Comments on: Can humans act utilitarian?

By: Giochi Mario

Giochi Mario — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:48:37 +0000

I agree with Poofy

Utilitarianism is a cause of our prison mess. The doctrine of “small offenses deserve small punishments and large offenses large punishments” undergirds our judicial system.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:16:13 +0000

Interesting stuff… I think altruism and self-interest are at some point linked: One is best able to be altruistic if one has amassed a store of wealth first. Thus it could be argued that many altruistic actions are only made possible by previous self-interest, either intentional or not – paradoxically. Yet mark how different is “enlightened self interest” from “purely selfish self-interest”. I agree that the best part of utilitarianism is the “win-win”. I think self-preservation is to be seen as an important part of philanthropy. One is able to do the most good by keeping oneself in the best possible condition to be able to do, create and give.

By: Jana Asia

Jana Asia — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:06:16 +0000

My biggest hang up with utilitarianism is rooted in our tendency as humans to rely on other people to do our thinking and moral decision making for us (this is clearly evident in the prevalence and success of religion around the world).

The danger here is that this opens the door for power centers to create a majority view via persuasion and propaganda and thus justifying any of their actions as creating the greatest good for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism is fine if we were all free thinking individuals, but sadly we are not.

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 26 May 2007 17:09:30 +0000

This finding would suggest that an endeavour like Kiva will be more successful than most traditional organizations that attempt to help those in need.

By: pde

pde — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:15:00 +0000

Poofy,

I disagree that utilitarianism can be blamed for the state of the criminal justice system. The theory that "small offenses deserve small punishments and large offenses large punishments" is grounded in Judeo-Christian theories of justice, not utilitarian ones.

According to utilitarianism, incarceration makes sense for protecting society from people likely to re-offend, and it may make sense as a deterrent if and only if it works as one. The communicative function is important, too. But none of these grounds for punishment match your claim.

I don't believe these results show that humans have no capacity to act differently than the experiment suggests. I think it only shows a tendency for people (or maybe just the tested demographic) to act in this way.

Other experiments should test whether the same results occur in other contexts. Even if they do, I'm sure there will be ways that people can learn to be strongly altruistic independent of the (a) and (b) condition.

I hope I haven't bitten a troll!

By: Poofy

Poofy — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:24:29 +0000

Utilitarianism is a prime cause of our prison mess. The doctrine of "small offenses deserve small punishments and large offenses large punishments" undergirds our judicial system.

Science has shown that this is an amazingly effective way to train people to take punishment breeding "hardened criminals".

These studies you site are short on science and long on hype. Operationally defined "altruism"? This is essentially an inference of an internal quality, and the study is an attempt to hypothesize relationships about this quality. Useless.

You claim this study says something about "human capacity to act" - but where did it get such amazing external validity? How do you know it's not just "those people" in the study? How do you know its not contamination from the situation itself?