What made utilitarianism the privileged value system? All I said was that if you try to make a utilitarian argument for gun control being an important issue, you’d probably fail. Someone would make a better argument for controlling diabetes being more important by comparing the number of people getting killed by illegal firearms and the number of people who die because of diabetes. (Note that the point here isn’t whether controlling guns is a good thing to do, but whether it’s more important than controlling diabetes).
I never said that utilitarianism is the privileged value system. What makes Casey Anthony brouhaha a privileged question is not the fact that it’s entertainment and not news, but the fact that from all possible gruesome murders that could be equally as entertaining, they picked this one and follwed it day and night. That’s a clear case of privileging the question. There are better questions to ask even among sensational issues.
Utilitarianism/consequentialism is a metaethic, so it’s a way of deciding what to do with a value system rather than a value system in itself—the paperclipper is a utilitarian even though it values paperclips rather than people.
You’re correct that the original post makes assumptions about what the reader values. I think that’s often worth it for efficient communication, though—the only alternatives I can think of are speaking in general or abstract terms (“a really bad thing happens”, without being able to give an example like “a person dies”), or stating the assumptions.
I think gun control probably is privileging the hypothesis, according to most peoples’ stated goals—they think gun control matters because it’s related to safety, and they value safety, even though there are dangers more common and easier to control than guns. (I don’t know off the top of my head what the low hanging fruit is for safety in first world countries, but transportation and preventative healthcare seem like possible candidates.) How close their stated goals are to their actual goals is a different question.
Most people around here (myself included) believe that utilitarianism is the correct value system and regard it as a settled question. There are debates about the correct type of utilitarianism, of course, but still.
The 2012 survey had 62% support for consequentialism, of which utilitarianisms form a subset. Some importantly non-utilitarian brands of consequentialism include egoism, egalitarianism, perfectionism, and mixed value functions that include elements of the above.
Ah, sorry. I read “value system” as referring to the utility assigned to various things, because that’s the default around here. Sorry for any confusion.
As for whether utilitarianism is, in fact, the correct value system, by human ethical standards, most LWers seem to ascribe to one form or another; this probably isn’t the comment section for that discussion, though.
But … you just admitted they’re unimportant “in purely utilitarian terms”!
What made utilitarianism the privileged value system? All I said was that if you try to make a utilitarian argument for gun control being an important issue, you’d probably fail. Someone would make a better argument for controlling diabetes being more important by comparing the number of people getting killed by illegal firearms and the number of people who die because of diabetes. (Note that the point here isn’t whether controlling guns is a good thing to do, but whether it’s more important than controlling diabetes).
I never said that utilitarianism is the privileged value system. What makes Casey Anthony brouhaha a privileged question is not the fact that it’s entertainment and not news, but the fact that from all possible gruesome murders that could be equally as entertaining, they picked this one and follwed it day and night. That’s a clear case of privileging the question. There are better questions to ask even among sensational issues.
Utilitarianism/consequentialism is a metaethic, so it’s a way of deciding what to do with a value system rather than a value system in itself—the paperclipper is a utilitarian even though it values paperclips rather than people.
You’re correct that the original post makes assumptions about what the reader values. I think that’s often worth it for efficient communication, though—the only alternatives I can think of are speaking in general or abstract terms (“a really bad thing happens”, without being able to give an example like “a person dies”), or stating the assumptions.
I think gun control probably is privileging the hypothesis, according to most peoples’ stated goals—they think gun control matters because it’s related to safety, and they value safety, even though there are dangers more common and easier to control than guns. (I don’t know off the top of my head what the low hanging fruit is for safety in first world countries, but transportation and preventative healthcare seem like possible candidates.) How close their stated goals are to their actual goals is a different question.
Most people around here (myself included) believe that utilitarianism is the correct value system and regard it as a settled question. There are debates about the correct type of utilitarianism, of course, but still.
The 2012 survey had 62% support for consequentialism, of which utilitarianisms form a subset. Some importantly non-utilitarian brands of consequentialism include egoism, egalitarianism, perfectionism, and mixed value functions that include elements of the above.
Ah, sorry. I read “value system” as referring to the utility assigned to various things, because that’s the default around here. Sorry for any confusion.
As for whether utilitarianism is, in fact, the correct value system, by human ethical standards, most LWers seem to ascribe to one form or another; this probably isn’t the comment section for that discussion, though.