Utilitarian ethics, explained with ponies

Source

Comments

[Herald of Opera]

Judging from the URL, Utilitarians agreeing with this may have been accidental.

[Wild Zontars]

5382706
The un-ironic original has become a meme, often known disparagingly as "bike cuck" after the most famous early parody.

[Herald of Opera]

5382728
And using the name implies that one is siding with the parodists rather than the aforementioned unironic original. (I don't care what you say, spellcheck, the hyphen isn't needed)

[Shakespearicles]

i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/c6/43/9ec643fd1d5242bcae37e28d6422eadc.gif

[Thought Prism]

Well. This sure is something. Glad I don't know anybody who thinks this way. That I know of.

[TheAncientPolitzanian]

I guess the movie's over already.
:P

[Lurks-no-More]

5382752
Utilitarian ethics are really a perfectly respectable ethical framework; it's just that they don't work if you treat things like naive arithmetic, as shown here.

(See also -- or better yet, don't -- everything written by Eliezer Yudkowsky about ethics, ever.)

[Kek lel]

;-;

[Sozmioi]

5382774

Nothing works if you use arithmetic with really stupid numbers like this.

[TheJediMasterEd]

THOSE STUPID UTILITARIANS KEEP READING MY METER WRONG AND THEN I GET THESE OUTRAGEOUS ELECTRICITY BILLS

[Nyronus]

Ah yes, the Happiness Monster, the eternal bugaboo of Utilitarianism.

Also, no, Mill's collectivist re-contextualization of Utilitarianism does not, in fact, avoid the problem of Happiness Monsters, don't @me Mill stans.

[Darkstarling]

I’m not utilitarian but that’s just stupid metrics. If you just do a naive summation of total happiness in the world then obviously you’re going to get stupid results.

First of all, this problem would be reduced by using averages of happiness rather than sums. But that still doesn’t solve the problem of your hypothetical sadistic happiness monster who takes infinite pleasure in cruelty and can bollux up the average.

This is why you use medians, where our happiness monster doesn’t matter. For exactly the same reason you look at median income rather than mean income. If one person has more money than god and everyone else is dirt poor, the median still shows Dirt Poor. So already we’ve moved past the basic problem presented, just with middle school statistics.

If we want to get more sophisticated we can look at things like the length of the injury. A small injury that lasts forever costs a lot more happiness than a sharp momentary pain, but that won’t be reflected in the metrics unless you put in a multiplier.

This also assumes that the world only includes happiness monster and broken horned unicorn. Other people will be upset on her behalf, and further there is an enormous opportunity cost for opportunities to make others happy that this will cost her. By ignoring how this will hurt others and letting someone hurt her without trying to stop it from happening again she’s being... not selfish exactly, but very short sighted.

Anyway, TL:DR this isn’t how utilitarianism works, this isn’t how any of it works.

[Trick Question]

This is nonsense, even in extreme hyperbole. A fleeting and unnecessary pleasure that could be had by other means doesn't begin to compare with a lifelong disability, and removing suffering is much more important than causing enjoyment.

Whatever point the cartoon is trying to make, it isn't working.

[Trick Question]

5382728
I didn't see a problem with the original argument, to be honest—if affording a bike is no big deal to him, and he thinks the person who took it was probably desperate, it's fine to not feel bad. That's his choice.

I even wrote a Zen koan-inspired minific here on Fimfiction based on the premise (long before the comic appeared). In The Sound of One Hoof Clopping it's "Koan 9: Gift of the Moon".

[Necrogen Lord]

My opinion:

You've now witnessed the weakness of flesh, and now know that you must reject the prison of meat and embrace the beautiful cold eternity of metal.

[HiggsBoson42]

I am a Kantian of kind, not a utilitarian, but I don't believe this comic should be labeled as an explanation of utilitarianism.

While this comic does appear to discuss a form of utility in ethics, I believe many utilitarians would have issue with the kind of utility be presented. Particularly, this is a kind of stochastic utility, the character does not know how the action of horn breaking affected the one who broke the character's horn. Instead the character makes an appeal to statistics, instead of suspending judgement or trying to learn more. I'm believe many utilitarians would not argee with this move.

More importantly the comic does not present the utilitarian idea you should chose actions that maximize utility; this comic appears to communicate that you should chose actions if they merely increase utility.

[Latrans]

5382748
https://imgur.com/gallery/GleBDO5

I tried to embed it in the post, but it doesn't want to work for me.

[Herald of Opera]

5383189
Yeah, Imgur specifically blacklisted this site for imbeds because reasons.

[Trick Question]

5383001
My comment got downvoted recently.

I was pretty bummed about it.

But I think whoever downvoted me was more happy to make me hurt inside and blame myself for being a terrible person who should stop existing—and probably question my very utility as an caring individual owing to the fact that I linked that comment to a story of mine which is highly personal to me just as all my stories are and therefore something I interpret as a verdict on my very soul—than I was sad to experience what I pretty much experience every day regardless. The total happiness in the world increased.

So, whatever.

[The Hat Man]

Heh. Stirring the pot again, Jaxie?

Jokes aside... well, actually, no, not jokes aside; the post is a joke. Hell, I think of myself as a utilitarian, and I think it's pretty funny regardless.

But okay, serious mode: the obvious counter on this is that we, as a society, wouldn't want to live in a world where we just let ponies break others' horns, and that would affect the overall happiness of everyone else. I once watched a video that had a pretty good example about this sort of issue:

• A doctor has several patients who all need organ transplants very soon or they'll die.
• A man comes in for a fairly simple procedure, but he turns out to be a perfect match for each of the dying patients. And he happens to be an organ donor. Unfortunately, he is in perfect health and the procedure, while not 100% safe, is still fairly routine.
• Since the man has no family and seems to have few people who would miss him, the doctor decides to stage an accident which kills the man on the operating table.
• One man dies, true, but several more people with numerous friends and families get to live.

A critic would say "See, this is why Utilitarianism is unethical! No reasonable person would see this as a good thing to do, but to a utilitarian, it maximizes the amount of happiness in the world, so they would see no problem doing it!"

But to me, the obvious answer is that, no, it wouldn't be acceptable because no one wants to live in a society where relatively healthy people can go to the doctor and run the risk of being killed for their organs. Nobody would really be happy about that.

Anyway, good to see a post from ya, pal. Thanks for the laugh and the usual thought-provoking discussions.

[GaPJaxie]

5383325

Heh. Stirring the pot again, Jaxie?

It's what I do. I'm a pot stirrer!

Jokes aside... well, actually, no, not jokes aside; the post is a joke. Hell, I think of myself as a utilitarian, and I think it's pretty funny regardless.

I'm a utilitarian too, and yes -- the comic is a joke because it's technically correct, but the situation it presents is so absurd the result is nonsense.

But okay, serious mode: the obvious counter on this is that we, as a society, wouldn't want to live in a world where we just let ponies break others' horns, and that would affect the overall happiness of everyone else. I once watched a video that had a pretty good example about this sort of issue:

• A doctor has several patients who all need organ transplants very soon or they'll die.
• A man comes in for a fairly simple procedure, but he turns out to be a perfect match for each of the dying patients. And he happens to be an organ donor. Unfortunately, he is in perfect health and the procedure, while not 100% safe, is still fairly routine.
• Since the man has no family and seems to have few people who would miss him, the doctor decides to stage an accident which kills the man on the operating table.
• One man dies, true, but several more people with numerous friends and families get to live.

A critic would say "See, this is why Utilitarianism is unethical! No reasonable person would see this as a good thing to do, but to a utilitarian, it maximizes the amount of happiness in the world, so they would see no problem doing it!"

But to me, the obvious answer is that, no, it wouldn't be acceptable because no one wants to live in a society where relatively healthy people can go to the doctor and run the risk of being killed for their organs. Nobody would really be happy about that.

Yes, this is nearly word-for-word my own feelings on the matter. And I suppose if I'd appended this extremely reasonable argument to my post, it would have stirred the pot less. But it also wouldn't have been nearly as funny. :D

Anyway, good to see a post from ya, pal. Thanks for the laugh and the usual thought-provoking discussions.

You too!

[NachoTheBrony]

This is just stupid.
The original meme only works if you really didn't care about your bicycle and where looking for any excuse to get rid of it. Like this imbecile that I used to call a friend, who was tossing his bicycle because of a flat tire.
I, as a cyclist member of a cycling club, not only value my ride, but know for a fact that my beautiful bicycle will most likely receive a really ugly paintjob and be sold for no more than fifty dollars by some shady pawnshop. And as it is a higher end bike, the new owner will use it until it needs an adjustment, the new owner will balk as soon as he notices the price for any spare parts and my bike will be tossed to the garbage or sold for like a single dollar to an aluminium reclaimer.

[Reese]

So, what if we have a trolley problem, but watching the impeding crash is a sadist with no empathy who will get a lot more joy out of watching all the trolley passengers plummet off a cliff than the one man get run over? What do you do then, huh?

("the comic is a joke because it's technically correct, but the situation it presents is so absurd the result is nonsense"
As I believe also already touched on in the comments, like many example ethical problems, it works much better in the carefully controlled and limited conditions of its thought experiment than embedded in the whole systems of the real world.)

(I shan't go much more into the actual ethical details of the post, since it looks like The Hat Man and you already covered that nicely. Also like The Hat Man, though, nice to see a post from you. :))

...Oh, though I did just think of another counter, or way of stating the general counter, to the utility monster: A system which allows utility monsters, it seems to me, would also have to allow people who really enjoyed hunting and retaliating against utility monsters. After all, don't they get a lot of positive utility out of it, even before the utility increase to others from the utility monster being stopped is taken into account? And most of the would-be utility monsters, being aware of this, therefore have incentive to be less monstery and try to pursue other avenues of working things out.

[equestrian.sen]

5382774

it's just that they don't work if you treat things like naive arithmetic, as shown here.

When do utilitarian ethics work? (I don't intend to contest your response. I just want to know your thoughts.)

5383325

But to me, the obvious answer is that, no, it wouldn't be acceptable because no one wants to live in a society where relatively healthy people can go to the doctor and run the risk of being killed for their organs. Nobody would really be happy about that.

They would be if they were utilitarian .

[mishun]

So, whatever.

*So I tore them limb by limb. They were pretty bummed out about it. But I think I was more happy to exact my revenge than them sad to loose all their limbs. (The total happiness in the world increased.) So whatever.

I guess that would be ok My Little Pony adaptation of Orys Baratheon's story

[Ether Echoes]

Every time I see this comic I'm made slightly more uncomfortable than the last time, and I will be happy when it's too far down in my feed for me to see it again.

Reminds me of why I hate talking to utilitarians.

I know it's a parody, but few things make me lose utils more than people who think they've solved ethics and morality.

[g1g5]

Isnt utilitarianism just a lazy person using mathematics to evade hard questions in ethics?

[GaPJaxie]

5393209

The problems are only hard because other philosophers are bad at math.