David Pearce discusses various forms of Utilitarianism and there (sometimes less obvious) implications. == Hedonistic Utilitarianism: "A utilitarian theory which assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent. Bentham's utilitarianism is hedonistic. Although he describes the good not only as pleasure, but also as happiness, benefit, advantage, etc., he treats these concepts as more or less synonymous, and seems to think of them as reducible to pleasure. John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, also described as hedonistic, differs importantly from Bentham's in taking some pleasures to be higher than other ones, so that when considering the values of the consequences of an action, not only the quantity but also the quality of pleasure has to be considered. This complicates the summing up, or may even make it impossible." - The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy == Negative Utilitarianism: Ethical negative-utilitarianism is a value-system which challenges the moral symmetry of pleasure and pain. It doesn't question the value of enhancing the happiness of the already happy. Yet it attaches value in a distinctively moral sense of the term only to actions which tend to minimise or eliminate suffering. This is what matters above all else. The doctrine is counter-intuitive, not least insofar as it entails that from a purely ethical perspective it wouldn't matter if nothing at all had existed, or everything ceased to exist. Indeed, if the option were humanly available, the logic of the position morally obligates bringing the world to an end were this the only way to banish the suffering endemic to it. Happily, there is a much better way to rid the natural world of its endemic nastiness. This is to use biotechnology to eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life. Life-long happiness can be genetically pre-programmed. In the post-Darwinian Era, applied nanotechnology will extend hedonic engineering to all life-forms on the planet. Following through the logical implications of this seemingly bizarre and perverse perspective is clearly not for the faint-hearted. Yet negative utilitarianism doesn't derive from self-hatred or some nihilistic death-wish. It stems instead from a deep sense of compassion at the sheer scale and intensity of suffering in the world. No amount of happiness or fun enjoyed by some organisms can notionally justify the indescribable horrors of Auschwitz. Nor can it outweigh the sporadic frightfulness of pain and despair that occurs every second of every day. Read more at: see: http://www.hedweb.com/negutil.htm The instrumental case from means-ends rationality derives from the broad applicability of psychological hedonism. This isn't here construed as a universal law. It's just a trite everyday rule of thumb: we spend a lot of time trying to make ourselves happy. Often we fail. HI achieves what we're striving for with unique efficiency and success. The ethical utilitarian case for HI, on the other hand, rests partly on a conception of how morality can be naturalised consistently with a recognisably scientific account of the nature of the world. Value is here construed as a distinctive - and biologically maximisable - mode of experience. Its subjective texture is coded by a particular type of biomolecular architecture. That architecture can be enriched and extended. Positive value can be maximised. Negative value can eventually be eliminated. Thus HI, it will be claimed, amounts to rather more than one individual's quirky conjectures and value-judgements. The biological program is also our natural destiny. The coming of the pain-free post-Darwinian Era will mark both a major transition in the evolution of life and the moral foundation of any future civilisation. Subscribe to this Channel: http://youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=TheRationalFuture Science, Technology & the Future: http://scifuture.org Humanity+: http://humanityplus.org

• published: 19 Sep 2014
• views: 21