Basics

I thought the basics of morality were settled when I was in college decades ago. The right theory was called utilitarianism and the alternatives were fundamentally flawed. Now all I see are wrong versions of the theory, so I will state/summarize utilitarianism here.

At the present time, only pleasure and pain are known to have fundamental relevance or significance. The relevance of everything else derives from effects on pleasure and/or pain. From experience we not only know that pleasure and pain are relevant, but we also know they can be quantified to some extent and combined and compared for different situations. We do the best we can (to the point of diminishing returns) with different types, severities and amounts of pleasure and pain and with estimating these in other beings, predicting future events and ultimately making comparisons which are imperfect, but not wildly imperfect. We clearly have an ability to do these things and our ability improves with more experiences of pleasure and pain and with more knowledge and intelligence. Morality is about optimizing pleasure/pain. Debate about what optimizes it (including the left/right political debate) shouldn’t prevent people from believing the previous sentence.

Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism shouldn’t exist. There should only be utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is wrong because the sum of incremental analyses is different from and inferior to a greater analysis when a suitable greater analysis is possible. Rule utilitarianism is wrong because it isn’t fundamental enough. Utilitarianism says to sometimes create rules and says what the rules should be. It also says how they should be enforced and what the punishments for violations should be. Utilitarianism usually says to follow the rules (whether one agrees with them or not), but not always. Similarly, average utilitarianism and total utilitarianism shouldn’t exist. There should only be utilitarianism. We must appeal to our judgment to determine what would be optimal.

Utilitarianism and overconfidence are a bad combination, but utilitarianism is not to blame. In determining what is right, it is important to keep in mind our great ability to be wrong.

When dealing with the uncertainty of future events, it is an oversimplification to just compare calculated expected values of pleasure/pain for different courses of action. These probability-weighted averages don’t contain as much information as the data used to calculate them. Basic utilitarianism doesn’t say to seek the maximum probability-weighted mean of pleasure/pain, which would be arbitrary and susceptible to the St. Petersburg paradox. Basic utilitarianism says to seek optimal pleasure/pain.

The way utilitarianism is presented with so many potential flaws and flawed versions makes it look like it isn’t the most sensible moral theory or even a sensible theory. Basic utilitarianism, as described above, is the most sensible moral theory.

With people’s moralities deriving less from world religions, it is surprising there aren’t more utilitarians. The new moralities many have are worse than those from the world religions and are leading to mistakes involving a lack of objectivity. One characteristic of most world religions was an independent God. When making decisions, people would try and determine what God would do which helped in being objective. Now, instead of trying to do what God would, many are pursuing self interest or group interest and pain and suffering from conflict and competition are increasing. A survival of the fittest is developing. While competition and conflict are sometimes right, survival of the fittest should be seen as a principle for non-intelligent life only. Where there is intelligent life, morality should replace (or radically alter) survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is about survival. It is indifferent to pleasure and pain. However, we know pleasure and pain are relevant, and in opposite ways, so morality exists. For life on Earth the results of survival of the fittest are very different from optimal pleasure/pain. Evil (or that which does not optimize pleasure/pain) is often fit for survival, so intelligent life has a purpose of reducing evil. In the words of utilitarianism, intelligent life’s purpose is the optimization of pleasure/pain in the universe.

Atheism, agnosticism or theism? We find ourselves existing in the universe but we have no idea how that could be. It seems that nothing should exist yet the universe exists. If there is a God (or Gods), we don’t know if God exists within or beyond the universe or both within and beyond. We also don’t know if we are able to comprehend, or experience in any way, things that are beyond the universe. Even within the universe we are unable to comprehend everything or perhaps anything fully. However, we know about the existence of the universe, its information content, the laws of physics, pleasure/pain, sentient life, intelligent life, philosophical intuition, reason, comprehension and morality, to name a few. That’s more than enough to choose theism. We’re unable to explain the existence of the universe so the idea of God makes sense, even if God is only everything that exists with no separate existence (a pantheistic God). The universe having sentient life and intelligent life is more reason to believe in a God who either created the universe (directly or indirectly) or is the universe as a pantheistic God. There are at least three reasons why God being the universe is a real possibility. It explains away the apparent absence of God, it can explain our free will (if we have free will) which is quite a power to have or in other words seems to make us supernatural or divine, and it helps with the mystery of evil in that all the pain and suffering in the universe becomes self-inflicted.

Which type of theism? At the present time at least, it makes sense to be agnostic as far as specifics about God and openminded to the possibility that God is beyond comprehension. There are many imaginable and unimaginable possibilities for God that can’t be proved or disproved. So agnostic theism is the most sensible belief. The agnostic theism I describe would be agnosticism if God being everything with no separate existence isn’t allowed as a possible type of God. That’s just semantics. Then it would be possible there is no God and possible there is a God, so agnosticism would be the most sensible belief. But I prefer the semantics that lead to agnostic theism. Believe!

Advice for Young Adults Who Want to Change the World

• Gain responsibility while knowing your strengths and weaknesses and deferring to others when they are a better option.

• Set a good example.

• Be careful not to spend excessive time on people you're unlikely to change. Keep the Prayer of Serenity in mind.

• Be smart and efficient.

• Don't be afraid to sometimes criticize. People need to know when their ideas and actions are wrong (with exceptions).

• Exercise and take care of your health. The longer you live, the more influence you'll have.

• Be both a pragmatist and an idealist. Be a realist and an optimist.

• Correct nonsense whenever possible. Ignore nonsense you're unable to correct. Don't let it bother you.

• Be strong and humble.

• Be genuine, credible and reliable.

• Be respectful.

• Look for opportunities to be kind to your enemies. Care about your enemies while knowing they may sometimes need to be stopped.

• Be reflective. Never stop learning new and better ways of doing good.

• Live simply, happily and generously.

• Above all, live to optimize the balance of happiness over unhappiness.

• In times of crisis remember we're not all-knowing. Don't despair. Keep the Prayer for Generosity in mind.

• Take advantage of exponential growth by teaching others who will teach others.

Cool Quotes

Champions are brilliant at the basics.
- John Wooden

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
- Albert Einstein

When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred.
- Thomas Jefferson

Never confuse motion with action.
- Ben Franklin

I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition.
- Martha Washington

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
- Abraham Lincoln

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
- Jesus

Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
- John F. Kennedy

A teacher affects eternity; a teacher can never tell where his/her influence stops.
- Henry Brooks Adams

The scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
- Thomas Henry Huxley

Try not to become a person of success, but rather to become a person of value.
- Albert Einstein

Obedience may have its uses but it is no substitute for willing, uncoerced cooperation.
- Eleanor Roosevelt

Kindness is the only service that will stand the storm of life and not wash out. It will wear well and will be remembered long after the prism of politeness or the complexion of courtesy has faded away.
- Abraham Lincoln

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
- Unknown

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.
- Jesus

Excerpt from The Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.

Excerpt from Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill:

According to the Principle of Utility, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable, is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments... This, being, according to the utilitarian theory, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all humankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation.