Normative Ethical Theories

[Aldershofsa]

Any one into these?

Let's simplify it down for the sake of debate: utilitarianism or the categorical imperative?

[Byzesion]

I tend to side with Bentham and utilitarianism rather than the moral universalism of Kant's categorical imperative. But by the same token, utilitarianism taken to its extreme can theoretically lead to a totalitarian state (incidentally, that's one of the things that annoyed me about Final Fantasy X: The plan is to end suffering by killing everyone with a giant scaly monster.).

[Transcendental Islands]

I side with neither. I prefer Nietzsche's conception of Will to Power. If somebody wants to debate that, I'd be more than happy to oblige

[Grimlundt]

Neither utilitarianism nor deontology have the whole story, nor can either even be said to work as an ethical system. But arguments of a deontological or utilitarian kind can be good strong arguments. Sometimes claims from utility and human rights conflict? It is easier when they coincide? the fat that these two ethical systems do not always coincide and that ethical problematics are generated at all, shows us that neither system can be granted ... ahem ... ultimate authority. Indeed, is not the very idea of authority an rules a flight from the work of ethics ... a work that begins by really opening one's ears to the rasdically different person ... and trying to walk in his/her shoes for a day?

[Transcendental Islands]

Well said.

[Grimlundt]

Thanks Transcendental Islands Islands /// I like you already

[Sammaditthi]

Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').

In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT.

John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent").

I lean in Mill's theory. On the other hand, true happiness can only be achieved with no expectations and acknowledging that in life you will suffer, but being content with it will reduce disappointment
.