Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: outby43 on January 20, 2012, 02:25:21 AM
-
Help me out. I don't understand a fucking word this guy says.
Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill's response?
We got a lot of smart people on here so I thought I'd give it a shot.
Thanks
-
smart bodybuilder
-
Translation:
WHO GIVES A SHIT ?
HTH ;D
-
Translation:
WHO GIVES A SHIT ?
HTH ;D
That's how I feel Wes but unfortunately I can't pass a class with that answer...lol. Maybe I should just insert some GH15 ramblings for my answer
-
Piss off Einstein.
-
That's how I feel Wes but unfortunately I can't pass a class with that answer...lol. Maybe I should just insert some GH15 ramblings for my answer
I`m just fucking around bro......nothing personal,trust me............my coffee just kicked in and I`m finally awake. ;)
-
I`m just fucking around bro......nothing personal,trust me............my coffee just kicked in and I`m finally awake. ;)
No problem dude. Just don't try to post on the Entertainment board I mod. You are banned ;D
-
There is a couple chapters about Mill and such topics on this book, you will get your answers there, thats as far i as will go
(http://images.betterworldbooks.com/076/History-of-Economic-Thought-Hunt-E-K-9780765625984.jpg)
-
Help me out. I don't understand a fucking word this guy says.
Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill's response?
We got a lot of smart people on here so I thought I'd give it a shot.
Thanks
-
Could be wrong but I'll take a shot. The greatest good for the greatest number isn't an ethically oriented doctrine in that it allows immoral acts provided they yield more benefit than harm. For (a poor) example, say there's a town where people are being murdered and the townsfolk have become so terrified of going outside that commerce is suffering to such an extent that pretty soon there won't be any food in the store and lots of people are going to die of starvation. If we just grab some poor dude and hang him in the public square, and keep a hush on future murders, then everyone will feel secure again and go back to growing their crops or whatever and the townsfolk will be saved from starvation.
In another town where there are no murders or terrified people, it's clearly immoral to execute an innocent man. Just because there's a benefit to our town in calling an innocent guy a murderer and executing him, he's still an innocent man and it's just as crappy a thing to do here as it would be anywhere. The same applies to misinforming the people about the identity of the killer as well as about the occurence of future murders. A beneficial upside doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. It's still an immoral act. Just ask the innocent man.
Mill would (possibly) respond that it would be the greater evil to allow the entire town to perish rather than choose the lesser evil of executing an innocent man and misinforming the population. Not to save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing just one would be the most immoral choice. Therefore, according to Mill, Utilitarianism does concern itself with moral action and is not simply expediency without regard to ethically motivated conduct.
-
Mill is pretty easy to understand
-
No problem dude. Just don't try to post on the Entertainment board I mod. You are banned ;D
Oh shit !!! ;D
-
Mill is pretty easy to understand
But is his a doctrine of right conduct? Or expedient conduct? And are they the same thing?
-
Could be wrong but I'll take a shot. The greatest good for the greatest number isn't an ethically oriented doctrine in that it allows immoral acts provided they yield more benefit than harm. For (a poor) example, say there's a town where people are being murdered and the townsfolk have become so terrified of going outside that commerce is suffering to such an extent that pretty soon there won't be any food in the store and lots of people are going to die of starvation. If we just grab some poor dude and hang him in the public square, and keep a hush on future murders, then everyone will feel secure again and go back to growing their crops or whatever and the townsfolk will be saved from starvation.
In another town where there are no murders or terrified people, it's clearly immoral to execute an innocent man. Just because there's a benefit to our town in calling an innocent guy a murderer and executing him, he's still an innocent man and it's just as crappy a thing to do here as it would be anywhere. The same applies to misinforming the people about the identity of the killer as well as about the occurence of future murders. A beneficial upside doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. It's still an immoral act. Just ask the innocent man.
Mill would (possibly) respond that it would be the greater evil to allow the entire town to perish rather than choose the lesser evil of executing an innocent man and misinforming the population. Not to save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing just one would be the most immoral choice. Therefore, according to Mill, Utilitarianism does concern itself with moral action and is not simply expediency without regard to ethically motivated conduct.
I'd start with this as the crux of your argument/thesis. 'Course, let's wait 'till bomz gets his tricycle revved and arrives with a multi-page post before you hit 'print.'
-
I'd start with this as the crux of your argument/thesis. 'Course, let's wait 'till bomz gets his tricycle revved and arrives with a multi-page post before you hit 'print.'
Yeah but if I was any good at this stuff I would have stayed in school. I took the road less graveled, and that has made all the diffidence.
-
Yeah but if I was any good at this stuff I would have stayed in school. I took the road less graveled, and that has made all the diffidence.
Nicely played, Sir! Nicely played. ;D
-
I got lost reading Walden Pond so I never have found out if Henry went back to society.
-
I got lost reading Walden Pond so I never have found out if Henry went back to society.
While writing Walden, Thoreau was never really more than a mile or so from 'civilization.' ;)
-
Ronnie is clearly a "unique" person.
"...is mia bockwuast..." Hahahaha
-
In any WYHI thread, John Stuart Mill would hit it.
-
That's how I feel Wes but unfortunately I can't pass a class with that answer...lol. Maybe I should just insert some GH15 ramblings for my answer
I'd say its close enough but you are being called to say how the late Mr Mill answered
-
While writing Walden, Thoreau was never really more than a mile or so from 'civilization.' ;)
That SOB lied no more respect for him.
-
Help me out. I don't understand a fucking word this guy says.
Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill's response?
We got a lot of smart people on here so I thought I'd give it a shot.
Thanks
I heard Dexter jackson's PhD philosophy thesis is related to this topic...
-
Could be wrong but I'll take a shot. The greatest good for the greatest number isn't an ethically oriented doctrine in that it allows immoral acts provided they yield more benefit than harm. For (a poor) example, say there's a town where people are being murdered and the townsfolk have become so terrified of going outside that commerce is suffering to such an extent that pretty soon there won't be any food in the store and lots of people are going to die of starvation. If we just grab some poor dude and hang him in the public square, and keep a hush on future murders, then everyone will feel secure again and go back to growing their crops or whatever and the townsfolk will be saved from starvation.
In another town where there are no murders or terrified people, it's clearly immoral to execute an innocent man. Just because there's a benefit to our town in calling an innocent guy a murderer and executing him, he's still an innocent man and it's just as crappy a thing to do here as it would be anywhere. The same applies to misinforming the people about the identity of the killer as well as about the occurence of future murders. A beneficial upside doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. It's still an immoral act. Just ask the innocent man.
Mill would (possibly) respond that it would be the greater evil to allow the entire town to perish rather than choose the lesser evil of executing an innocent man and misinforming the population. Not to save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing just one would be the most immoral choice. Therefore, according to Mill, Utilitarianism does concern itself with moral action and is not simply expediency without regard to ethically motivated conduct.
sounds about right
one could argue the value of long run peace of mind vs. short run comfort ... that eventually the towns people would find out an innocent man was executed for their benefit and the guilt/shame/remorse over that would far outweigh what comfort they had experiencced as a result of his execution... thus the moral action is always the one that, in the long run, results in the greatest good
;)
-
Could be wrong but I'll take a shot. The greatest good for the greatest number isn't an ethically oriented doctrine in that it allows immoral acts provided they yield more benefit than harm. For (a poor) example, say there's a town where people are being murdered and the townsfolk have become so terrified of going outside that commerce is suffering to such an extent that pretty soon there won't be any food in the store and lots of people are going to die of starvation. If we just grab some poor dude and hang him in the public square, and keep a hush on future murders, then everyone will feel secure again and go back to growing their crops or whatever and the townsfolk will be saved from starvation.
In another town where there are no murders or terrified people, it's clearly immoral to execute an innocent man. Just because there's a benefit to our town in calling an innocent guy a murderer and executing him, he's still an innocent man and it's just as crappy a thing to do here as it would be anywhere. The same applies to misinforming the people about the identity of the killer as well as about the occurence of future murders. A beneficial upside doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. It's still an immoral act. Just ask the innocent man.
Mill would (possibly) respond that it would be the greater evil to allow the entire town to perish rather than choose the lesser evil of executing an innocent man and misinforming the population. Not to save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing just one would be the most immoral choice. Therefore, according to Mill, Utilitarianism does concern itself with moral action and is not simply expediency without regard to ethically motivated conduct.
Thanks dude that should help.
-
if you are looking for an answer for a vanilla test with a question on JSM/Utilitarianism or simple shit like that then the previous post may be of help
if it is something where you think you can get points from going a little bit beyond that,then try questioning the notions Utilitarianism and Morality
Utilitarianism- utility/usefulness to whom?
Morality- who decides what is moral/immoral, who decides there is a morality to start with
a little more work- but in the end much more interesting
-
While writing Walden, Thoreau was never really more than a mile or so from 'civilization.' ;)
I've heard that line before from my history teachers, etc. "He was only a mile from civilization, so not really "out in the woods". They say it as if it is some kind of insight.
But Thoreau said that himself in Walden, and that he would occasionally go to a friends house in town for a meal or to talk before returning to the cabin. So I don't see how saying "he was only a mile away" any way discredits Thoreau's arguments?
-
what the fuck is up with the scars on this guy's forehead?
Did his drug dealer take a baseball bat to his head for unpaid gh ???
Stretch marks from too much thinking.
Btw: Translation of the video: Rockel is done, he will stop or go the Munzer route.
-
I've heard that line before from my history teachers, etc. "He was only a mile from civilization, so not really "out in the woods". They say it as if it is some kind of insight.
But Thoreau said that himself in Walden, and that he would occasionally go to a friends house in town for a meal or to talk before returning to the cabin. So I don't see how saying "he was only a mile away" any way discredits Thoreau's arguments?
Well, it's like retreating to Mt. Baldy and and having an Arby's next door. It's not only literally expedient (and what trope isn't?) but an exercise in silliness.
/yes. book is on shelf. somewhere.
-
Well, it's like retreating to Mt. Baldy and and having an Arby's next door. It's not only literally expedient (and what trope isn't?) but an exercise in silliness.
/yes. book is on shelf. somewhere.
Arby's next door LOL