NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it right for one person to die to save a million.
If so, is it right for 1000 people.
10000?
100000?
999999?
Taking this into account, is it right to apply ulitarianism to a country.

The inherent problem with utilitarianism is that you shouldn't be enjoying the luxury of the internet while others can't... (if you adhere to it)

If you ask me, the problem is that it doesn't explain why we should support the greatest good for the greatest number. It's a nice idea, I guess, but like all other ethical systems I've seen, it seems to lack a reason why we should do something.

But is it right to apply to a country.
IE. 10000food units 15000 people.
1 unit to sustain 1 person for 1 year.
Should you kill 5000 to say 10000, IE save the Doctors ect or just let a big rush for the food

dont most reasonable countries follow a modified ultilitarianism?

as long as it isnt applied ruthlessly its a good way to go

i mean, thats what eminent domain is all about

but you cant take it to the point of, "well if we kill bill gates we can distribute his wealth to 100,000 other people and bring them up to the middle class"

Agree with Ashmoria, "most reasonable countries follow a modified ultilitarianism" - in moderation, it's a reasonable compromise on most issues; not all, but most!

Any form of stricter ultilitarianism should only come down to personal ethics and morality - if I choice to compromise myself to help xxxx no. of people, that's one thing, but forcing that choice on another is unethical.

but you cant take it to the point of, "well if we kill bill gates we can distribute his wealth to 100,000 other people and bring them up to the middle class"

Why can't I figure out what's wrong with that?

Why can't I figure out what's wrong with that?

It would mean having to kill Bill Gates because he is rich. No matter how he had made the money, immorally or otherwise, he would have to die because he is rich.

It would mean having to kill Bill Gates because he is rich.

...So one hundred thousand can be rich. Square one, no?

EDIT: Argh, ye be a deceiving rogue, matey! That's what I responded to, anyway.

Another edit: By the way, you don't really have to kill him, just take most of his wealth to redistribute.

...So one hundred thousand can be rich. Square one, no?

EDIT: Argh, ye be a deceiving rogue, matey! That's what I responded too, anyway.

Sorry about the edit thing. Didn't think you'd be so fast to respond:p

Anyway, I think you're taking democracy one step too far. You're suggesting that the majority have a right to kill the minority if they can gain from it.

Sorry about the edit thing. Didn't think you'd be so fast to respond:p

Anyway, I think you're taking democracy one step too far. You're suggesting that the majority have a right to kill the minority if they can gain from it.

Democracy? Meh, screw that. Look at what it did to the world! At least back in the old days there were crazy kings to make fun of.

Anyway, that's how it always is. I mean, the strong always rob the weak, unless they are somehow duped into believing they aren't strong.

Democracy? Meh, screw that. Look at what it did to the world! At least back in the old days there were crazy kings to make fun of.

Anyway, that's how it always is. I mean, the strong always rob the weak, unless they are somehow duped into believing they aren't strong.

If we've succeeded in duping the strong into not robbing the weak, I'd say we're better off for it.

Oh, and making fun of crazy kings often means ending up tied between four horses running in different directions.

If we've succeeded in duping the strong into not robbing the weak, I'd say we're better off for it.

Oh, and making fun of crazy kings often means ending up tied between four horses running in different directions.

'Cept if you happen to fall in the "duped" category...

And the horse thing was just more cretins to point and laugh at.

Why can't I figure out what's wrong with that?
because if everyone who got wicked rich ended up being killed for it (or even if they got it all redistributed) then what would be the incentive for the innovations and hard work that got him rich in the first place? society would lose out on alot of great ideas and workaholics

or maybe you just hate bill gates, not an irrational position.

'Cept if you happen to fall in the "duped" category...

And the horse thing was just more cretins to point and laugh at.

The strong losing their ability to rob the weak is to me a freedom worth sacrificing for the greater good.

because if everyone who got wicked rich ended up being killed for it (or even if they got it all redistributed) then what would be the incentive for the innovations and hard work that got him rich in the first place? society would lose out on alot of great ideas and workaholics

or maybe you just hate bill gates, not an irrational position.

It's called "war". Worked for the Commies, no?

Anyway, that's how it always is. I mean, the strong always rob the weak, unless they are somehow duped into believing they aren't strong.
Callicles would argue that that's the entire point of a legal system.

It's called "war". Worked for the Commies, no?
yeah worked great for them.

good example of why utilitarianism should be kept in its proper place

Another edit: By the way, you don't really have to kill him, just take most of his wealth to redistribute.

Yes, but many people dislike that "communist" ideal. They want to buy a big car, or a third tv or dine in expensive restaurants. That that money could also be used to save a few thousand lives is something which is known in the back of their heads - but it is from from their beds.

And I would lie if I said I had never spent anything on myself which could not have been put to better use elsewhere... which means I indirectly allowed a few 1000 people to die.

yeah worked great for them.

good example of why utilitarianism should be kept in its proper place

What do you mean? Everyone did what they were told. War is an excellent way of distracting people from your lies. It's great for technology too, if that's part of your priorities. Controlled war is what keeps empires standing.

Another edit: By the way, you don't really have to kill him, just take most of his wealth to redistribute.

So you are saying that Bill Gates doesn't deserve to keep the money he rightfully earned. Or perhaps you are saying the government deserves it more. That's a pretty authoritarian statement. Even if this redistribution did help a certain group of people, who determines who gets what? The government! This means that the government will operate out of special interests to give money to those people they think needs it, regardless of the validity of this belief. Furthermore, you forget the huge negative consequences that wealth redistribution has on investment and economic growth. Hypothetically, if I were a multi-millionaire and discovered that the government was going to steal 80% of my income to go to welfare statism, I would be very hesitant to hire more workers, invest in innovation, and pay higher wages. Therefore, what you propose is the increase in unemployment and lack of innovative thinking that leads to a more efficient society.

Yes, but many people dislike that "communist" ideal. They want to buy a big car, or a third tv or dine in expensive restaurants. That that money could also be used to save a few thousand lives is something which is known in the back of their heads - but it is from from their beds.

And I would lie if I said I had never spent anything on myself which could not have been put to better use elsewhere... which means I indirectly allowed a few 1000 people to die.

Then people should stop pretending like they care and expect others to. It's really not the income disparity I have an issue with, it's the hypocrisy.

because if everyone who got wicked rich ended up being killed for it (or even if they got it all redistributed) then what would be the incentive for the innovations and hard work that got him rich in the first place?

The personal satisfaction of achieving something ? But that is moving into a communist ideal - where people work to better the lives of themselves and others around them without wanting something back. Which may work for a few "enlightened" individuals - but not for a mass of people.

this poll is mad

So you are saying that Bill Gates doesn't deserve to keep the money he rightfully earned. Or perhaps you are saying the government deserves it more. That's a pretty authoritarian statement. Even if this redistribution did help a certain group of people, who determines who gets what? The government! This means that the government will operate out of special interests to give money to those people they think needs it, regardless of the validity of this belief. Furthermore, you forget the huge negative consequences that wealth redistribution has on investment and economic growth. Hypothetically, if I were a multi-millionaire and discovered that the government was going to steal 80% of my income to go to welfare statism, I would be very hesitant to hire more workers, invest in innovation, and pay higher wages. Therefore, what you propose is the increase in unemployment and lack of innovative thinking that leads to a more efficient society.

Could you guys sort of bunch up and argue with me as a team? This might be getting confusing for other people.

Anyway, first, the humongous amount of difference in how many people have "earned" through their "hard work" means that a human beings energy output may range from the heat released by a cardboard box burning to our sun.

Second, if you didn't want to work since I'd take it all anyway, I make you work. War, as I have said. I dupe you one way or another into thinking your effort actually matters.

What do you mean? Everyone did what they were told. War is an excellent way of distracting people from your lies. It's great for technology too, if that's part of your priorities. Controlled war is what keeps empires standing.
are you being silly and i just cant tell?

the soviet union no longer exists, the chinese communists have given up alot of the control they had

their people lived in squalor, control required murder on a massive scale. and in the end they failed.

not all that good a record really

Anyway, first, the humongous amount of difference in how many people have "earned" through their "hard work" means that a human beings energy output may range from the heat released by a cardboard box burning to our sun.


So, who will judge how hard one works? The government? Again, what makes the government so apt at determining how hard one works? Furthermore, I maintain that it does not matter. If I were ridiculously wealthy and inherited all my wealth, I am still entitled to keep it. Even if the qualification for keeping one's income was "hard work" then, an heir could trace the earned wealth back to someone who did work hard to earn it in the first place. Economic stimulation and social betterment comes from the deregulation of industry--allowing for an overall increase in the standard of living.

Second, if you didn't want to work since I'd take it all anyway, I make you work. War, as I have said. I dupe you one way or another into thinking your effort actually matters.

I hope you aren't serious. Forced conscription? So if I do work hard you take my money, and if I don't I fight in a government-created war? If I lived in your country I would lead a revolution.

So, who will judge how hard one works? The government? Again, what makes the government so apt at determining how hard one works? Furthermore, I maintain that it does not matter. If I were ridiculously wealthy and inherited all my wealth, I am still entitled to keep it. Even if the qualification for keeping one's income was "hard work" then, an heir could trace the earned wealth back to someone who did work hard to earn it in the first place. Economic stimulation and social betterment comes from the deregulation of industry--allowing for an overall increase in the standard of living.

I hope you aren't serious. Forced conscription? So if I do work hard you take my money, and if I don't I fight in a government-created war? If I lived in your country I would lead a revolution.

Yeah, well, if we start tracing stuff to our ancestors then I own the world. I mean, who gets your late grandfather's private island, you or your brother?

I wasn't talking about forced conscription at all, just a simple "help your country" campaign to take advantage of the gullible's elitism. Someone starts figuring things out, you give him a choice: Work for the government or not be able to ever work at all.

are you being silly and i just cant tell?

the soviet union no longer exists, the chinese communists have given up alot of the control they had

their people lived in squalor, control required murder on a massive scale. and in the end they failed.

not all that good a record really

The Soviet Union did not lose the Second World War.

The Soviet Union did not lose the Second World War.
neither did the nonulititarian united states and united kingdom

not that i knew we were talking about WW2. musta missed that bit

the ussr lost massive numbers of people in the war. many many due to the incompetence of stalin and his "retreat and die" policy.

This whole idea is to alike to what Hitler did so it should be a sure signal to the evil of utilitarianism.

Yeah, well, if we start tracing stuff to our ancestors then I own the world. I mean, who gets your late grandfather's private island, you or your brother?


The point is that the inheritance should be decided on a voluntary, contractual (will) basis, not forcible government coercive action through excessive taxation.

I wasn't talking about forced conscription at all, just a simple "help your country" campaign to take advantage of the gullible's elitism. Someone starts figuring things out, you give him a choice: Work for the government or not be able to ever work at all.

Would this "help your country" be voluntary? To be truly voluntary it must be bilaterally voluntary and informed (paraphrased from the words of Milton Friedman). Fighting in the military is an economic exchange, and to force one to fight, either by direct coercion or a limited amount of choice (work hard or fight in the military) is coercion. Furthermore, since when is the country more important than the individual citizens. The government responds to the citizens, not the other way around.

The Soviet Union did not lose the Second World War.

It depends on how you define "lose". They did lose over 6 million people, and had over 14 million wounded which is roughly twice as much as Germany--who was the primary aggressor. Furthermore, they were led by a dictator that could care less about the country's citizenry (case in point the massive amount of casualites suffered in the war plus murders as a result of the "purges"), and forcibly suppressed the civil, political and economic rights of those citizens that weren't killed.

Good job USSR. :rolleyes:

This whole idea is to alike to what Hitler did so it should be a sure signal to the evil of utilitarianism.

Oh, I get it! Alright, discussion's over, you should've told me right away though.

Oh, I get it! Alright, discussion's over, you should've told me right away though.

yay you finally made a good post.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424611) is probably the most productive discussion about Utilitarianism I've seen on these boards: I could educate you about my opinions of it but it's probably already been said here at some point. Utilitarianism is a load of garbage and isn't worth the time of day in any philosophical sense.

Utilitarianism completely overlooks man's individual qualities. Utilitarianists look at men as one collective organism, which we are not; we are different people. To say that I should die or sacrifice for the sake of others who I feel no kinship for is ludicrous.:mad:

Would I sacrifice Stephen Hawking (as an example) if it would save the lives of 1 million religious fundamentalists..

Why no I would not.

Utilitarianism completely overlooks man's individual qualities. Utilitarianists look at men as one collective organism, which we are not; we are different people. To say that I should die or sacrifice for the sake of others who I feel no kinship for is ludicrous.:mad:
Testify!

So, who will judge how hard one works? The government? Again, what makes the government so apt at determining how hard one works? Furthermore, I maintain that it does not matter. If I were ridiculously wealthy and inherited all my wealth, I am still entitled to keep it. Even if the qualification for keeping one's income was "hard work" then, an heir could trace the earned wealth back to someone who did work hard to earn it in the first place. Economic stimulation and social betterment comes from the deregulation of industry--allowing for an overall increase in the standard of living.


. . .Really? I seem to recall it not working out all that well. . .well, everytime we've tried it. The Gilded Age, the 1920's, and the current age aren't really known for everyone being better off so much as some people getting much better off than others.

This, however, does not provide a justification for or a critique of utilitarianism. Rather than do a treatise on why utilitarianism is a failure (BTW, it's very odd to see capitalists attacking libertarianism, since most of the early utilitarians and most of the early capitalists were either one and the same, as in the case of John Stuart Mill, or came out of the same school of thought, as did Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham), perhaps someone could narrow this topic down? Are we talking about Moore, Mill, or Bentham utilitarianism?

. . .Really? I seem to recall it not working out all that well. . .well, everytime we've tried it. The Gilded Age, the 1920's, and the current age aren't really known for everyone being better off so much as some people getting much better off than others.

This, however, does not provide a justification for or a critique of utilitarianism. Rather than do a treatise on why utilitarianism is a failure (BTW, it's very odd to see capitalists attacking libertarianism, since most of the early utilitarians and most of the early capitalists were either one and the same, as in the case of John Stuart Mill, or came out of the same school of thought, as did Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham), perhaps someone could narrow this topic down? Are we talking about Moore, Mill, or Bentham utilitarianism?
i thought we were talking star trekian utilitarianism

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

i thought we were talking star trekian utilitarianism

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

I believe that generally goes by the name of James' ethical pragmatism.

Hmm... Let me throw this little hypothetical situation:

Five soldiers are hiding behind a large pile of debris, stranded amidst the wreckage of the once-proud city, ruined by countless anti-tank rounds and artillery shells. They are trapped, a sniper is watching the surroundings and the moment they move from their spot, somebody will get shot. They are very close so there's no way he will miss.

The soldiers are out of ammo, and have only one grenade left. If one or two of them sacrificed themselves, another could get just close enough to throw the grenade right at the enemy, and at least some will be saved.

It's tough to decide who should die next, but time is running out: In six hours a battalion of enemy troops will arrive here and then they will surely be doomed. Yet their camp is only half an hour away! If only they could get past the sniper...

This whole idea is to alike to what Hitler did so it should be a sure signal to the evil of utilitarianism.

Then again, many seem to admire the utilitarian way Jesus is said to have sacrificed himself for all mankind.

Hmm... Let me throw this little hypothetical situation:

Five soldiers are hiding behind a large pile of debris, stranded amidst the wreckage of the once-proud city, ruined by countless anti-tank rounds and artillery shells. They are trapped, a sniper is watching the surroundings and the moment they move from their spot, somebody will get shot. They are very close so there's no way he will miss.

The soldiers are out of ammo, and have only one grenade left. If one or two of them sacrificed themselves, another could get just close enough to throw the grenade right at the enemy, and at least some will be saved.

It's tough to decide who should die next, but time is running out: In six hours a battalion of enemy troops will arrive here and then they will surely be doomed. Yet their camp is only half an hour away! If only they could get past the sniper...

Strictly speaking, that's when you call in arty support, but I believe that violates the terms of the thought experiment.

Generally speaking, I suppose you are asking whether it would be ethical to order Private Smith to get into the firing zone, knowing he would be killed. I would say that it would, but not on the basis of utilitarian ethics. Instead, I justify on the grounds of Aquinas' root natural law: do good and avoid evil. By making sure that my men survive, I do good, first by saving their lives, and second by upholding my obligation as an officer to protect my men as best as possible. I avoid evil first because it is not me that is sniping my men (thus making me morally unresponsible), second because I am doing everything possible to save my men, and third because I do not know which of my men will be shot, thus I am not culpable for their deaths in the same way as if I knowingly gave an order that would result in the death of Private Smith.

Strictly speaking, that's when you call in arty support, but I believe that violates the terms of the thought experiment.

Generally speaking, I suppose you are asking whether it would be ethical to order Private Smith to get into the firing zone, knowing he would be killed. I would say that it would, but not on the basis of utilitarian ethics. Instead, I justify on the grounds of Aquinas' root natural law: do good and avoid evil. By making sure that my men survive, I do good, first by saving their lives, and second by upholding my obligation as an officer to protect my men as best as possible. I avoid evil first because it is not me that is sniping my men (thus making me morally unresponsible), second because I am doing everything possible to save my men, and third because I do not know which of my men will be shot, thus I am not culpable for their deaths in the same way as if I knowingly gave an order that would result in the death of Private Smith.

Rank complicates things just a little bit, so it would be helpful if we assumed they were all privates.

Anyway, my analysis is as follows: Either they pick someone and send him to die, or they wait for six hours and die together. Thing is, Private Smith would die anyway, why not make it so at least the others are saved?

By the way, when sending Smith out to die, you won't tell him that it'll be alright. You will explain that his job is to go out there and get shot so the others don't. Sure, it doesn't have to be him and any of the others could get shot instead, but hey, it's gotta be someone and that someone happened to be him.

Just getting rid of the irrelevant details.

. . .Really? I seem to recall it not working out all that well. . .well, everytime we've tried it. The Gilded Age, the 1920's, and the current age aren't really known for everyone being better off so much as some people getting much better off than others

Unfortunately, during those time periods you mentioned, at no point was there a pure free market in the United States. The 1920s was full of government intervention in the economy and this intervention, incidentally, caused the Great Depression. The mistakes made by the Federal Reserve combined with land speculation (as a result of government-licensed land titles) caused the fall of the Stock Market and the eventual Great Depression. There is extensive writing on this very issue, and needless to say, the history books doesn't do a very good job identifying the source of the economic woes of that time period.

If you think the "current age" is an example of free market capitalism, then I suggest you do a little bit more research into what fmc really is. In fact, we live in an age with more government intervention than ever. The U.S. government has grown about 40% since the New Deal Era, George Bush has spent more money than any other president EVER, and while it seems Bush is a pro-business president, he's really just a corporatist-interventionist of the likes we have seen since FDR. Corporate welfare, minimum wage laws, selective tax breaks and other subsidies disrupt competition and lead to the rise of large corporations. It is no coincidence that the largest businesses have grown as the size of government has grown. The two are intertwined. Politicans need money, and corps need favorable legislation--it's government corruption at its best. Eliminate all government regulation and you have a pure free market and a steady rise in the standard of living.

Hmm... Let me throw this little hypothetical situation:

Five soldiers are hiding behind a large pile of debris, stranded amidst the wreckage of the once-proud city, ruined by countless anti-tank rounds and artillery shells. They are trapped, a sniper is watching the surroundings and the moment they move from their spot, somebody will get shot. They are very close so there's no way he will miss.

The soldiers are out of ammo, and have only one grenade left. If one or two of them sacrificed themselves, another could get just close enough to throw the grenade right at the enemy, and at least some will be saved.

It's tough to decide who should die next, but time is running out: In six hours a battalion of enemy troops will arrive here and then they will surely be doomed. Yet their camp is only half an hour away! If only they could get past the sniper...
This constitutes a metaphysical emergency, and emergencies are not the proper basis for one's day to day morality. Different actions are appropriate in different contexts, and to commit these acts or not is decided by the individual every time. This is another question in the same vein as "what should you do if you're in a lifeboat with one other pesron and it's only designed for one" or "should you save a drowning stranger" and so forth. While I understand what the people who ask them are trying to get at, they often fail to realize that disasters like this are not the normal state of things. I'm not going to justify how I conduct my business at home or at work based on what's appropriate to do during combat or a shipwreck.

When one person is made dispensable, a precedent is set where all people are made dispensable.

I'm not going to justify how I conduct my business at home or at work based on what's appropriate to do during combat or a shipwreck.

But how do you justify that the resources you use up to sustain your daily life could also be used to sustain a few 100 if not 1000 Africans ?
Of course, the same is true for me and I am not planning to commit suicide so they may live either

Y'know, if you kill two or three hundred millionaires and confiscate their wealth, you could buy everyone in the United States an icy cold can of coke. Yay utilitarianism!

Y'know, if you kill two or three hundred millionaires and confiscate their wealth, you could buy everyone in the United States an icy cold can of coke. Yay utilitarianism!

You can do better. The top 10 people in the Forbes 2003 list together own 217 200 000 000 dollars. According to the CIA world factbook the USA has 295 734 134 inhabitants. So each citizen would get $734 - if you kill only 10 people and redistribute their wealth.

I have little use for utilitarianism.

The greatest problem of utilitarianism is not its willingness to sacrifice individuals or its will to oppress. The problem with utilitarianism is that it has absolutely no notion of justice.

For example (as I always use) consider a rape. Common morality deems rape an absolute wrong. A good utilitarian however would sit there and weigh up the rapist's pleasure and the victim's pain. I'm not saying that the utilitarian conclusion will ever be pro-rape, my point is: why does the rapist's pleasure even matter.

For example (as I always use) consider a rape. Common morality deems rape an absolute wrong. A good utilitarian however would sit there and weigh up the rapist's pleasure and the victim's pain. I'm not saying that the utilitarian conclusion will ever be pro-rape, my point is: why does the rapist's pleasure even matter.

Because the weighing of pleasure and pain is one of the basic ideas of the utilitarian moral system ? That the "common" Judeo-Christian moral system has other ideas as its basis and follows a different style of reasoning is irrelevant.

You do understand that utilitarians, "kantians", Christians and so on have a different idea what distinguishes right from wrong I hope ? That *your* personal beliefs correspond more with one than with another does not invalidate the others reasoning - unless you can show that right and wrong are absolutes.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Utilitarianism is great to have as a general moral theory to aim for, but you certainly need other moral principles to go along with it or it can justify exceedingly immoral acts, such as handing over a single child for all of the world's pedophiles to share for their pleasure.


Oh, and that thing about the Soviet Union losing WW2 is almost as humerous as the claim that America won Vietnam. Guess some people just can't accept that it's possible for a country they dislike can succeed, just as some can't accept that it's possible for their own country to fail.

I'm surprised at the poll's rejection of utilitarianism considering the amount of socialists on this board. I am a utilitarian.

It would mean having to kill Bill Gates because he is rich. No matter how he had made the money, immorally or otherwise, he would have to die because he is rich.
We wouldn't have to kill him. Just imprison him!

In the real world, however, killing or imprisoning the rich to take their money would really not work out for obvious reasons.

neither did the nonulititarian united states and united kingdom

That's a silly term to use. Utilitarianism is not an alternative word for communism.

Utilitarianism is a load of garbage and isn't worth the time of day in any philosophical sense.
No it's not. Utilitarianism is the most pragmatic of the philosophies, and is the basis of all government (individual sacrifice for collective security).

Because the weighing of pleasure and pain is one of the basic ideas of the utilitarian moral system ? That the "common" Judeo-Christian moral system has other ideas as its basis and follows a different style of reasoning is irrelevant.

You do understand that utilitarians, "kantians", Christians and so on have a different idea what distinguishes right from wrong I hope ? That *your* personal beliefs correspond more with one than with another does not invalidate the others reasoning - unless you can show that right and wrong are absolutes.

I understand all this; but it doesn't remove the fact that there is no notion of justice. Right and wrong is based entirely on result not action. Utilitarianism is unjust; it can punish people for doing nothing wrong and reward people for causing harm.

Different ideals do create different ideas of right and wrong; and those provided by utilitarianism are just twisted.

I understand all this; but it doesn't remove the fact that there is no notion of justice. Right and wrong is based entirely on result not action. Utilitarianism is unjust; it can punish people for doing nothing wrong and reward people for causing harm.

I fear you do not understand - since you are again applying your morals to another moral system; without giving any evidence to show that your morals are better...
Aside: rewarding people for causing harm is only a good utilitarian action if the harm done causes much more happyness elsewhere. Doing net harm is always bad. This can lead to situations which would be morally repulsive in other moral systems, as well as situations where it is unclear what is right or wrong. Then again, the same is true for e.g. Christian ideals.


Different ideals do create different ideas of right and wrong; and those provided by utilitarianism are just twisted.

See above.

I fear you do not understand - since you are again applying your morals to another moral system; without giving any evidence to show that your morals are better...
Aside: rewarding people for causing harm is only a good utilitarian action if the harm done causes much more happyness elsewhere. Doing net harm is always bad. This can lead to situations which would be morally repulsive in other moral systems, as well as situations where it is unclear what is right or wrong. Then again, the same is true for e.g. Christian ideals.

You are failing to seperate concepts of morality from concepts of justice. I find utilitarianism deficient as a moral concept because I feel the world needs a sense of justice. However I do not claim this to be an objective idea of morality, that the world needs justice, it is simply my personal view. I am merely highlighting the absence of a concept of justice; because I think overwhelmingly people want a philosophy that contains justice, something that utilitarianism lacks. Justice has a notion of causality; when utilitarianism only consider's effect, considering cause as only a means to effect.

Being raped for a rapist's utility is not just; it is plain unfair.

EDIT: I am not trying to provide a proof against utilitarianism; it is just a moral philosophy neither right or wrong. I am trying to highlight flaws in it most people overlook.

Unfortunately, during those time periods you mentioned, at no point was there a pure free market in the United States. The 1920s was full of government intervention in the economy and this intervention, incidentally, caused the Great Depression. The mistakes made by the Federal Reserve combined with land speculation (as a result of government-licensed land titles) caused the fall of the Stock Market and the eventual Great Depression. There is extensive writing on this very issue, and needless to say, the history books doesn't do a very good job identifying the source of the economic woes of that time period.

If you think the "current age" is an example of free market capitalism, then I suggest you do a little bit more research into what fmc really is. In fact, we live in an age with more government intervention than ever. The U.S. government has grown about 40% since the New Deal Era, George Bush has spent more money than any other president EVER, and while it seems Bush is a pro-business president, he's really just a corporatist-interventionist of the likes we have seen since FDR. Corporate welfare, minimum wage laws, selective tax breaks and other subsidies disrupt competition and lead to the rise of large corporations. It is no coincidence that the largest businesses have grown as the size of government has grown. The two are intertwined. Politicans need money, and corps need favorable legislation--it's government corruption at its best. Eliminate all government regulation and you have a pure free market and a steady rise in the standard of living.

Those are all times where the government has stepped back and let business do its thing. The fact that business' thing when left to its own devices happened to be funnelling government money into its coffers in ever-increasing amounts isn't my problem; its the problem of your theory. If business seems to unavoidably suck in money from the government whenever the government doesn't actively stop it (which, by extension, means that government is involved in the process no matter what it ultimately spends money on), then you have to wonder if FMC, to use your acronym, is even possible.

Those are all times where the government has stepped back and let business do its thing.

Wrong. The government intervened by disrupting the economy, causing corporatism and inequality in the marketplace. Without the government intervention you would have pure free market. I guess if you consider "stepping back" giving tax breaks, subsidies, corporate welfare and other benefits to businesses that profit individual politicans, then you are correct. However, if you are any other rational human being you'll realize that such a statement is inherently flawed.

The fact that business' thing when left to its own devices happened to be funnelling government money into its coffers in ever-increasing amounts isn't my problem; its the problem of your theory.

Arguing that private enterprise somehow forcibly takes government money does not have any foundation in reality. Private enterprise does not take money from the government; rather, the government exchanges favorable legislation for private funds for reelection, political campaigns, etc. The fact is, the only true coercive force in society is the government through its laws, military and police force and immense power over individuals. Private enterprises aren't that way. I maintain that while the collusion of government and economic powers is bad and corrupt (being a free-market capitalist), I find the government's actions more reprehensible than the private market and I'll tell you why. Private interests are for profit, and if they gain favorable legislation and thereby increase profits, then their actions as profit-seeking enterprises, while maybe corrupt are understandable. The government, on the other hand, has a moral responsibility to represent the people, not their own interests. So in a sense, politicans, who are vested with representatory power should be at fault here. Private enterprise doesn't claim to have power over people like politicans do. I find that the most effective way to get rid of the dangerous mix of business/political interference would be a constitutional amendment banning subsidies. Simple as that.

If business seems to unavoidably suck in money from the government whenever the government doesn't actively stop it (which, by extension, means that government is involved in the process no matter what it ultimately spends money on), then you have to wonder if FMC, to use your acronym, is even possible.

First, it is not unavoidable that business and government collude. It just needs to be stopped with laws. Second, like I mentioned before you make it sound as though private enterprises hold the poor, defenseless government at their mercy by "sucking" money from taxpayer dollars. The truth is that our tax payer dollars are GIVEN to private enteprise in a dangerous, but mutually beneficial exchange. Your idealized view on government is optimistic, but ultimately unrealistic. There is no problem with free market capitalism in theory, just in practice. And the failure in practice can definitely be ameliorated.

No it's not. Utilitarianism is the most pragmatic of the philosophies, and is the basis of all government (individual sacrifice for collective security).
You clearly have little or no idea who you're talking to. If Utilitarianism is so "pragmatic," then why does its application in the economic sector always lead to disaster? Also, how is it justified purely on virtue of the fact that a lot of governments adhere to it? If most nations on the planet were fascist dictatorships, would you be extolling the benefits of that system on the same merit? If your point is that "all governments" are based on Utilitarianism, you're going to have a difficult time explaining Libertarianism to me.

Also, Pragmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) is the most 'pragmatic' philosophy, as one might deduce from its name.