Utilitarianism, philosophy and goods

31 Jul

Utilitarianism essentially sees social logic only for the goods they produce, as well as many currents of modernity, what is important is objectivity, the actual relationship with objects, and the essence of Being, its relation to the Other, and its culture. .

It thus becomes a dispute for power, money and mobilizing forces for the production of goods, no matter how these goods are distributed among different people, in different positions on the social scale, from different religious or cultural postures.

Professor Julia Markovits of Cornell University’s class, which gives an introduction to the moral aspects of utilitarianism, explains that one of the reasons that a simple disappointment of football fans together could produce a greater devaluation than a person’s pain would mean loss of values ​​associated with the soccer team, while the pain is only of the person.

He explains that according to philosopher Robert Nozick, the “utility monster” can transform an extremely good person, who transforms resources in direct relation to happiness, when more money and food we give to this person, the happier he is, but in the limit this It does not transform all ordinary people into a happy “general collectivity” because of utility.

The answer to utilitarianism is that this will not happen, because the opposite is true, the more resources we have the less impact any additional resources will have on our happiness.

If we think about accumulation this is not what happens, how much impact it has on a mega tech company account, while the same $ 100 can make a difference to a child in a poor region of the planet.

The subject may seem psychological or even sociological, but Robert Nozick was interested in the discussion of the state, so his book is called “Anarchy, State and Utopia” (2011), its original version is from 1974, so long before the fall of the Berlin wall, changes in Russia and the western world.

Nozick’s unique argument is that man chose to leave the “state of nature” and set up a kind of state whose existing morality consists of a future Minimum State, where some “laws” would work automatically, since of course it is no longer possible.

Apart from Martha Nussbaum’s recent book on “The Monarchy of Fear,” little or no literature penetrates the current conjuncture about the return of states as a force of repression and “order” to re-establish possible harmony.

He says of victims of injustice, including those practiced by the state: “What is permissible for victims of injustice to do in order to rectify the injustices committed against them, including the large number of injustices committed by people acting through government? I do not know of a complete or theoretically sophisticated approach to these issues. ”(NORZICK, 2011, p. 195).

He is the only author to criticize John Rawls’s utilitarianism on the issue of distribution and the only author to include in his critique Bernard Williams’s text on the fact that the state’s only action on inequality is the question of disease, curiously. Obama’s health plan that was attacked by Donald Trump. Addressing even Utopia, Nozick states that: “Life is not a race where everyone competes for a prize pre-set by someone…” (NOZICK, 2011, p. 305).

NOZICK, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Sao Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2011. The following video explains these arguments, the 3rd. Julia Markovitz’s class about utilitarism:


Comentários estão fechados.