> 4) Many non-utilitarian intuitions just seem to be emotional reactions to particular words in the sentence. We spend lots of time talking as a society about how lots of things are very bad--eg murder. Thus, when utilitarianism asks if murder is sometimes good, based on implausible stipulations that we have trouble imaging, the part of our brain that says "ick murder, that's bad," overpowers reflection about the particular case.
> This leaves the atheist with either some form of Utilitarianism (a fatally flawed philosophy as I have shown here) or nihilism. Most atheists are uncomfortable with nihilism so they end up being forced to cling to a fatally flawed philosophy.
This seems largely to be the case, especially since your (extremely long) article didn't address nihilism. It really should; how do you know that morality exists anymore than as a collective dream?
As a non-utilitarian, I'd love to discuss these subjects with you if you have the time.
I think I wrote about this somewhere in the article--there seem two distinct neurological paths to utilitarianism--greater reflection and less heightened emotional reactoions.
//This seems largely to be the case, especially since your (extremely long) article didn't address nihilism. It really should; how do you know that morality exists anymore than as a collective dream?//
> I think I wrote about this somewhere in the article--there seem two distinct neurological paths to utilitarianism--greater reflection and less heightened emotional reactoions.
Right; a burgeoning body of research finds that utilitarians are less moral than others:
_____________
Djeriouat, H., & Trémolière, B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11-16.
Dinić, B. M., Milosavljević, M., & Mandarić, J. (2021). Effects of Dark Tetrad traits on utilitarian moral judgement: The role of personal involvement and familiarity with the victim. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 48-58.
Dabbs, A. C. (2020). Clarifying the Role of Personality in Sacrificial Moral Dilemmas: The Big 5 and HEXACO Predict Deontological and Utilitarian Tendencies.
Kroneisen, M., & Heck, D. W. (2020). Interindividual differences in the sensitivity for consequences, moral norms, and preferences for inaction: Relating basic personality traits to the CNI model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1013-1026.
In other words, when you mention that nonutilitarians have less heightened emotional reactions to actions broadly regarded as immoral, I receive this as a tacit admission that utilitarians are lower in Honesty, are higher in Dark Triad traits, and ultimately have weaker moral drives than nonutilitarians.
OK, I do like to see links that can help substantiate a point, or offer additional clarification, but I'm more interested in having a discussion with you than reading a long article I won't agree with. Maybe you could just tell me, in 100 or fewer words, why you disagree with proposition N: "There is really no such thing as good or evil."
//Right; a burgeoning body of research finds that utilitarians are less moral than others://
That's true on average but so what? My theory explains that perfectly well--utilitarianism can either be spurred by greater reflection or moral deficiency. It can either be arrived at by having extra moral insight or by having less moral insight.
//Maybe you could just tell me, in 100 or fewer words, why you disagree with proposition N: "There is really no such thing as good or evil."//
It appears that there's such thing as evil and one should have default trust in intellectual appearances.
> It can either be arrived at by having extra moral insight or by having less moral insight.
Are you sure that this is the right reading? It seems to me that utilitarianism can be arrived at by being *thoughtful and reflective* or having weak moral drives, and that in the majority of utilitarians these characteristics blend. Why do you prefer to regard people with weak moral drives as having less moral insight? They are broadly the kind of people we would describe as bad, but if morality doesn't exist, they may well have more moral insight.
> It appears that there's such thing as evil and one should have default trust in intellectual appearances.
OK, thank you! The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that intellectual appearances are not agreed upon by all.
For instance, I have run across many people who will insist that "beauty is only in the eye of the beholder." When I try to point out how obvious it is that beauty is an objective feature of reality, because (for example) the overwhelming majority of human languages have a word for it, they immediately say things like "Oh? Does your sense of beauty align with mine? Have you never heard 'there is no accounting for taste?' Can you measure beauty the same way you can measure mass, charge, or temperature? Doesn't our inability to agree upon a thing, combined with our inability to measure a thing, suggest the thing doesn't really exist, except on a subjective level?"
The exact same argument can be applied to morality. So are you sure that defaulting to what appears true to you is a sensible way of resolving philosophical difficulties?
> 4) Many non-utilitarian intuitions just seem to be emotional reactions to particular words in the sentence. We spend lots of time talking as a society about how lots of things are very bad--eg murder. Thus, when utilitarianism asks if murder is sometimes good, based on implausible stipulations that we have trouble imaging, the part of our brain that says "ick murder, that's bad," overpowers reflection about the particular case.
That's true, but it also substantiates my point that utilitarianism is for people who are less moral than others - utilitarians reason like people who sustained damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/is-utilitarianism-an-amoral-system
> This leaves the atheist with either some form of Utilitarianism (a fatally flawed philosophy as I have shown here) or nihilism. Most atheists are uncomfortable with nihilism so they end up being forced to cling to a fatally flawed philosophy.
This seems largely to be the case, especially since your (extremely long) article didn't address nihilism. It really should; how do you know that morality exists anymore than as a collective dream?
As a non-utilitarian, I'd love to discuss these subjects with you if you have the time.
//That's true, but it also substantiates my point that utilitarianism is for people who are less moral than others - utilitarians reason like people who sustained damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/is-utilitarianism-an-amoral-system//
I think I wrote about this somewhere in the article--there seem two distinct neurological paths to utilitarianism--greater reflection and less heightened emotional reactoions.
//This seems largely to be the case, especially since your (extremely long) article didn't address nihilism. It really should; how do you know that morality exists anymore than as a collective dream?//
https://benthams.substack.com/p/moral-realism-is-true
> I think I wrote about this somewhere in the article--there seem two distinct neurological paths to utilitarianism--greater reflection and less heightened emotional reactoions.
Right; a burgeoning body of research finds that utilitarians are less moral than others:
_____________
Djeriouat, H., & Trémolière, B. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11-16.
Dinić, B. M., Milosavljević, M., & Mandarić, J. (2021). Effects of Dark Tetrad traits on utilitarian moral judgement: The role of personal involvement and familiarity with the victim. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 48-58.
Dabbs, A. C. (2020). Clarifying the Role of Personality in Sacrificial Moral Dilemmas: The Big 5 and HEXACO Predict Deontological and Utilitarian Tendencies.
Kroneisen, M., & Heck, D. W. (2020). Interindividual differences in the sensitivity for consequences, moral norms, and preferences for inaction: Relating basic personality traits to the CNI model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1013-1026.
_________
...and I believe these results, because I've been able to substantiate them myself: https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/137714420/hypothesis-are-utilitarians-lower-in-honesty-than-others
In other words, when you mention that nonutilitarians have less heightened emotional reactions to actions broadly regarded as immoral, I receive this as a tacit admission that utilitarians are lower in Honesty, are higher in Dark Triad traits, and ultimately have weaker moral drives than nonutilitarians.
> https://benthams.substack.com/p/moral-realism-is-true
OK, I do like to see links that can help substantiate a point, or offer additional clarification, but I'm more interested in having a discussion with you than reading a long article I won't agree with. Maybe you could just tell me, in 100 or fewer words, why you disagree with proposition N: "There is really no such thing as good or evil."
//Right; a burgeoning body of research finds that utilitarians are less moral than others://
That's true on average but so what? My theory explains that perfectly well--utilitarianism can either be spurred by greater reflection or moral deficiency. It can either be arrived at by having extra moral insight or by having less moral insight.
//Maybe you could just tell me, in 100 or fewer words, why you disagree with proposition N: "There is really no such thing as good or evil."//
It appears that there's such thing as evil and one should have default trust in intellectual appearances.
> It can either be arrived at by having extra moral insight or by having less moral insight.
Are you sure that this is the right reading? It seems to me that utilitarianism can be arrived at by being *thoughtful and reflective* or having weak moral drives, and that in the majority of utilitarians these characteristics blend. Why do you prefer to regard people with weak moral drives as having less moral insight? They are broadly the kind of people we would describe as bad, but if morality doesn't exist, they may well have more moral insight.
> It appears that there's such thing as evil and one should have default trust in intellectual appearances.
OK, thank you! The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that intellectual appearances are not agreed upon by all.
For instance, I have run across many people who will insist that "beauty is only in the eye of the beholder." When I try to point out how obvious it is that beauty is an objective feature of reality, because (for example) the overwhelming majority of human languages have a word for it, they immediately say things like "Oh? Does your sense of beauty align with mine? Have you never heard 'there is no accounting for taste?' Can you measure beauty the same way you can measure mass, charge, or temperature? Doesn't our inability to agree upon a thing, combined with our inability to measure a thing, suggest the thing doesn't really exist, except on a subjective level?"
The exact same argument can be applied to morality. So are you sure that defaulting to what appears true to you is a sensible way of resolving philosophical difficulties?
Darn. Not sure I can line-by-line this one...