) and existential ones, negated (ie: "no one").

Your example force inequality from the start because, from the start, it names specifically categories ("A,B,C,D get this, E gets that").

Of course it has not: your example was chosen specifically because someone objecting to the particuliar rule would mean he could be removed from discussion, which appears to me as a gaping flaw.

No, my example wasn't actually chosen.
It came to my mind that, as consequence of mutual agreements, murderers can be killed and I found it quite karmic. And funny, someway.
Again, I want to insist pointing out that Psycho1 wasn't "removed" from the discussion.
He didn't want a "no one can be killed" rule and the others agreed with him.
What happened from there (ie: since people could be killed, they decided he was a valid target to be killed, and they created a subset where, between them, the "thou shalt no kill" rule was valid) has nothing to do with the rules.

I would also like to point out that by calling two of your hypothetical partners "Psycho" you yourself already passed a moral judgment on them.

Of course!
I even thought to call one of them Belkar.
But humor me, because even if I called him X it wouldn't change a thing regarding the reasoning.
Psycho1 was just a better mnemonic name.

My main issue with your thesis is that if morality comes from an agreement then absolutely everything could be moral: child murder, forced marriage, war, high prices on cheese even

Well, to take the simplest example you asked about: if all the people agrees to be forced in a marriage (can people agree to be forced?? It sounds as a society very prone to kinky roleplay to me ), why should I argue against what they want?

The other examples, can you translates them in sentences using as actors and targets only things like "all", "whoever", "each other" and so on?

The war example seems like it can be translated in: "We agree that whoever can gang up with any other against anyone".
It doesn't seem like a society destined to live too long, but again, if they all agree, who am I to argue?

Edited to correct the quotes.

[Jasdoif]

But that's not what youre asking me. Youre asking me what my stance on the morality of the action is. If those five people are the only people in the world, then yes, I guess their definition of morality allows for it, but that's rather tautological. "if they decide their morality allows for beating up E, then their morality allows for beating up E".

I think it'd be more precise to say that A, B, C, and D have moral systems that allowed for them agreeing to beat up E; irrespective of E's or K(eltest)'s moral systems.

[2D8HP]

Very interesting thread!

Ethics, marriage customs, history, political philosophy....hot damn!

...I just saw someone post a "what race would you want to be in OotS" thread that opens with "dwarves" and all I could think is "only someone that hasn't though through the implications of being a dwarf in OotS could possibly want to be one". .....

.
That was my
Which to be? Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Humans, or Orcs?
thread.

Dwarves were first simply because of alphabetical order, if I included Dragons they would be first.

Yes, well. It's the most useful thing for the school, no?...

Who the hell ran that school? Dr Harleen Quinzel?....

....But you know what the craziest part is? I doubt I'm that special. There likely are some thousands of cases just like mine, everywhere....

.
I don't know about today, but 40 years ago @The_Weirdo's school experience wasn't unique, nor were they a hundred years ago:

Such Were the Joys by Eric Blair/George Orwell

What, this chrome plated dipstick that I'm using isn't reliable?

.
It's only reliable on level ground and at the proper temperature.

[Dr.Zero]

Anyway, if on an argument they don't find a mutual agreement, they don't find it.
BUT!
Being ethically justified to kill the ones who disagree on an agreement is not implied in the system (that was a mostly unique 'feature' of the agreement itself being on killing).

What happens if a group can't find a mutual agreement?
They break up, they fight, they do all the other stuff which they do when they disagree on morality.
The mutual agreement, in my mind, was supposed to give an example where "Might makes right" is not a necessity.
But if in the group itself there are people who think that "Might makes right" should be the final rule valid between them, and they don't want to accept an agreement where they don't get the lion's share, then nothing can be done about it.
They will fight, kill each other, but they are not justified by a mutual agreement. So, if we accept the ethic coming from mutual agreement, they have no justification for it.

This is not a magic panacea to fix all the problems.

Edited:

To be sure, it seems like my experience isn't an example of utilitarianism per se and that I was wrong in thinking it were (not that that fact would improve my view of any mostly Lawful belief, utilitarianism included, what with me associating that very trauma with a Lawful belief system; I'm way past that).

Ah, don't start with this, you too!
Since there is no way to define the "maximize utility" aside subjective evaluation, anything can be an example and nothing is really a proper example.
Kinda like the weeping angels someone cited, who move only when they are not seen, a proper example is proper as long as it "sounds" good, and stops to be a proper example when it doesn't sound good anymore.

(Anyway I cited you because your experience was a proper example of: "I nominate you, on the account of you not being me" subjective utility maximization, where the people at school nominated you to deal alone with your problems so that they could avoid to have to deal with it)

[Fyraltari]

But that's not what youre asking me. Youre asking me what my stance on the morality of the action is. If those five people are the only people in the world, then yes, I guess their definition of morality allows for it, but that's rather tautological. "if they decide their morality allows for beating up E, then their morality allows for beating up E".

Yes, that is the question I am asking. My answer is "No, four of the last five people in the world agreeing with each other that it is morally right to beat the fifth does not make it so. Because beating up people for no reason is never right. Because morality is not just an agreement between people.". What's yours?

This is not what I mean with equality and fairness.
Equality mostly uses universal quantifiers (ie: "whoever", "any", in logic there is a specific symbol for that: ∀) and existential ones, negated (ie: "no one").

Your example force inequality from the start because, from the start, it names specifically categories ("A,B,C,D get this, E gets that").

Again, no. Both proposals were that the five of them all get the exact same. In the first case exactly one fifth of the island, no more, no less ; in the second case an equal (unlimited) right to help themselves to the common

No, my example wasn't actually chosen.
It came to my mind that, as consequence of mutual agreements, murderers can be killed and I found it quite karmic. And funny, someway.

Hence why you choose that example instead of looking for another one. And that is a poor choice because the end result was dependant on the example being that specific example and not any other one which means it fails to illustrate the generalcase : ie its job as an example supporting the thesis.
Asopposed to a counter-example whose job is to be any one case where the thesis does not work.

Again, I want to insist pointing out that Psycho1 wasn't "removed" from the discussion.

Yes he was, the discussion started with him and ended without him. He did not get up and leave, he was killed.

Hence why you ended that example with "We found a mutual agreement!"

Of course!
I even thought to call one of them Belkar.
But humor me, because even if I called him X it wouldn't change a thing regarding the reasoning.
Psycho1 was just a better mnemonic name.

What it does is demonize one size, though. Because one person is called "Psycho" their opponents look better by comparison and since their opponents are the side you, as defender of the thesis agree with, it makes you look better (subcosciously I mean). This a legitimate propaganda tactic and that corrupts your argument/example however sound it actually is. I am not saying you did this intentionnally, but you have to be careful with these kind of things.

If it is not needed for the example then don't mention it elseyou weaken your own points. That's why I dropped using your "Psycho2".

Well, to take the simplest example you asked about: if all the people agrees to be forced in a marriage (can people agree to be forced?? It sounds as a society very prone to kinky roleplay to me ), why should I argue against what they want?

Let me rephrase : if a majority agrees that forcing people to marry someone they want to is morally right, according to your system then someone within that society, within the minority that disagrees has not right to complain when they are forced to marry someone they don't want?

The other examples, can you translates them in sentences using as actors and targets only things like "all", "whoever", "each other" and so on?

The war example seems like it can be translated in: "We agree that whoever can gang up with any other against anyone".
It doesn't seem like a society destined to live too long, but again, if they all agree, who am I to argue

No because that's myentire point: You will never get everybody to agree with anything. And there are societies where a majority (often an ethnic majority) decided that what was right and wrong to do to them was different than waht as right and wrong to do to the minority.

Anyway, if on an argument they don't find a mutual agreement, they don't find it.
BUT!
Being ethically justified to kill the ones who disagree on an agreement is not implied in the system (that was a mostly unique 'feature' of the agreement itself being on killing).

Yup that was the issue with your example.

But if in the group itself there are people who think that "Might makes right" should be the final rule valid between them, and they don't want to accept an agreement where they don't get the lion's share, then nothing can be done about it.
They will fight, kill each other, but they are not justified by a mutual agreement. So, if we accept the ethic coming from mutual agreement, they have no justification for it.

But that is not the only source of disagreement. See my example where someone doesn't believe private property is morally right.

This is not a magic panacea to fix all the problems.

Was not that your very issue with utilitarianism?

Well, you are French...

I plead guilty of that one.
In my defense I make a very poor stereotype: there are only 2-3 cheeses I like, I don't either drink alcohol nor coffee, I don't smoke, I find snails tasteless ("it tastes like the sauce"), I speak english, try to be nice to tourists and I am terrible when it comes to faire la cour.

I am, however, foul-mouthed, existentialist, prone to arguing over anything, lazy, arrogant, overly pedantic (in my native tongue), biaised against any kind of military and I enjoy making fun of the Americans as much as the next guy.

[The_Weirdo]

I plead guilty of that one.
In my defense I make a very poor stereotype: there are only 2-3 cheeses I like, I don't either drink alcohol nor coffee, I don't smoke, I find snails tasteless ("it tastes like the sauce"), I speak english, try to be nice to tourists and I am terrible when it comes to faire la cour.

I am, however, foul-mouthed, existentialist, prone to arguing over anything, lazy, arrogant, overly pedantic (in my native tongue), biaised against any kind of military and I enjoy making fun of the Americans as much as the next guy.

Is it provincial of me to link you to a classic cheese produced in my state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minas_cheese

[Fyraltari]

Is it provincial of me to link you to a classic cheese produced in my state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minas_cheese

Slightly. But food is food, and if I travel there one day I'll try some.

[multilis]

I am a male rather than female reader.

When I read Hilgya, I thought of evil god she served, Linear Guild, etc rather than female as reason for how she behaves. (Eg Nale did much stronger degree with Elan and others the crazy revenge, etc)

But now thinking about it with this question, if she matches some of real life female x-girlfriends that interact with men I know... her behaviour isn't unusual, but may flip to something else when she actually meets the x-boyfriend.... eg I dealt with one who was all bitter talking to me but then she was trying to seduce/get back with boyfriend (who was avoiding her) when she finally found him at home.

People do vent and curse and trash talk but aren't always so nasty when they actually deal with people face to face after (that includes men).

Some people are opposite, they put up a nice polite face while they plot nasty revenge any way they can for even small slights.

Some people are bitter talkers and back their words with bitter actions, and actually wouldn't mind driving the one they hate to suicide, etc.

...

Carrie Underwood - Before He Cheats (what would reaction be if a guy sung song about doing that to his cheating girlfriend?)

[Dr.Zero]

Yes, that is the question I am asking. My answer is "No, four of the last five people in the world agreeing with each other that it is morally right to beat the fifth does not make it so. Because beating up people for no reason is never right. Because morality is not just an agreement between people.". What's yours?

Morality and ethic, actually, are nothing more than shared beliefs on what is right or wrong.
If not all the final five people of the world share the same belief, there is not a common ethic and morality.
Keltest might think what happens is wrong, yet that is his own ethic, not that of those five people.

Again, no. Both proposals were that the five of them all get the exact same. In the first case exactly one fifth of the island, no more, no less ; in the second case an equal (unlimited) right to help themselves to the common

Then either I misunderstood the example or I've read something else.
Might you add a link or again a quote to what you're talking about as good and bad example?
Sorry for the loss of your time.

Yes he was, the discussion started with him and ended without him. He did not get up and leave, he was killed.

Hence why you ended that example with "We found a mutual agreement!"

Ah! That was just embellishment, humor, to add an awe moment.
But it wasn't needed by any means.

If that's the whole problem, let me correct that.

Spoiler: Corrected, but lamer, version

Show

A,B,C,D,E, P1, P2:
A: "Do we all agree that it is wrong, and thus forbidden, to kill other people without a reason as we will define in our laws?"
B,C,D,E: "YES!"
P1: "No, I don't!"
A: "Very well, then right now we agree that we {A,B,C,D} found a common rule between us -no killing- and this rule doesn't extend between you and us.
P2: "I don't agree either!"
A: "Again, very well. The above statement is valid for you too. Next point."

(The discussion goes on regarding other rules...)
(Later...)

A to B,C,D,E: "Do we all realize P1 and P2 are a danger, right? And that according to our lack of mutual agreement about the "no killing rule" it's not ethically or morally wrong for them to kill us and for us to kill them?"

B,C,D,E: "Of course!".

A: "Well, guys, then it is obvious what we have to do."

And both P1 and P2 get killed, and A,B,C,D and E live peacefully since then. All according to the rules and without violating the wills of P1 and P2.

The only difference is poor P2, who got screwed too.

What it does is demonize one size, though. Because one person is called "Psycho" their opponents look better by comparison and since their opponents are the side you, as defender of the thesis agree with, it makes you look better (subcosciously I mean). This a legitimate propaganda tactic and that corrupts your argument/example however sound it actually is. I am not saying you did this intentionnally, but you have to be careful with these kind of things.

If it is not needed for the example then don't mention it elseyou weaken your own points. That's why I dropped using your "Psycho2".

Here I lost you.
I'm not siding with A,B,C,D,E and against P1 and P2 because I don't care for the fate of imaginary letter-people. I'm only interested about talking of the system (even if, of course, if they were actually real people I'd call P1 and P2 psychopaths because, well, they hope in a society where they can kill freely, which is not exactly my cup of tea).
Anyway I corrected their names.

Let me rephrase : if a majority agrees that forcing people to marry someone they want to is morally right, according to your system then someone within that society, within the minority that disagrees has not right to complain when they are forced to marry someone they don't want?

I will soon address your point, but firstly let me say that a rule where one can divide the group in "minority" and "majority" seems very probably a rule written without using universal quantifiers, so more than a rule to define common and shared values and ethics, a rule to state relationships. (I cannot be sure, but this is the feeling I get).

Said that, let me address your point.

If they disagree on a point, it seems clear that there is not mutual agreement on that point.
But, let's be clear, if there is not mutual agreement it doesn't mean that the majority or the minority have to suck it up.
It means that we have not a shared ethic and morality, on that subject.
What then happens depends on them: they can decide that it is a minor point and someone gives up their position.
Or they can decide that point is fundamental and they want, I don't know, divide forever and maybe begin a war.
What does the system of mutual agreement say about it? Nothing.

As in every single instance where there is not shared ethic.

If they have not shared ethics on that point, from where the ethic should come?

I hope this replied to your other questions.

(refering to the fact that mutual agreement is not a magic panacea)

Was not that your very issue with utilitarianism?

Not at all.
Somewhere I think I even stated the difference between "Might makes right" (giving an ethic value to a side which wins, even only by sheer numbers) and "Might does as it likes" (admitting that there is an universal rule implying that, eventually, who has the strength can ignore everything else).

One of my very issues is that utilitarianism is actually a facade.
It hides behind a vague and not defined concept of 'utility' (which seems to refer to something universal or universally shared) the final 'might makes right', usually represented by the share opinions of a majority about what is right (and who must be sacrificed).

And hiding it, it gives a possible ethic mask to subjective evaluations. "It was made because the common wellness required it!"

This doesn't happen here, there is not facade: if you agree to something, you know to what you agree.
There is the actual possibility to debate the rules.
The actual rules, not some example which gets increasingly more complex according to what one or the other wants to obtain. And not some not-defined magic function.

The shared ethic values, if they exist, are there written, black on white.
And if you have to resort to a clash, it is clear that you are doing that. Eventually who wins will do as they please (nothing can be done about that, no system can change that), but an extern observer has the real view that the clash happens because there are no shared ethic on some points, instead of being said that it happened because a mysterious function says one of the side is ethically wrong and the other ethically right.

One of the differences between utilitarianism and mutual agreement, as I see it?

It's the difference between living where a high-priest who says that he gets messages from the gods is supreme judge and a place where there are written laws, which you can read, study, debate ask to modify and show to an eventual observer.

[Sir_Norbert]

One of the differences between utilitarianism and mutual agreement, as I see it?

It's the difference between living where a high-priest who says that he gets messages from the gods is supreme judge and a place where there are written laws, which you can read, study, debate ask to modify and show to an eventual observer.

That is a completely false characterisation. Just because we can't pinpoint "utility" in terms of precise numbers doesn't mean that the concept is useless. It provides a framework in which we can start philosophical discussions about what one should do in certain situations. If you actually took the time to read some works of ethics, you'd find that philosophers rather enjoy setting out situations in detail, thinking through the nuances and providing reasoned argument for their conclusions. I'm not saying you have to agree with these conclusions (after all, if you pick up a different work of ethics you will find equally detailed reasoning for the opposite conclusions!) but characterising it as "messages from the gods" is a completely undeserved slur.

[martianmister]

That's silly. You can absolutely say that giving a child candy produces more utility than stabbing a child with a sword insofar as you can say that anything at all exists and everyone else isn't figments of your imagination.

But stabbing a child would lessen the negative impact of overpopulation, while giving free candy to kids only increase obesity in the society.

[Liquor Box]

But stabbing a child would lessen the negative impact of overpopulation, while giving free candy to kids only increase obesity in the society.

You are right, utiliterianism is requires judgement about which choices provide the most overall utility, but that is hardly damning given that most alternatives require judgment as well.

So using your judgment, do you really think stabbing the child provides more positive utility and less negative utility than giving it candy?

[martianmister]

So using your judgment, do you really think stabbing the child provides more positive utility and less negative utility than giving it candy?

I don't really know. It's hard to tell without extra information.

[Dr.Zero]

That is a completely false characterisation. Just because we can't pinpoint "utility" in terms of precise numbers doesn't mean that the concept is useless.

It doesn't?

Well, of course, if I'd like to abuse some power, a theory of ethic which associates apparently absolute values as "utility" to something that cannot be measured, would be very, very useful. To abuse my power better, I mean.

It provides a framework in which we can start philosophical discussions about what one should do in certain situations. If you actually took the time to read some works of ethics, you'd find that philosophers rather enjoy setting out situations in detail, thinking through the nuances and providing reasoned argument for their conclusions. I'm not saying you have to agree with these conclusions (after all, if you pick up a different work of ethics you will find equally detailed reasoning for the opposite conclusions!) but characterising it as "messages from the gods" is a completely undeserved slur.

Men have discussed about spirituality, gods and whatnot since the dawn of the times.
Some of these discussion were brilliant, some were very deep. Usually they were very, very verbose, showing an enjoyment in setting out things and ideas in details.

Nonetheless, if the final result is being judged by a high-priest based on messages from the gods, it sucks. (hint hint: it doesn't mean the high priest really get messages from gods, it's a: whatever system that is enough obscure and not contestable, works as well)

[Cazero]

Morality and ethic, actually, are nothing more than shared beliefs on what is right or wrong.

Just like mathemathics is the shared belief that numbers and operations are a thing. The main difference is that numbers can be defined in a relationship (aka counting) with things that aren't people and thus a lot more consistent, and that really helps reaching a consensus.
Shared beliefs can have practical applications and ethics is a worthwhile field of study.

[Fyraltari]

Then either I misunderstood the example or I've read something else.
Might you add a link or again a quote to what you're talking about as good and bad example?
Sorry for the loss of your time.

Would I be here if I valued my time? plus it's not like I am forced to answer.
Here is the example I used :

Say A, B, C and D decide that the otherwise uninhabited island they are all living on should be divided in equal parts with each of them having a right to every- and anything inside their tract but none on the other's but E disagree and says everything should belong to everyone in common. What happens then?

I think the misunderstanding comes from that when I wrote " divided in equal parts with each of them having a right to every- and anything inside their tract but none on the other's" I meant "divided in equal parts between the five of them with each of the five having a right to every- and anything inside their own tract but none on the others'"

Basically: ambiguous wording and one typo ruins your arguments.

Morality and ethic, actually, are nothing more than shared beliefs on what is right or wrong.

Not exactly. If I am not mistaken, morality is what we (as individuals) use to tell right from wrong and ethics are the study of what "right" and "wrong" are in the fisrt place. Feel free to correct me, philosopy majors (engineering, here).

If not all the final five people of the world share the same belief, there is not a common ethic and morality. Keltest might think what happens is wrong, yet that is his own ethic, not that of those five people.

But that is only if one acepts the axiom of "morality is an agreement", if there are universal rights and wrongs (say "do not do to other what you do not want to be done to you" to dig up anold classic) then you are wrong.

Here I lost you.
I'm not siding with A,B,C,D,E and against P1 and P2 because I don't care for the fate of imaginary letter-people. I'm only interested about talking of the system (even if, of course, if they were actually real people I'd call P1 and P2 psychopaths because, well, they hope in a society where they can kill freely, which is not exactly my cup of tea).
Anyway I corrected their names.

Well it's nitpick anyway. But it appeared to me that by labelling them "psychos" you diminished any emotional reactions to their dying. kind of like it is always easier to argue for the death sentence if the only criminals you talk about are Joker types.
Again that's just a nitpick.

A,B,C,D,E, P1, P2:
A: "Do we all agree that it is wrong, and thus forbidden, to kill other people without a reason as we will define in our laws?"
B,C,D,E: "YES!"
P1: "No, I don't!"
A: "Very well, then right now we agree that we {A,B,C,D} found a common rule between us -no killing- and this rule doesn't extend between you and us.
P2: "I don't agree either!"
A: "Again, very well. The above statement is valid for you too. Next point."

(The discussion goes on regarding other rules...)
(Later...)

A to B,C,D,E: "Do we all realize P1 and P2 are a danger, right? And that according to our lack of mutual agreement about the "no killing rule" it's not ethically or morally wrong for them to kill us and for us to kill them?"

B,C,D,E: "Of course!".

A: "Well, guys, then it is obvious what we have to do."

And both P1 and P2 get killed, and A,B,C,D and E live peacefully since then. All according to the rules and without violating the wills of P1 and P2.

The only difference is poor P2, who got screwed too.

Correct me if I am wrong : P1 and P2 disagreed with A, B, C, D and E and therefore refused to take partin the society those five were building whichmeans that their eventual fate (death) is irrelevant to the society of A, B, C, D and E and that had they disagreed on, say, the morality of nudity, they would just have had to move to the next island ans start their own society with blackjack and hookers. Is that correc here?

So what you are saying is that when people disagree on one moral rule that autoatically split the society in two according to where you fall on the yes/no divide? But wouldn't that mean that after a sufficient amout of questions are raised you end up with everyone being their own society-of-one? That does not sound viable.

I will soon address your point, but firstly let me say that a rule where one can divide the group in "minority" and "majority" seems very probably a rule written without using universal quantifiers, so more than a rule to define common and shared values and ethics, a rule to state relationships. (I cannot be sure, but this is the feeling I get).

What is that? It is our old friend the hypothetical example to the rescue!

Spoiler: Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow..

Show

Inside a community it is traditionnal that marriage is set up by the legal guardians of the two spouses-to-be with no input from these two whatsoever and should any of them refuse to go on with the whole ordeal their family is authorized the use of threats of physical violence to make them comply.
Through magic we can divine with perfect accuracy that exactly 78.89% of the population find that perfectly moral.

There is a girl, however who does not (apart from that disagreement she is your typical Dwarf community member and as fate would have it, her clan decided she would marry some naive idiot she has never met. She refuses, they force her at literal crossbow point.

Was it, indeed right, for them to do that?

Said that, let me address your point.

If they disagree on a point, it seems clear that there is not mutual agreement on that point.
But, let's be clear, if there is not mutual agreement it doesn't mean that the majority or the minority have to suck it up.
It means that we have not a shared ethic and morality, on that subject.
What then happens depends on them: they can decide that it is a minor point and someone gives up their position.
Or they can decide that point is fundamental and they want, I don't know, divide forever and maybe begin a war.
What does the system of mutual agreement say about it? Nothing.

As in every single instance where there is not shared ethic.

If they have not shared ethics on that point, from where the ethic should come?

Well they could come from a set of principles like "An action is inherently good if it is done with the intent of maximizing happiness, regardless of what the action actually is." Or "some actions are inherently good/evil regardless of consequences, a list follows".

Not at all.
Somewhere I think I even stated the difference between "Might makes right" (giving an ethic value to a side which wins, even only by sheer numbers) and "Might does as it likes" (admitting that there is an universal rule implying that, eventually, who has the strength can ignore everything else).

One of my very issues is that utilitarianism is actually a facade.
It hides behind a vague and not defined concept of 'utility' (which seems to refer to something universal or universally shared) the final 'might makes right', usually represented by the share opinions of a majority about what is right (and who must be sacrificed).

And hiding it, it gives a possible ethic mask to subjective evaluations. "It was made because the common wellness required it!"

This doesn't happen here, there is not facade: if you agree to something, you know to what you agree.
There is the actual possibility to debate the rules.
The actual rules, not some example which gets increasingly more complex according to what one or the other wants to obtain. And not some not-defined magic function.

The shared ethic values, if they exist, are there written, black on white.
And if you have to resort to a clash, it is clear that you are doing that. Eventually who wins will do as they please (nothing can be done about that, no system can change that), but an extern observer has the real view that the clash happens because there are no shared ethic on some points, instead of being said that it happened because a mysterious function says one of the side is ethically wrong and the other ethically right.

One of the differences between utilitarianism and mutual agreement, as I see it?

It's the difference between living where a high-priest who says that he gets messages from the gods is supreme judge and a place where there are written laws, which you can read, study, debate ask to modify and show to an eventual observer.

I really don't see how you come to that conclusion. Their is no high priest of utilitarinism, because the entire point of any system of morality is to help individuals make their own choices (one of those can, but does not have to, be "defer to authority").