tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3524662560298769742..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A Reassessment: Desire Utilitarianism IdeologyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25881255557102261462010-03-03T22:06:16.887-07:002010-03-03T22:06:16.887-07:00Desire utilitarianism is a moral theory that holds...Desire utilitarianism is a moral theory that holds that desires (not actions) are the primary object of moral evaluation. A desire is good to the degree that a desire tends to provide the greater utility, and bad to the degree that it provides lesser utility.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91055320988256950712010-03-03T19:15:28.749-07:002010-03-03T19:15:28.749-07:00Alonzo,
I have a favour to ask you.
If Oxford D...Alonzo, <br /><br />I have a favour to ask you.<br /><br />If Oxford Dictionary called you and asked you to provide them with a dictionary definition for Desire Utilitarianism, how would you sum it up?mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78040894402736270472010-02-20T12:11:33.523-07:002010-02-20T12:11:33.523-07:00I recall comments about needing a proofreader. I w...I recall comments about needing a proofreader. I would be more than happy to proofread any material you would like me to.BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566871921754668721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75661916938545173382010-02-19T03:24:11.044-07:002010-02-19T03:24:11.044-07:00Yes,
In order to take your moral theory to the pl...Yes,<br /><br />In order to take your moral theory to the place that it truly belongs, somewhere along your journey you must submit Desire Utilitarianism for peer review by professional moral philosophers.<br /><br />Also, <i>Desire Utilitarianism needs a Wikipedia page</i>mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87407627647501596742010-02-19T02:09:01.020-07:002010-02-19T02:09:01.020-07:00I'm with Kip. The best thing you can do is get...I'm with Kip. The best thing you can do is get your theory into the peer-reviewed literature so it can be "tested". (You may also want to bite the bullet and think about "branding". I'm not crazy about "desirism", but calling it "desire utilitarianism" continues to confuse a whole lot of people).<br /><br />After you have an article (or two) under your belt, consider writing a popular book with a good publisher. If your desire truly is to reach people, self-publishing just won't do. (Here is where the article comes in handy. In your query letter, you will be able to say you have these articles published and they have been cited X may times.)<br /><br />If you're just too busy (because you have to work to put food on the table), consider forming a non-profit so others can help fund your work. (Maybe this will help with the article since it shows you are serious. I don't know.)Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28282407899746693332010-02-18T22:10:07.892-07:002010-02-18T22:10:07.892-07:00I would also, in an ideal world, like to see peer-...I would also, in an ideal world, like to see peer-reviewed publishing. However we are dealing in this world. Such publishing isn't possible when one is trying to hold down a job in the real world. It would require a return to that ivory tower environment for what's likely to be years, with no source of income.<br /><br />I'd contribute to such a project, but I don't have a great surplus of income either. The most I could commit is $100/month. :/ Not even close to enough to live off.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-7816453794566835542010-02-18T15:39:05.723-07:002010-02-18T15:39:05.723-07:00Well, you know what I think.
PUBLISH IN A PEER-RE...Well, you know what I think.<br /><br />PUBLISH IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL.<br /><br />I would be happy to help.<br /><br />I wouldn't start with a defense of desirism. That's too huge. Argue for some of the assumptions of desirism. For example, you could develop a line of argument against incoherentism, as defended in Don Loeb's recent work, and explain that a variety of uses of moral terms do not lead to moral incoherentism, but rather a strategy more akin to Brandt and his 'reforming definitions.'Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23040441117754965822010-02-18T13:22:23.371-07:002010-02-18T13:22:23.371-07:00Kip> I think morality is about a group of agent...Kip> I think morality is about a group of agents using social tools to harmonize their reasons for action.<br /><br />BJ> To what are "their reasons for actions" being harmonized?<br /><br />To all of the reasons for action that exist within that group.<br /><br />At least, that's what I say -- and I think that's pretty evident.<br /><br />Alonzo would seem to say that all the groups are wrong (in the way that someone who is being illogical is wrong) if they are not harmonizing their desires with all the desires that exist (in the entire uni/multiverse even). I think that's impossible, and have no desire to even try, and can see no "reason for action" that would lead any rational person to try.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61572969715345111452010-02-18T13:21:25.873-07:002010-02-18T13:21:25.873-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84687515181896402022010-02-18T13:20:45.688-07:002010-02-18T13:20:45.688-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-86944934842624791542010-02-18T13:16:04.153-07:002010-02-18T13:16:04.153-07:00Alonzo, please answer this question:
Group A is p...Alonzo, please answer this question:<br /><br />Group A is promoting desire X that tends to fulfill more and stronger desires for Group A, but at the same time, tends to thwart more and stronger desires of Group B. Group B has no way to affect the desires of Group A (e.g. social tools or force). As a member of Group A <b>should</b> you have desire X?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3003229244102087922010-02-18T13:02:12.675-07:002010-02-18T13:02:12.675-07:00To identify morality with "how moral agents w...To identify morality with "how moral agents will behave" is as much of a mistake as identifying logic with "how agents in a debate will behave."<br /><br />Agents in a debate will use all sorts of fallicies and rhetorical tricks to try to persuade people they are right. Moral agents make appeal to all sorts of fictitious entities such as gods and intrinsic values.<br /><br />In both logic and morality we need to make some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate behaviors.<br /><i>I mean how moral agents will behave -- how they will use moral tools to shape the malleable desires of other moral agents.</i><br /><br />I agree that desire utilitarianism does not fully describe what moral agents do because desire utilitarianism rules as illegitimate any appeal to entities that do not exist such as divine commands, intrinsic values, social contracts, categorical imperatives, impartial observers, decisions made behind a veil of ignorance, and the like. All of these are a part of moral agents do - but they have no place in desire utilitarianism.<br /><br /><br /><i>These moral agents do not (and I could even argue that they could not) incorporate "all desires that exist" into their moral calculations, nor do "all desires that exist" have an effect on them.</i><br /><br />Yes. This is true.<br /><br />It is also the case that agents do not (and I could even argue that they could not) incorporate all of the evidence that exists in drawing a particular conclusion, either.<br /><br />Yet, this does not change the fact that the best answer is the answer that considers all of the evidence. It simply means that it is difficult for individuals to determine what the right answer is.<br /><br />The same is true in morality.<br /><br />theories do not and cannot consider "all of the evidence that exists" either. Yet, that does not change the fact that the best conclusion is one that is most compatible with all of the evidence that exists.<br /><br /><i>All desires that exist" are not "reasons for action" for them (those moral agents).</i><br /><br />This is true.<br /><br />And desire utilitarianism says this very thing. It is a part of the theory. It says that agents act so as to fulfill the most and strongest <i>of their own desires</i> given their beliefs and seek to fulfill the most and strongest of their desires. Agents do not act so as to fulfill the desires of others except insofar as they have a desire to fulfill the desires of others, a desire that the desires of others be fulfilled, or a desire that tends to fulfill other desires as a side effect.<br /><br />This is why it is reasonable for people to have an interest in what desires other people have, and to call for the use of social forces to promote some desires and to inhibit others. My desires is not a reason for you to do anything. However, it is a reason for me to promote in you those desires that will tend to fulfill my desires and inhibit in you desires that tend to fulfill my desires.<br /><br />And when I get together with a community it is reasonable for us to get together and make plans to promote those desires that tend to fulfill our desires and to inhibit those desires that tend to thwart our desires.<br /><br />All of these aspects of morality are grounded on the fact that "All desires that exist" are not "reasons for action" for any given individual. In fact, it is because 'all the desires that exist' are not 'reasons for action' for them that morality exists.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1944506304962331572010-02-18T12:50:05.703-07:002010-02-18T12:50:05.703-07:00Kip: I think morality is about a group of agents u...Kip: I think morality is about a group of agents using social tools to harmonize their reasons for action.<br /><br />I think I missed something and am seeking some clarification here. To what are "their reasons for actions" being harmonized: to all the various reasons; to all the various actions; to the social tools in use; or to something else?<br /><br />- BJBJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566871921754668721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49072068808121607052010-02-18T12:09:10.210-07:002010-02-18T12:09:10.210-07:00Alonzo> We can debate how much each definition ...Alonzo> We can debate how much each definition accurately reflects the real world - which I take to mean accurately reflects the way people actually use the term.<br /><br />No, that's not what I mean. I mean how moral agents will behave -- how they will use moral tools to shape the malleable desires of other moral agents. These moral agents do not (and I could even argue that they could not) incorporate "all desires that exist" into their moral calculations, nor do "all desires that exist" have an effect on them. "All desires that exist" are not "reasons for action" <b>for them</b> (those moral agents).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21087404332445075662010-02-18T10:53:41.114-07:002010-02-18T10:53:41.114-07:00Kip
I don't think there's "something...<b>Kip</b><br /><br /><i>I don't think there's "something more", but I reject your assertion that morality is concerned with evaluating desires relative to "all other desires that exist". I think morality is about a group of agents using social tools to harmonize their reasons for action. I think my definition more accurately reflects the real world.</i><br /><br />Fine.<br /><br />Reject it.<br /><br />It doesn't matter.<br /><br />If you think it does matter, then whatever it is that makes this matter is the 'something more' that I reject. In rejecting the reality of any type of 'something more' I am also, at the same time, and in the same way, rejecting 'it matters'.<br /><br />You can choose one definition of planet that includes Pluto. I can choose a different definition of planet that excludes Pluto. We can debate how much each definition accurately reflects the real world - which I take to mean accurately reflects the way people actually use the term.<br /><br />Yet, nothing in our debate - nothing at all - will affect the mass, orbit, chemical composition, or history of Pluto. What we choose to call things is not at all relevant to the question of what things are.<br /><br />There is a set of objective facts concerning the relationship between maleable desires and other desires. There is a set of facts about how to use social tools to harmonize reasons for action.<br /><br />Insofar as they are objective facts, there is no reason for disagreement.<br /><br />And, I assert, anything that is not an objective fact is objective fiction, and can be discarded.<br /><br />All of this is independent of the additional fact that I also think that morality is concerned with using social tools to harmonize reasons for action that exist. However, desire utilitarianism explains how this is done - by the use of praise and condemnation (and similar social tools) to promote desires that tend to fulfill (harmonize with) other desires and inhibit desires that tend to thwart (create disharmony with) other desires.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1301343917291996952010-02-18T09:15:49.263-07:002010-02-18T09:15:49.263-07:00Hi Alonzo,
I have been using the "pay it for...Hi Alonzo,<br /><br />I have been using the "pay it forward" approach as I left the "tower". I go out of my way to make certain that I make at least one child smile every day. It means that I have remembered how to communicate what really matters. And, if I am successful, they will pass on "feeling good" to another and the tide of "good feelings" will eventually make it impossible for the "shit heads" to find an audience.<br /><br />Good luck!<br />.antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4781331644431975042010-02-18T08:40:26.602-07:002010-02-18T08:40:26.602-07:00Alonzo> If you think that there is an unjustifi...Alonzo> If you think that there is an unjustified "somethign more" in the assertion that morality is concerned with evaluating desires relative to all other desires, then you do not understand the theory.<br /><br />I don't think there's "something more", but I reject your assertion that morality is concerned with evaluating desires relative to "all other desires that exist".<br /><br />I think morality is about a group of agents using social tools to harmonize their reasons for action.<br /><br />I think my definition more accurately reflects the real world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51271153537521859972010-02-18T08:31:18.313-07:002010-02-18T08:31:18.313-07:00Alonzo> This is true in the same way that chemi...Alonzo> This is true in the same way that chemists the definition of 'planet' or 'atom' is 'just an assertion'. However, it is an assertion without consequence. Scientists can change the meanings of these terms if they wish. Astronomy or chemistry will not change. <b>The only change we will see is a change in the language used to report astronomical or chemical facts.</b><br /><br />False analogy. What will change in this case is the moral prescriptions -- the <b>oughts</b> and <b>ought nots</b> that result from the moral calculations. If <b>all desires that exist</b> are considered in the moral calculation, then one set of <b>oughts</b> will result. If a <b>subset</b> of all desires that exist are considered (what I am arguing is actually considered in the institute and practice we call "morality") a different set of <b>oughts</b> will result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31348168960636079222010-02-18T08:05:05.704-07:002010-02-18T08:05:05.704-07:00There are no moral laws of the universe that tell ...<i>There are no moral laws of the universe that tell us to consider all desires that exist. That is just Alonzo's assertion.</i><br /><br />Yes, it is Alonzo's assertion - but it is not a prescription. It is an assertion without consequence that a person can reject without changing the moral theory one iota.<br /><br />This is true in the same way that chemists the definition of 'planet' or 'atom' is 'just an assertion'. However, it is an assertion without consequence. Scientists can change the meanings of these terms if they wish. Astronomy or chemistry will not change. The only change we will see is a change in the language used to report astronomical or chemical facts.<br /><br />A lot of people are in the habit of reading something more into this type of assertion, to read it as saying that, "It is intrinsically wrong to fail to consider all desires that exist." They then assert that this "something more" is not justified and that the theory itself is subjective on the basis of this unjustified "something more."<br /><br />But there is no "something more".<br /><br />If you think that there is an unjustified "somethign more" in the assertion that morality is concerned with evaluating desires relative to all other desires, then you do not understand the theory. And what you are criticizing is something that you invented and inserted this flaw into, not what I wrote.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29784739068875345242010-02-18T07:55:36.692-07:002010-02-18T07:55:36.692-07:00> If you agree that morality is about reasons f...> If you agree that morality is about reasons for action...<br /><br />I think morality is about a group of agents using social tools to harmonize their reasons for action.<br /><br />>... and that desires are the only reasons for action that exist,<br /><br />Yes, as far as I know.<br /><br />>... then it follows that desires should be the objects of evaluation.<br /><br />Sure -- the desires of the agents using the social tools. But, not all desires that exist.<br /><br />If there are some agents on another planet, or in another universe with desires, should we consider those desires? If plants have desires, should we consider those desires? What about computers? Or bacteria? Or viruses? What do we mean by "desire" such that we <b>ought</b> to consider "all desires that exist"?<br /><br />> In physics, if you want to determine the movement of bodies in space, you should ideally consider the influence of all other bodies in the universe. That being a bit impracticable, we use approximations based on the task at hand and the required precision. The same goes for our evaluation of desires. Theoretically we should evaluate desires against all other desires that exist.<br /><br />I'm not saying you can't consider all desires that exist. Of course, you can (if you're omniscient). And you'd have a very detailed description of said desires. But, whether or not you <b>should</b> consider all those desires is another question. (This is David Hume's Is-Ought gap.)<br /><br />> The outcome of this evaluation of desires leads to the insight that certain desires tend to fulfill other desires and some desires tend to thwart other desires.<br /><br />It may be the case that certain desires of group A tend to fulfill desires of group A, but thwart desires of group B. If group B lacks the ability to affect group A's desires (using the social tools of morality, or force), then group A will call those desires "good". Group A may not even know they are thwarting Group B's desires. (Let's presume they don't, for now.) So, if you are a member of Group A, <b>should</b> you have this desire that they call "good"? I think so. And any theory that says that you shouldn't is not going to be of much use in the real world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62018388204962477002010-02-18T07:13:43.191-07:002010-02-18T07:13:43.191-07:00Sorry for the misunderstanding.
How do we know wh...Sorry for the misunderstanding.<br /><br /><i>How do we know which desires should be considered in the moral calculus? We don't.(*) There are no moral laws of the universe that tell us to consider all desires that exist. That is just Alonzo's assertion. </i><br /><br />I disagree with this. It's not Alonzo's assertion, it just follows from the theory. If you agree that morality is about reasons for action and that desires are the only reasons for action that exist, then it follows that desires should be the objects of evaluation. In physics, if you want to determine the movement of bodies in space, you should ideally consider the influence of all other bodies in the universe. That being a bit impracticable, we use approximations based on the task at hand and the required precision. The same goes for our evaluation of desires. Theoretically we should evaluate desires against all other desires that exist. Well, you get the picture of course.<br /><br />The outcome of this evaluation of desires leads to the insight that certain desires tend to fulfill other desires and some desires tend to thwart other desires.<br /><br />When doing moral calculus for specific cases, you don't 'decide' whether to include the desires of some group of people in your calculation, you only ask what a person with good desires would do. These 'good' desires have been determined in the aforementioned way, thus considering 'all' desires.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23728199788289432252010-02-18T06:41:55.627-07:002010-02-18T06:41:55.627-07:00@Marc:
> A lot of people seem to think that an...@Marc:<br /><br />> A lot of people seem to think that any sound ethical theory will automagically make them lead moral lifes. This is simply a mistake.<br /><br />True; but I don't. That's not what I was referring to.<br /><br /><br />> A theory can only (try to) determine what you ought to do,<br /><br />Here's the thing, though: what you <b>ought</b> to do, is relative to a set of desires. Alonzo <b>asserts</b> that moral language refers to <b>all desires that exist</b>, such that when you just said "what you ought to do", he would say you meant "what you ought to do relative to all desires that exist". I don't think you meant that, and I don't think people in general mean that when they are using moral terms. How do we know which desires should be considered in the moral calculus? We don't.(*) There are no moral laws of the universe that tell us to consider all desires that exist. That is just Alonzo's assertion. Therefore, if one group (say humans) have no desire to consider the desires of another group (say non-humans), then there is no objective way for one of the humans to tell all the other humans that they <b>should</b> consider the desires of non-humans. That is, there is no objective prescriptivity in desire utilitarianism -- there is only objective descriptivity into which prescriptivity is injected based on the desires of the agents doing the prescribing.<br /><br />(*) Actually, I'm simplifying things a bit. The truth is that if we do not consider the desires of a group in our moral calculus, <b>and that group has the ability to affect our desires</b>, then by not considering their desires, we create a situation of disharmony where that group will likely act to change or thwart our desires in order to keep us from thwarting their desires (e.g. war). In other words, it would have been <b>better</b> for us to have considered their desires. Note, though, that this only applies if that group has the ability to affect our desires. If they don't, then not considering their desires will not hurt us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81048441375091523592010-02-18T02:49:13.235-07:002010-02-18T02:49:13.235-07:00Interesting question. I partly agree with Kip. You...Interesting question. I partly agree with Kip. You say you wanted to leave that ivory tower, but part of you is still in there. Your current activities only reach a very limited number of people and I'm afraid the impact of your work is rather small. Which is a pity, because I think the theory is important enough to get your ideas 'out there'.<br /><br />To change this there are 2 major projects you can start as far as I can see: get peer reviewed and get published. While getting published scientifically may take some time, you can start by writing a book for the 'popular' market. You have enough material on this blog and in your earlier work to fill 3 books at least, so that shouldn't be a problem. So... Get a good editor (or use your regular readers as one) and start this project.<br /><br />If you really want to help make the world a better place then you have to start making sure that your ideas get noticed by a bigger audience.<br /><br />@Kip<br />The part I disagree with is the lack of prescriptive power you're worried about. Prescriptive power is highly overrated. A lot of people seem to think that any sound ethical theory will automagically make them lead moral lifes. This is simply a mistake. A theory can only (try to) determine what you ought to do, it doesn't give you the necessary desires to actually do it.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82754500844198451672010-02-17T20:06:15.233-07:002010-02-17T20:06:15.233-07:00If your theory is important, then it needs peer re...If your theory is important, then it needs peer review. You should get published.<br /><br />If it's not important, then stop spending so much time talking about it and defending it. Move on to what is important.(*)<br /><br />Politics & Religion -- two of the biggest things that affect us in this country. Learn how they work, and how best to change them in order to make the world a better place.<br /><br />Teach people. Write more books. Make podcasts and videos. Help other people make the world a better place -- it's going to take all of us to do it.<br /><br />(*) I think it's important -- and useful -- but am no longer convinced that it has the prescriptive power that I once thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73941585822715237312010-02-17T20:05:33.707-07:002010-02-17T20:05:33.707-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com