Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Types of Utilitarianisms
Message-ID: <16080@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 10:03:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.16080
Posted: Fri Oct 10 10:03:59 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:43:38 EDT
References: <575@gargoyle.UUCP> <117400125@inmet>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 23

In article <117400125@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:

>Utilitarianism does not pass its own test. Case by case optimiza-
>tion  is  not optimal - for at least two reasons: the overhead is
>too high, and human weakness distorts judgement, exposing one  to
>the  temptations  of  the  moment - cumulative temptations of
>many moments. This leads to what I call the Principle Principle -
>or  the  Rule Rule - which is that one needs inflexible rules. In
>legal sphere, this justifies  written  law  -  and  as  laws  are
>changeable too, constitutions.

   This seems to be an argument, not against Utilitarianism per se,
but in favor of what is sometimes called Rule Utilitarianism. In any
case, to say flatly that Utilitarianism doesn't pass its own test is
manifestly a fallacy. If I decide my goal is to optimize X, then it
is nonsense to claim optimizing X is not the best way to optimize X.
It might be true that the best way to optimize X (in this case human
happiness) is not via a situational method. Then we move the utility
considerations to the "meta level": we use this as a basis for choosing
our rules.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith     Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
"What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie