New Testingstan

You don't have a civic address, yet you own a farm? How does that work?

zhaktronz wrote:Stofsk I'd love to hear your perspective about why utilitarianism is the dominant ethical system in the west

I think because of its focus on outcomes and consequences, and that you're min/maxing pain and suffering on one end and happiness on the other, on a society level scale, makes it's attractive to policy makers at various levels. You can see its influence in politics where they campaign on the idea of good policy = good outcomes, and how each side will say that their policy will result in said good outcomes. Similarly oppositions will attack what they see as bad policy by pointing out either unintended consequences or (I guess in the current political climate) pointing out the wholly intended bad consequences. Sentencing by judges or any judicial decision making also follows utilitarian methods. A judge might sentence someone harsher if they believe their prospects for rehabilitation are low and if they've presented themselves as a danger to the community; conversely, if someone's rehabilitation prospects are good and if the nature of the offending indicates it's a 'one-off' or low chance of reoffending, like by demonstrating remorse for example, they might give a lighter sentence than they normally would. A judge might make a precedent in this case or that on a ruling of law, but every judge knows that their decisions are open to review by a higher court, so generally speaking they're careful about any ruling they make. For the highest of courts, their sole reason for being IS to make defining rulings on law and to review the decisions of lower courts, which means they are conscious of (or should be, I guess) the likely consequences of those rulings. And the likely unintended consequences as well.

It's not just governments and courts, you can see utilitarian influence in media. Some ads will point out the likely consequences of drinking before driving, in the hopes that people will be conscious of that before making the decision to get behind the wheel after a night at the pub. Same goes for anti-smoking and other similar types of ads. If you read a news article about someone committing suicide, at the end of the article will be a note saying if you're feeling suicidal you should call this number. None of these examples stress that you're a terrible person for drinking, or for smoking, or for committing suicide; rather they stress that the likely consequences makes you a terrible person or makes it a terrible decision. TAC ads in particular stress this idea more than most. A deontological ad might be one that depicts the person who drinks before driving as a terrible person who deserves what happens to him; or it might even go as far as saying drinking makes you a bad person, regardless of whether you get behind the wheel or not (probably in a country where alcohol is illegal maybe). Or an article about suicide that portrays it negatively and lacks the 'call someone' note at the bottom.

Utilitarian policy making lends itself well toward negotiation and compromises. If you want to get a law passed and you need the support of key people who hold the balance of power, if you're utilitarian about it it's easier to say 'Well we'll agree to x, y, z if you agree to a, b, c.' If you want a certain thing to be passed then you can be flexible with other parts of the bill, or you could compromise on other parts of it if the meat gets through. To a utilitarian, it doesn't matter how you get the result, only that you get it. Well, I suppose that's more consquentialist than utilitarian (although the latter is basically a form of the former). You could make a case that anyone who proposes universal healthcare, social safety nets, more funding for public education and the like, is basically a utilitarian (all of those things maximise people's happiness, health and giving them more opportunities, while minimising pain, privation and suffering and the like).

The drawback of utilitarian decision making is that you open yourself to attack by more black and white opponents. For example, you might negotiate in good faith with someone who just wants to stymie you. Or if you compromise to the opposition (or if you're the opposition compromising to whoever's in charge), you can also become vulnerable to attack from your side. Like, you might be told you've betrayed the cause or something, sort of similar to what happened to the Australian Democrats when Howard brought in the GST. Or those who attack Obama for not being liberal enough etc. (note: I'm not suggesting said criticisms are invalid, I'm just illustrating by way of example)

Like I said, it's arguable that it's the dominant ethical system in the west. There are certainly counter-examples. Every country has something that counters this idea; we've got a lot of committed ideologues in government at the moment, and I don't think they care about maximising utility for the most number of people. They seem to care more about minimising the restrictions certain people face, like in what tax they pay, and believe this will lead to a better society. That's if they're genuine or not. It's totally possible they could be idiots or even malicious. We have a pretty big mess happening in Iraq at the moment that is the direct consequence of people making decisions over a decade ago without really caring about the likely results. Iraq's a good example of how you can oppose it on various grounds: from a consequentialist perspective going into Iraq would lead to outcomes similar to what we have today; to a utilitarian, ditto with the added idea that going into Iraq also wouldn't maxmise anybody's happiness. From a deontological perspective (say for example the idea of going to war as an aggressor is wrong) you can also oppose it, or you can support it if you buy into the narrative (spreading democracy etc). The 'spreading democracy' idea might be consequentialist instead of deontological though, I'm not sure. On the other hand, the people responsible for putting boots on the ground definitely had SOME idea of what the consequences would be, they either a) didn't care or b) they were only concerned with some of the consequences (the ones that could fall under the nebulous definition of 'national interest') while being glib about the human cost.

I'm interested to see if people agree or disagree with any of the above points. Calling it the 'dominant' ethical system might be too strong a wording on my part, but I don't think anyone can disagree that utilitarianism has been very influential though.

I suppose I should also add, there are certainly a lot of areas where utilitarianism can be criticised and personally I'm persuaded by a lot of them. EDIT At the risk of being accused of being wishy washy, there are also aspects of utilitarianism that are certainly compelling and makes sense.

We have a "section, township and range" which is the government designation for my land. We're supposed to get an address at some point. Then I'll be able to use ups.

Agent Bert Macklin wrote:

Dude wrote:

Agent Bert Macklin wrote:lol. I left one of my car windows down and it stormed heavily during the night. Also, my engine is making a weird clicking sound.

Is it a ford? And does it happen all the time or just for the first few minutes after starting?

It's a 2009 Corolla. I never really noticed it until one of my roommates mentioned it. It sounds like it's coming from the area whe3re the belts are. I'll let my other roommate take a look when he gets home.

The water pump had to be replaced. My warranty covered it. It's running so much better.

Woot!

>repeating for a military ceremony
>into the ranks, standing at attention
>get shat upon the cap by a passing bird
>remark it only after removing the cap as part of the ceremony, putting my fingers in it

... You've got to be kidding me...

Huh. So I guess it's going to be a little harder than I expected to find eight personal references I can use for this Guardsmark application.

Oxymoron wrote:>repeating for a military ceremony
>into the ranks, standing at attention
>get shat upon the cap by a passing bird
>remark it only after removing the cap as part of the ceremony, putting my fingers in it

... You've got to be kidding me...

You joined up?

Since october, actually. Currently doing my specialist training. Should be ready to join the forces by june 2015.

Mechanics in the French Air Force, if you're wondering.

Attended my first Catholic wedding on Saturday. It was a little weird having never attended a Catholic mass before.

Oxymoron wrote:Since october, actually. Currently doing my specialist training. Should be ready to join the forces by june 2015.

Mechanics in the French Air Force, if you're wondering.

Good trade if it's like our aircraft mechanics, they all go on to good paying civvie jobs.

The Spartan wrote:Attended my first Catholic wedding on Saturday. It was a little weird having never attended a Catholic mass before.

Ugh, boring as hell.

Catholics aren't really big on the whole "fun" thing.

It took an hour and a half, which, I'm told is a short one.

I didn't get bored though. Mostly because I was fascinated by the newness of it. If I had to sit through it again...

I was ringbearer at a catholic wedding when I was like 13 or so.

Cathedral, huge stained glass windows everywhere, bright, sunny day in the middle of california summer

90 degrees outside, who knows how hot inside, standing for 4 hours under a window with no ventilation in three layers of tuxedo.

Fortunately, only the wife's brother passed out during the ceremony (he'd locked his knees).

My uncle had a Catholic funeral. He wasn't any brand of Christian, but other relatives planned it.

Fun fact: When the cause of death is suicide, Catholic priests really aren't good at hiding their disdain.

Wow. That is awful.

I've been to one Catholic wedding and it was fine but maybe it was a bit relaxed because the groom's parents are pretty hardcore pentecostal types

worst I've experienced was an anglican service where no one was super religious but the groom's family had a sort of traditional inertia and asked for it to be done properly. The (young) priest gets up and proceeds to deliver a half hour lecture on the decline marriage as an institution and what a sad reflection on society that everyone was getting divorced and that mathematically there was a strong chance the bride and groom would eventually divorce so we (the guests) had to commit to making sure that didn't happen

what a dickhead

The last catholic wedding I attended I sat staring at the decor around the church; easy to see where the third reich took their cues from.

And then at the reception I was goaded into the faux pas of starting my meal before the blessing had been given.

The Spartan wrote:It took an hour and a half, which, I'm told is a short one.

Maybe not long for a wedding, but that is long for a mass. Most of them in my previous experience clock in at around 1 hour, depending on how long the priest takes on the sermon. That's for normal masses, anyway. The special ones like Easter or the Christmas Vigil take longer since they typically have more music.

Though an abbey near where my parents live (where my father sometimes took me before I stopped going to church all together) shaved it down to 20-30 minutes due to a typically short sermon and no music. The remember that the abbot sounded vaguely like Henry Kissinger.

Gands wrote:My uncle had a Catholic funeral. He wasn't any brand of Christian, but other relatives planned it.

Fun fact: When the cause of death is suicide, Catholic priests really aren't good at hiding their disdain.

Speaking of Catholic funerals, most people in my family are (or, to be more accurate, were) Catholic. My paternal grandfather was old school, and always hated the addition of music to the mass. He died before I was born, but my dad told me about the funeral, where he was in the coffin with all this organ music playing. One of my dad's siblings leaned over and said that he half expected my grandfather to sit up in the coffin and tell them to stop playing the damn music, causing everyone else in the church to wonder why the deceased's wife and children were all laughing in the middle of the funeral.

I dropped my flash a few days ago and when I went to use it today to do some more dramatic lighting, it didn't work. Now I gotta replace it. lol.

Civil War Man wrote:Speaking of Catholic funerals, most people in my family are (or, to be more accurate, were) Catholic. My paternal grandfather was old school, and always hated the addition of music to the mass. He died before I was born, but my dad told me about the funeral, where he was in the coffin with all this organ music playing. One of my dad's siblings leaned over and said that he half expected my grandfather to sit up in the coffin and tell them to stop playing the damn music, causing everyone else in the church to wonder why the deceased's wife and children were all laughing in the middle of the funeral.

I used to attend a Church of Christ church. They used scripture to say that music during congregation is bad.

Ephesians 5:19: Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Ugh. I really hope this security guard gig comes through fast. I don't think I can take working at Mc'donalds anymore. I come home covered in grease and sweat every day, the customers think they're entitled to treat anyone not wearing a manager's uniform like shit, and today I was stuck at the back cash register, which has about as much room as a coffin and you're sharing the space with someone else because it would take to long for one person to ring up orders and take people's money.

I was there for about an hour with this annoyingly cheerful sixteen year old girl who insisted on singing ear-bleedingly awful songs from the disney movie "Frozen." I really need to have my two weeks in by august.

All this grief over the job mate...seriously. Just let it go.