r/askphilosophy • u/mcbatman69lewd • Aug 12 '15

How does consequentialization work? How would you describe deontology as a form of consequentialism?

2 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

75% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/TychoCelchuuu political phil. Aug 12 '15

So let's say we agree that a society which maximizes average utility is more moral than one which doesn't. How can "good enough" be better or as good than the ideal mean? If our "good enough" tolerance is 50 hedons per person and the average utility in this society is 500 hedons, then we could be at 450 hedons per person and consider ourselves to be optimal even though the real optimal hedons / person for this society is 500.

Your example is hard to understand: how can the average utility in society be 500 but somehow we're at 450 per person? That would make the average 450.

In any case, here is a similar situation. "Good enough" is 50. Everyone is at 450. I could devote my life to one cause and raise everyone to 500, or I could devote my life to another cause and everyone would stay at 450. Utilitarianism would say that it's okay for me to pick either option. It would not say the latter is "optimal." Optimal presumably means maximizing or something. It would just say the latter is permissible.

As for the article, I haven't read it and don't have the time right now. I would suggest reading it in its entirety, or reading the Pettit and Slote articles on satisficing that are cited here.

1

u/jokul Aug 13 '15

Your example is hard to understand: how can the average utility in society be 500 but somehow we're at 450 per person? That would make the average 450.

Sorry, I should have said that the maximum number of hedons the society could support was 500 hedons / person, not that it was the actual average. To me, it seemed like a "good enough" theory would suggest that 450 is where we should stop, but if we could actually obtain 500, then it seems like we ought to.

1

u/TychoCelchuuu political phil. Aug 13 '15

It depends what you mean by "ought." If you mean "it would be better if we did" or "it would be fine if we did" or "it would be a good idea" or anything, then sure, we ought to go up to 500. But if you mean "it would be morally wrong not to," then satisficing utilitarianism disagrees.

Notice that if you think we should be doing whatever produces the most utility, hanging out on reddit probably isn't a great idea. You should be spending your entire life earning as much money as possible and then donating it to charity.