OK. I'm a software developer. I do it cause I'm relatively decent at it, I enjoy it, and it pays really well.

This thread contains gold. I had to pan through a whole bunch of bullshit philosophical garbage to find it, but it is here. Thank you, mapleleaf; you are my hot Canadian wonderwoman.

Happy to oblige.

I AM a sexy bitch.

Wait a tic, Maple, now you are transgendered? When was the operation and why couldn't we have a party or something!! :P

A girl needs her privacy.
;0)

I call Bull. You've gotta abhor privacy as a troll - nothing is sacred right? So flash that stuff and we can charge for the peep show!

We started off with Star Trek and now we've moved onto Rocky Horror Picture Show, clearly, with maple turning out to be Just A Sweet Transvestite...

Actually, that movie has some great philosophical questions in there (albeit sexual in nature) to do with gay culture, societal norms, and could even tough on gay rights. But I haven't seen the movie in about 5 to 7 years so I can't really talk.

"Don't be put off
by the way I look.
Don't judge a book by it's covaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahah."

Dude. Don't quit your day job. I had my fingers in my ears and your wailing still sucked :P

His day jobis fluffed inthe adult film industry, so maple sucks to.

God Damn Droid! His day job is fluffer in the adult film industry...

Stop skipping your meds, Robert.

Aww im sad maple hasn't seen this yet

come on maple. get mad! pleeeease?

You're the coolest, Thucy.

I wish that I was just like you.

im flattered mon ami

Ends justify means.

Obi, you said you don't see the point in killing a few to save many, so in that case would you let the many die? Surely the will of the many out way the will of the few (Is this irony coming from your favorite fascist?). However you are right, no man is equal, and as a result their status needs to be taken into account. Therefore to determine the value of ones sole, I think it should be determine simply by his productivity to society, how much would society loose by loosing the one, and is that more or less then loosing the many?

However the question is answered without doubt, The ends normally means bettering society, as the means is the measures taken to do that. However it is concluded that in the end the world will be better, does it matter how this is achieved?

How can the ends normally better society when they are exacted by the masses to squelch the minority? Surely if it were a choice between 5 Mozarts and 50 workers the choice would seem clear--those 50 workers, we cannot treat them AS IF they are to become future Mozarts or allow of the birth of one, so the 5 Mozarts should seem all the greater.

(And would you two like a moment alone, Thucy, Maple?

but at the same time, using Mozart specifically what did Mozart do that was so amazing? Its only music, while those 50 workers could keep a factory running.

The masses are more important then the minority. And you avoided my question:
"Obi, you said you don't see the point in killing a few to save many, so in that case would you let the many die?"

/As I've said (maybe you weren't yet here) I use "a Mozart" as a stand-in for *insert "gret" figures here," for the following reasons:

1. As you've demonstrated, not everyone holds the same ideas of who's great or, to be mor precisely since I'd say most would agree Mozart was great, who is great ENOUGH to be considered on the plateau of a difference evaluative scale, that is, instead of the Utilitarian forces in me counting each man one-for-one, in the case of "the great man," here represented by "a Mozart" (as if that were a scientify notation, lol) I am forced to say that 1,000 normal workers, good though they might be, do NOT equal 1 "Mozart," for the "Mozart figure" is not only worth more, there is a qualitative difference between the two.

To put it another way, we cannot truly say that 100 pieces of silver are worth 1 gold piece; ovbiously classical economics would disagree, but remember that I'm not treating these as gold coins within an economic system, but rather simly as two different KINDS of things with a qualitative difference--being gold is a QUALITATIVE difference, as is likewise being silver, and so no quantitative attempt may make the two commensurable as the Utilitarian or, in his own way, the Kantian or the Christian or, for that matter, anyone who wants to treat all men equally.

They are not--LEGALLY they are, and that itself is a great thing, but QUALITATIVELY they are not, and it is one of the great tragedies of the world today that no one seems brave enough to say it when it crosses their minds or, even sadder, that there ARE a great many in the masses who truly believe that sick, twisted cousin of that glorious declaration, "all men are created equal," that perversion whichmakes me sick:

"Everyone's special in their own special way."

I don't care HOW specially shaped the silver coin is or if it's alive and can do flips for me--that doesn't make it a gold piece nor does it make it the equal of a gold piece.

And while my idea isn't his, originally, I feel it would be altogether improper not to mention Plato here, as if anyone has read "The Republic" they might, then, think of Plato's concept of the gold, silver, and bronze "material" Plato would have his semi-facist kings lie to everyone about and say they had THAT inside them, that the great men were born with gold and the warriors with silver and the workers with bronze.

I reference him here not for the sake of reference but rather to point out something about my notion of the qualitative difference between 1 man and 1 "Mozart," between gold and silver:

This does NOT promote inequality.

As Plato says in his dialogue (or rather, the character of Socrates spews forth what Plato has to say while the others give an occasional "Yes" or "Certainly" just to show they're listening to his ramblings...hmmm...) there is no shame ion being a silver person rather than a gold, or a warrior rather than a leader, or a worker rather than a leader, and so on. The three metals and three types of people, Plato contends, compliment each other and are each equally valuable (without the leaders the warriors and workers would ahve no direction, without the warriors the leaders and workers would be vulnerable to attack and so defenseless, and without the workers the leaders and warriors would have no cultivated food to eat or built homes to sleep in or tools to use) as a CONSEQUENCE of their being imcommensurable, at least in that sense.

Think of it: how is a silver coin worth and respected more?

When I say that 100 of them equal 1 gold coin?
Or when I say the gold coin is qualitatively different and something the silver coin can never match, but by that same token--or, perhaps, "coin,"--the gold coin can also never match the silver one, as they are qualitatively different, apples and oranges, and even if we say that we would save the apples before the oranges, that doesn't make the apple the superior of the orange, it's merely part of it's quality.

By that same logic I refer to men and Mozarts in the same way I mena silver and gold.



(I am REALLY just dazed right now and in awe of the sort I ahve not been in since I first saw one of my friends perform "The Box Monologue" from Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead." I listened to a radio adaptation, today, of George Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman," and I was BLOWN AWAY by the entire thing--the words Shaw uses! The pacing! The cast itself was great, they even had Dame Judi Dench, who's always magnificent! And this whole thing was FOUR HOURS LONG, the whole damn play, and I listened to it, and when I got to aCT THREE, "Don Juan in Hell,"...it was INSANE! It was like Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, and Shaw sat down together and did some Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds before writing this! XD Really, you HAVE to hear this or see this or read this...the most incredible play AND production I've seen in a long while, and one of the BEST pieces of literature I've read or heard or seen ALREADY! It's amazing! I mean, literally, just about EVERYTHING that you could possibly imagine these people talking about in a philosophical sense, they talk about, and when you get to that Act III, this comedy of manners English-garden play turns into an existentialist monster from HELL!

obiwanobiwan officially endorses "Man and Superman" by Geroge Bernard Shaw:

As just a play and piece of literature it's brilliant, insightful, and was ahead of its time!
As a work dealing with philosophical issues it's hilarious and haunting at the same time!
And despite his views on eugenics and the overly-slow "Saint Joan," this is electric!

There's no hope for you, obiwanobiwan. Reread that post. Are you proud that you made that drivel? I'm not trying to troll like mapleleaf, I'm trying to help. For your own sake, knock it off.

I was responding to Fasces349...

Am I proud that I wrote that? Eh, probably could have done better.

Did I enjoy the effort? Yes...though that's due more to the ideas than how I phrased them, I think there are some decent analogies and some so-so parts in there.

Do I belive in what I said? Yess--or else In would not have said it.

And as I've told mapleleaf before, I shall now tell you:

If you don't like my discussing things...why COME?! Honestly, isn't that a bit like banging your head against a wall over and over? No one's forcing you to read that "drivel," so if you don't like what I ahve to say you have the dual options of either trying to challenge my points, and thus entering into the discussion as Fasces did, or else just not come and to NOT troll, as mapleleaf does.

Obi I find it hard to figure out what you are saying. The reasoning might even be sound, but your sentences are too long and there are too many unnecessary parenthetical elements.

For example: "... instead of the Utilitarian forces in me counting each man one-for-one"

Why do we need hear about the "utilitarian forces in you"?. I don't know what utilitarianism is. And even if I did would it really make me more likely to understand and believe what you are saying?

Btw I agree, George Bernard Shaw rocks!

"I am forced to say that 1,000 normal workers, good though they might be, do NOT equal 1 "Mozart," for the "Mozart figure" is not only worth more, there is a qualitative difference between the two."

The reason Mozart is worth more than than a thousand workers is because of the qualitative differences. Is that right?
But because the differences are incommensurable it is impossible to say exactly how many workers are worth one Mozart. Have I understood you correctly?

We need to consider the context too I presume. For example if I want to build a new factory then 1000 workers might be worth more than one Mozart for I might have no need for a composer but I do need boiler makers.

@spyman:

Actually, for once my reference WOULD probably help you to understand what I mean.

Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics which, to put it very shortly and likely over-simplify, champions "the greatest possible happiness/propserity/good for the greatest amount of people." The determination of what is a "good" or "moral" action is based upon how much pleasure vs. pain it will cause.

For example, if you were to shoot Fasces and I and steal our money to benefit yourself, we have two people suffering and one person profitting...hence the pain outweighs the pleasure and the Utilitarian would call that an immoral, wrongful action.

IF, however, you shot us two to steal that money to afford money for your 14 children (my, my..you hAVE been busy! :p) then we would have 2 experiencing pain vs. profit and gain for you and your 14 children...and strict Utilitarians, then, would call that killing justifiable.

It must be noted that not ALL would, as there are two basic forms of Utilitariansim: act and rule. Act Utilitarianism deals with just the actions and calculations as they are and so WOULD say that your murdering Fasces and I to benefit 14 children--ie, "the greater good"--is justifiable, simple calculation for them, 14 - 2= 12.

We come to a positive number, and hence it's a positive action.

RULE Utilitarianism is more widespreand and more complicated as it takes into account the possibility of actions being so good or bad by themselves that they warrant a different calculation.

Take the previous case again: you murder Fasces and I to get money for 14 children. The Act Utilitarian pulls out his calculator, says "Fourteen benefitting minus two suffering from this action leaves a net gain of twelve, hence this is a positive, passable action." The RULE Utilitarian says "14 - 2= 12 which IS a positive outcome, BUT we must weigh the fact that this positive was achieved with an extreme NEGATIVE, namely, through a MURDER. IF we were to count murder as a positive action we would have lots more death and killing and raping and suffering, so we must count it as being a NECESSARILY BAD action NO MATTER WHAT the end result is. Thus, even if a murder would mathematically lead to a positive, ie, 14- 2=12, I MUST consider this to be a negative action as it was achieved through a murder which, on the grander scale, is an extreme and overriding negative."

That's a VERY brief and VERY basic account of Utilitarianism.

As you might have noticed, the Utilitarian calculated, 14- 2=12...he counted each life as if it counted as 1 life, no more, no less. The Utilitarian does NOT believe any life is worth more or less than another, hence the famous phrase,

"Each man counts for one."

Which is what I was referencing when I referenced Utilitarian thought: I was saying INSTEAD of counting each person as 1, no more, no less, I give people DIFFERENT worths, like I showed with silver and gold.

Just like when I said the coins were incommensurable, ie, could not be counted together as if they were the SAME.

The Utilitarian believes just that--all people should, in matters of ethics and politics, count the same, whereas *I* am saying that I disagree with that notion and believe that people are different and so a great person, ie, "a Mozart," counts differently than a worker, and given the choice between the two of them, where the Utilitarian--at the VERY BASIC LEVEL--would be forced to say this is 1 vs. 1, and both deserve equal consideration, I am saying tha this is not 1 vs. 1 but gold vs. silver, and gold, ie, "a Mozart," must NECESSARILY be taken into account and cared for before silver, ie, "a worker." They DON'T merely add up in a calculator, like with the 14 - 2=12 example.

Bear in mind that's a VERY brief take on one of the most prominent forms of ethical theories in the West; there are many permeautations of Utilitarianism (which takes its name from it often being called "The Theory of Utility," treating everyone as a utility to be used towards the greater whole, the greater good, ie, 1 PLUS 1 equalling 2, with both 1s "social tools" or "utilities" to reach that 2) and so what I've said does not apply to them all, I was directing my comment towards basic Utilitarian thought.

If you know who Benthem is, THAT'S who I'm directing my comments at, he's one of the fathers of this theory; the one who is generally regarded as the greatest philosophical debater for this theory is John Staurt Mill, who's famous book, "Utilitarianism," is just around 60-70 pages long, but in it he puts forth all the reasons why he thinks this theory is correct, ethically, and essentially says Benthem has a nice idea but a flawed one. Mill's Utilitarianism is FAR more complex and features Act and Rule Utilitarianism, a blend of the two, the further idea that there are higher and lower pleasures and so these must ALSO be taken into account when punching that calculator to come up with the action that will produce the "greatest possible good," and a further theory as to why he believes acting on a strict, never-changeable set of rules (the understood opposite and opposing viewpoint of Utilitarianism, which would be the Categorical Imperative Theory put foward by the Germany philosopher Immanuel Kant a century earlier) is absurd.

And THAT, in as brief a nutshell as I can give, is Utilitarianism. :)

And YES!

That's pretty much PRECISELY what I mean by my Mozart/workers example! :D

That was a pretty decent explanation of Utilitarianism Obi. And it was easy to follow because you stuck to the point you were making, without any unnecessary asides. I'll be sure to look up Benthem. Thank you.

Could we say the Mozart is worth more because he can bring greater good to more people than a thousand workers? (or did you already say that?)