Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Squark09 OP t1_iwiajr8 wrote

Reply to comment by trinite0 in Utilitarianism is the only option — but you have to take conscious experience seriously first by Squark09

If you accept the premise that experience with positive or negative valence is real and that closed individualism is false, utilitarianism is the only option.

I guess most people have more issue with the closed individualism part

1

trinite0 t1_iwie922 wrote

That conclusion absolutely does not follow from those premises, and the article makes no coherent argument that it does. It smuggles its conclusion into the premises themselves, and asserts it with no argument.

2

Squark09 OP t1_iwij01g wrote

It seems like the conclusion is smuggled in because in a way it's tautological. What we mean by good or bad has to be conveyed by conscious valence, as that's the only way we can know anything.

Then if you reject closed individualism, you have to admit that other people's experiences matter as well.

Hence you get valence utilitarianism.

1

trinite0 t1_iwijwfc wrote

A tautology is not an argument. It does not have a conclusion.

2

Squark09 OP t1_iwikbdg wrote

Although pointing out tautologies can clear up confusion.

What do you mean by good or bad?

1

trinite0 t1_iwikhiz wrote

"Good or bad" what? In what context?

1

Squark09 OP t1_iwioe5t wrote

In the context of ethics

1

trinite0 t1_iwiqlwd wrote

"Ethics" is not a meaningful context.

I assume you mean something like, "How do I assign value to experiences in the course of making choices between different possible courses of action?"

And I'll answer for myself, but with what I think applies to every human being: "Poorly, inconsistently, intuitively, and with very little reflection, reasoning, or conscious judgment in 99.9% of cases."

3