This is an Open Thread / Coffee Hour and all topics of conversation are welcome. And as a suggested topic, today lets talk about Negative Utilitarianism and Utilitarianism. Let me start off by sharing two examples of two news stories.
Last month I woke up and the first article I read on Daily kos was Pakalolo’s dairy, Sorry to harsh the nonstop Maga vibe. We may have just lost Trinidad and Tobago. I then turned on my local San Francisco Bay Area News and was confronted by the news that Sunday 1.5 billion chicken wings will be consumed while watching the super bowl game. In truth the National Chicken Council says it will be only 1.45 billion, so I guess I can forgive the news media for rounding it up to make a simple headline.
While reading Pakalolo’s diary all I could think about was the suffering to he living ecosystem as it is killed by the extraction of oil. And this includes the suffering humans that depend on the ecosystem being healthy. Just contrast this with the maximizing pleasure being reported that there enough chicken wings available to party with while watching a football game. Jump the fold to see where I’m going with this.
This is an Open Thread / Coffee Hour. How are you doing today? What is for dinner? What is on your mind? All topics of conversation are welcome. If you are new to Street Prophets please introduce yourself in the comments below.
The comments for this article are are after community links.
Many readers might remember Spock’s line early in the Star Trek movie The Wrath of Khan, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” and Kirk’s reply, “Or the one.” And, when later in the film Spock saves the many in the story by sacrificing his life to repair the ship the lines are pungently repeated again. This is a simple example of Utilitarianism.
In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.
Wikipedia: Utilitarianism
This clearly is an affront to the Republican philosophy of empowerment of the individual at the expense of the collective. My casual research on Spock’s line came up with two articles about this published by the conservative media. I’m quoting from The Objective Standard below, but not giving links. You can google it yourself if you want to read them.
Far from being an expression of logic, Spock’s claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is an arbitrary assertion and a restatement of the baseless moral theory known as utilitarianism, which asserts that each individual should act to serve the greatest good for the greatest number.
From The Objective Standard: Spock’s Illogic: “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few” by Ari Armstrong | September 12, 2013
Clearly this line of thinking about morals and ethics is disallowed and dismissed by conservative dogma. Does this automatically make make utilitarianism the go to ethical guide for liberals? I would say not necessarily. Consider what Karl Popper says.
In The Open Society and its Enemies (1945), Karl Popper argues that the principle "maximize pleasure" should be replaced by "minimize pain". He believes that "it is not only impossible but very dangerous to attempt to maximize the pleasure or the happiness of the people, since such an attempt must lead to totalitarianism."
Wikipedia: Utilitarianism
The idea of reducing suffering or minimizing pain has written about numerous times. considerations historically. And, a number of more contemporary philosophers and scholars have expanded and refined the idea such as Ralph Siu.
The term "negative utilitarianism" was introduced by R. N. Smart in his 1958 reply to Karl Popper's book The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945. In the book, Popper emphasizes the importance of preventing suffering in public policy. The ideas in negative utilitarianism have similarities with ancient traditions such as Jainism and Buddhism.
Wikipedia: Negative Utilitarianism
Empathy Circle Accounting
Ralph Siu in his Panetics Trilogy puts forth the idea of measuring suffering. His motive was to have a measurement to assess the effectiveness of relief assistance. For example if any one cared about Trinidad and Tobago a suffering index could be used to direct the assistance in an impactful way. And with repeated data collection it could measure the effectiveness of the relief assistance.
As many of my regular readers on Street Prophets know last year I did a number of articles on Empathy Circles. See: Would you participate in a Street Prophets Empathy Circle? (with video & poll). The response to the poll was about about 43% of the respondents saying that they would participate.
What I’m wondering is if a 90 minute Empathy Circle that had a quantifiable goal of reducing suffering would that increase the interest in joining an Empathy Circle as a participant. What is marvelous about the basic empathy circle practice is its inherent focus on openness, care, and mutuality. These are the core values taught in the empathy circle facilitator training courses.
What I have found facilitating empathy circles is very often individuals bring their suffering to the circle and just by having the group listen in an empathic way to their struggle it has a uplifting effect on the individual. Clearly, this listening doesn't physically address or cure their suffering, but for many it might be their first steps toward healing. I should note that a core value of Empathy Circles is no judgements and no prescriptions are given in the circles. Just simple human empathy is conveyed.
The Empathy Circles are unique in that they, by design, always have two topics. One being the a topic of community shared focus. For example the Empathy Center upon occasion has online zoom visioning circles for the community to propose uses of the facilities offered at its physical campus in Santa Barbara. As the Culture of Empathy movement grows it is offering training both in person the Empathy Center in Santa Barbara and on line.
The second topic of every Empathy Circle is to speak about what ever is on your heart. It is with this invitation that many participants feel heard and part of a community for the first time in their lives. I know this sounds a bit inflated, but on many times in circles I heard a person say, “This is the first time in my life I feel like I have been heard.” Lastly I invite you to join me in the Thursday Empathy Circle Café.
JON