Pain and Pleasure - Hedonism and a Christian Es...

I Tim 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior. 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
This part of it.

Why then should we excuse God for causing such undeserved pain, no matter how wonderful the ultimate result may be?"

Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.

...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer that n in jail for that.

Makes it kinda hard to know where the author stands or what his point is.

Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.

I think the author agrees with you. However this is irrelevant to the topic which is whether or not utilitarianism is implied by the author as being correct in how it defines goodness and evil.

First the author is saying that he can only accept an answer that is “scandalized by an innocent person’s pain”

I don't think this is true. The language is awkward and I thought you were correct for a while. I read the paragraph again carefully however and this is how I understand it:

The first sentence says that the author has a hard time accepting an answer which does not find an innocent person's pain scandalous. Paraphrased: the author cannot accept an answer which says that it is ok to the innocent. Then he says that if a human were to hurt kids, he'd be punished, because hurting kids is scandalous and people who are not scandalized by the hurting of children are criminals and should be imprisoned when they act to hurt children.

To be scandalized by something is to be highly critical of it; not to contain it. If an answer is scandalized by XXX, it doesn't contain XXX, it opposes XXX. This is how I read the paragraph. Therefore the author is not inconsistent in that paragraph as you seem to imply.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.[/b]

I think the author agrees with you. However this is irrelevant to the topic which is whether or not utilitarianism is implied by the author as being correct in how it defines goodness and evil.

First the author is saying that he can only accept an answer that is “scandalized the paragraph. Therefore the author is not inconsistent in that paragraph as you seem to imply.[/b]

The first sentence says that the author has a hard time accepting an answer which does not find an innocent person's pain scandalous.

No, this is not what the author says. This is what you want him to say. Read again…

“...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer that is not scandalized by an innocent person’s pain, that condones human pain because it supposedly contributes to an overall work of esthetic value.”

I’ll paraphrase. “I reject all answers that are not scandalized by an innocent person’s pain…etc.”

“Not” is the key word. This means that the author can only easily accept an answer that is “scandalized by an innocent person’s pain…etc”

This implies that the author gets off on the scandalous pain of innocents. Pretty sick.

Now the author writes:

“If a human artist or employer made children suffer so that something immensely impressive or valuable could come to pass, we would put him in prison.”

So now the author is condemning these sorts of answers. So which one is it? Unless he believes that the human artist should make children suffer to create something beautiful, and the laws should be changed to allow it, the author contradicts himself.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]The first sentence says that the author has a hard time accepting an answer which does not find an innocent person's pain scandalous.

No, this is not what the author says. This is what you want him to say. Read again…

“...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an ...[text shortened]... something beautiful, and the laws should be changed to allow it, the author contradicts himself.[/b]

If I am correct, the author is perfectly consistent. If you are correct, the author is bizaarely inconsistent for no clear reason.

Where do you disagree with me?

hard for me to accept = reject
X that is not scandalized by Y = X finds Y acceptable

Take a look at a definition:

Scandalize: To offend the moral sensibilities of

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scandalize

If Y scandalizes X, then Y has offended the moral sensibilites of X. This can also be written as "X is scandalized by Y". Thus, if an answer is scandalized by an innocent's pain, the pain has offended the moral sensibilites of the answer. If an answer is NOT scandalized by an innocent's pain, then the pain does not offend the moral sensibilites of the answer. The author says he has a hard time accepting such an answer.

I reject all answers that are not scandalized by an innocent person’s pain

I don't disagree with your paraphrase. I simply don't think you understand what it means to be scandalized.

the author can only easily accept an answer that is “scandalized by an innocent person’s pain…etc”

Correct.

This implies that the author gets off on the scandalous pain of innocents.

No. This is your mistake. The author is scandalized by such pain. Scandalized is the verb, not an adjective.

Pretty sick.

This seems to imply you have utilitarian beliefs as well. You're saying it's sick to enjoy such pain.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If I am correct, the author is perfectly consistent. If you are correct, the author is bizaarely inconsistent for no clear reason.

Where do you disagree with me?

hard for me to accept = reject
X that is not scandalized by Y = X finds Y acceptable

Take a look at a definition:

Scandalize: To offend the moral sensibilities of

[i]h ...[text shortened]... ms to imply you have utilitarian beliefs as well. You're saying it's sick to enjoy such pain.

[/i]If somebody says that they accept stealing, that means that they endorse stealing. Just because stealing is considered wrong does not mean there are no thieves.

You assume that because the word scandalous is critical of something the author must reject anything that is scandalous. This is not true. If there were no people who commited scandals then there would be no scandals. The way the author worded his sentence implies that he endorses the scandalous pain of innocents.

This seems to imply you have utilitarian beliefs as well. You're saying it's sick to enjoy such pain.

On the contrary, it implies the opposite. A utilitarian would sacrifice the child for the good of the many.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[/i]If somebody says that they accept stealing, that means that they endorse stealing. Just because stealing is considered wrong does not mean there are no thieves.

You assume that because the word scandalous is critical of something the author must reject anything that is scandalous. This is not true. If there were no people who commited scanda ...[text shortened]... rary, it implies the opposite. A utilitarian would sacrifice the child for the good of the many.

I really don't think you understand the grammar of the sentence in question and it's causing you to read the essay as some kind of bizaare self-contradiction. I don't think we're going to accomplish anything by further discussion of it however, which is unfortunate.

On the contrary, it implies the opposite. A utilitarian would sacrifice the child for the good of the many.

That is an extremely simplistic view of utilitarianism. Any world in which children are sacrificed for the good of the many would lead to fear in children and the family of children. This would lead to lies, corruption, and an overall long term infliction of pain and decrease in pleasure for the people of the society.

However, in extreme cases, utilitarianism might recommend the sacrifice of a child for the good of the many. It's hard to think of an example, but maybe in some sort of "after the bomb" scenario in which a child has a horrible infectious disease and quarantine is not possible? Or, maybe in the Vietnam war - or even in Iraq possibly - in which children are often given bombs to kill soldiers, it's conceivable that shooting children who run up alone to a group of soldiers holding packages and ignore commands to back off might get shot for the good of the many.

I'd like to note that Christianity recommends sacrificing your own child if you think God told you to.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I really don't think you understand the grammar of the sentence in question and it's causing you to read the essay as some kind of bizaare self-contradiction. I don't think we're going to accomplish anything by further discussion of it however, which is unfortunate.

On the contrary, it implies the opposite. A utilitarian would sacrifice the ke to note that Christianity recommends sacrificing your own child if you think God told you to.[/b]

I really don't think you understand the grammar of the sentence in question and it's causing you to read the essay as some kind of bizaare self-contradiction. I don't think we're going to accomplish anything by further discussion of it however, which is unfortunate.

[/b]Ok, interpret it however you like.

That is an extremely simplistic view of utilitarianism. Any world in which children are sacrificed for the good of the many would lead to fear in children and the family of children. This would lead to lies, corruption, and an overall long term infliction of pain and decrease in pleasure for the people of the society.

I was referring to the context of the essay. The author said that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses. I disagree with this. If the innocents get sacrificed, then only the guilty remain.

However, in extreme cases, utilitarianism might recommend the sacrifice of a child for the good of the many. It's hard to think of an example, but maybe in some sort of "after the bomb" scenario in which a child has a horrible infectious disease and quarantine is not possible? Or, maybe in the Vietnam war - or even in Iraq possibly - in which children are often given bombs to kill soldiers, it's conceivable that shooting children who run up alone to a group of soldiers holding packages and ignore commands to back off might get shot for the good of the many.

True utilitarianism is very cut and dry. If a few innocents can be sacrificed to stop trouble for the majority, then this is what utilitarianism is. The long term consequences of such actions are obscure.
If the government picks a dozen people at random to be experimented on in order to find the cure for a lethal disease, a utilitarian would say that this is justified. If by sacrificing a dozen people the AIDS virus could be stopped, this is justified according to utilitarianism.

Will the people live in fear knowing that they might be picked for such experiments? Maybe, maybe not. Who can say? There are six billion people in this world, so what are the chances? If a cure for AIDS is found many millions will be saved, so perhaps it would make people happy, perhaps they would rejoice.

I'd like to note that Christianity recommends sacrificing your own child if you think God told you to.

As far as I know God doesn’t tell Christians to sacrifice their children. Just because this may have happened once thousands of years ago does not mean that it is required of Christians. You may recall that God stopped this from happening.

Edit: One could say that Jesus is the ultimate example of utilitarianism in that one innocent suffers so that the world would be saved, but this is unique to Jesus. Jesus preaches Virtue Ethics to his followers.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I suppose you aren't really the kind of person I am questioning. Checkbaitor was the one who posted it and he implied that he agreed with the author.

Utilitarianism is implied by this part of the essay for example:

[b]"...Furthermore, my religious commitment to the supreme value of an individual life makes it hard for me to accept an answer t ...[text shortened]... s, or whatever you want to call it, is the most intuitively correct way to define good and evil.

[/b]I never said I agree with Kushner. I agree with the authors of the website who I know personally. The authors John L., John S. and Mark G. don't totally agree with Kushner either. They don't explain in detail their biblical beliefs in human suffering. But I know what they believe and with this I am in agreement. What we believe is spiritual in nature and I have posted my reasons in other threads.
And it has nothing to do with utilitarianism. It has everything to do with the ongoing spiritual battle between two types of angels. That is as far as I care to go into this at this time....but I will paste some verses that will give a hint....


II Ki 6:12-17
12 And one of his servants said, "None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom."
13 So he said, "Go and see where he is, that I may send and get him." And it was told him, saying, "Surely he is in Dothan."
14 Therefore he sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city.
15 And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?"
16 So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them."
17 And Elisha prayed, and said, "LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.
(NKJ)

Originally posted by David C
Ok. Does he occasionally allow it to occur?

God allows us to act as we wish to in the universe we are in.
Thus our actions can cause pain to those that have done nothing
wrong, that have done nothing to deserve it. Heck with some
debates it is a human right to allow such things to occur.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Personally, I don’t believe that God causes undeserved suffering.

I think the author agrees with you. However this is irrelevant to the topic which is whether or not utilitarianism is implied by the author as being correct in how it defines goodness and evil.

First the author is saying that he can only accept an answer that is “scanda ...[text shortened]... the paragraph. Therefore the author is not inconsistent in that paragraph as you seem to imply.

[/b] How do you think utilitarianism views this topic?
Kelly

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I really don't think you understand the grammar of the sentence in question and it's causing you to read the essay as some kind of bizaare self-contradiction. I don't think we're going to accomplish anything by further discussion of it however, which is unfortunate.

[/b]Ok, interpret it however you like.

That is an extremely si ...[text shortened]... orld would be saved, but this is unique to Jesus. Jesus preaches Virtue Ethics to his followers.

The author said that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses. I disagree with this. If the innocents get sacrificed, then only the guilty remain.

Do you disagree that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses? This seems to be what you're saying, but I am unsure about your meaning. Are you disagreeing that God would do this?

True utilitarianism is very cut and dry. If a few innocents can be sacrificed to stop trouble for the majority, then this is what utilitarianism is. The long term consequences of such actions are obscure.

Well, it depends on how bad the trouble is. Sacrificing children is not worth, say, clearing up a lot of cases of athlete's foot. The long term consequences may be somewhat obscure but we need to take them into account to analyze any situation via utilitarianism. Your idea that utilitarianists just ignore long term consequences shows a lack of understanding of utilitarianism. Maybe some utilitarians are short sighted, but they are foolish.

If the government picks a dozen people at random to be experimented on in order to find the cure for a lethal disease, a utilitarian would say that this is justified.

I disagree. I am a utilitarian, and I would not say this is justified. The long term consequences would be tremendous. The happiest society is one in which people feel secure from being kidnapped and made into human lab rats by the government I believe.

If by sacrificing a dozen people the AIDS virus could be stopped, this is justified according to utilitarianism.

That's possible I suppose. People dying is not the end of the world. Consider how many innocents were killed in the nuking of Hiroshima, or in the invasion of Iraq. It's not unreasonable to think these were justified events according to utilitarianistic analysis. However it would be a tough call and the specific circumstances would have to be known before one could make this call. In addition, in reality there's no way to know that a disease would be stopped by sacrificing a few humans so it's a moot point.

Will the people live in fear knowing that they might be picked for such experiments? Maybe, maybe not. Who can say? There are six billion people in this world, so what are the chances? If a cure for AIDS is found many millions will be saved, so perhaps it would make people happy, perhaps they would rejoice.

Well, the thing is, a precedent will be set. The people will know that the government might at any time kidnap and kill people for what it thinks are justified reasons. Also, again, killing a dozen people won't necessarily get rid of the AIDS virus. If one could do this, maybe it would be worth it. It's such an unrealistic situation that it's hard to analyze. I suppose, if the cure were guaranteed for everyone who has AIDS, maybe it would be worth it. It's a hard call and so unrealistic it's not worth spending much time on.

As far as I know God doesn’t tell Christians to sacrifice their children. Just because this may have happened once thousands of years ago does not mean that it is required of Christians. You may recall that God stopped this from happening.

Whether God stopped it or not, he supposedly gave the order and did not punish the father for carrying out the execution. Are you telling me the Bible is not intended to communicate things to people? Genesis 22:1-12 show that God might demand that a father kill his son, and that in order to show God that we fear him, we are supposed to even kill our firstborn son if God says so.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I never said I agree with Kushner. I agree with the authors of the website who I know personally. The authors John L., John S. and Mark G. don't totally agree with Kushner either. They don't explain in detail their biblical beliefs in human suffering. But I know what they believe and with this I am in agreement. What we believe is spiritual in natu ...[text shortened]... . And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.[/b]
(NKJ)[/b]

Why did you post the article then in the Columbine post? It seems as though you intended it to act as your argument for how you know God isn't in control of everything. If you didn't agree with it, it's odd that you posted it in the context you did.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you think utilitarianism views this topic?
Kelly[/b]

Utilitarianism is a philosophy and as such is incapable of 'viewing a topic'. Utilitarians can analyze a topic using utilitarian ideas, which is what I've been doing. As you can see from the first post of the thread I judge the essay to imply the correctness of utilitarianism. Other utilitarians might disagree.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]The author said that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses. I disagree with this. If the innocents get sacrificed, then only the guilty remain.

Do you disagree that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses? This seems to be what you're sa ...[text shortened]... der to show God that we fear him, we are supposed to even kill our firstborn son if God says so.[/b]

Do you disagree that the various theories suggest that God would sacrifice innocents for the sake of the masses? This seems to be what you're saying, but I am unsure about your meaning. Are you disagreeing that God would do this?

I disagree with the various theories presented in the essay. Exactly what God’s view on utilitarianism is I’m not sure. What I can say is that many of the scenarios of utilitarianism that I can think of go against what I believe God would do.

Well, it depends on how bad the trouble is. Sacrificing children is not worth, say, clearing up a lot of cases of athlete's foot. The long term consequences may be somewhat obscure but we need to take them into account to analyze any situation via utilitarianism. Your idea that utilitarianists just ignore long term consequences shows a lack of understanding of utilitarianism.

Consequences influence every decision that we make. Unless one subscribes to Kant ethics this is true. It is also true though that long term consequences are obscure. The farther one goes out the easier it is to paint any kind of picture and thereby justify anything. For this reason utilitarians, as well as most people, like to stick to the short term consequences.

I can see that you try to base your decisions off of the long term consequences. I’m not saying that this is wrong, in fact, I rather like it. Just because the long term consequences are obscure does not mean that they don’t exist. When it comes to controversial issues like whether a handful of people should be sacrificed to stop a deadly disease, it’s almost impossible to predict what the long term consequences on society will be. We could both argue our points forever and not get anywhere.

Maybe some utilitarians are short sighted, but they are foolish.

They’re not that foolish, are they? 😀

Originally posted by The Chess Express
If the government picks a dozen people at random to be experimented on in order to find the cure for a lethal disease, a utilitarian would say that this is justified.

I disagree. I am a utilitarian, and I would not say this is justified. The long term consequences would be tremendous. The happiest society is one in which people feel secure from being kidnapped and made into human lab rats by the government I believe.

I would say that you are a weak utilitarian in regards to long term consequences, and with a heavy emphasis on virtue ethics. Disease affects happiness as well.

Well, the thing is, a precedent will be set. The people will know that the government might at any time kidnap and kill people for what it thinks are justified reasons. Also, again, killing a dozen people won't necessarily get rid of the AIDS virus. If one could do this, maybe it would be worth it. It's such an unrealistic situation that it's hard to analyze. I suppose, if the cure were guaranteed for everyone who has AIDS, maybe it would be worth it. It's a hard call and so unrealistic it's not worth spending much time on.

One of the main stumbling blocks to finding cures for diseases is the fact that society considers it morally wrong to experiment on people. Many people don’t even like it when animals are experimented on. They would rather let the disease afflict millions worldwide. It’s not so unrealistic as you say to believe that many diseases would be cured if human experiments were allowed.

If we go to parts of Asia were the diseases carried by mosquitoes kill millions every year, many of them live in far more fear of mosquito bites then they would if they knew that a dozen or so would be picked for medical experiments each year. If such experiments cured the diseases, they would probably be happy. At least I think they would. Famine and over population further obscure this.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
As far as I know God doesn’t tell Christians to sacrifice their children. Just because this may have happened once thousands of years ago does not mean that it is required of Christians. You may recall that God stopped this from happening.

Whether God stopped it or not, he supposedly gave the order and did not punish the father for carrying out the execution. Are you telling me the Bible is not intended to communicate things to people? Genesis 22:1-12 show that God might demand that a father kill his son, and that in order to show God that we fear him, we are supposed to even kill our firstborn son if God says so.

I don’t have access to a Bible right now. I’ll check on that verse in the KJ version and decide what it says. My point is that it is silly to think that by becoming a Christian one is required to kill their children. Jesus says that we are supposed to love God more than our family. Off hand I would say that this is probably a better translation of the meaning.