Were the philosophers who proposed the theory of utilitarianism really trying to find a workable measure for moral behaviour - a way to figure out the difference between right and wrong?
Or were they simply looking for a way to legitimize the state and its claims to be able to violate the population's natural rights on the grounds that doing so is for 'the greater good'?
Short allegorical story - Imagine a plane carrying ten passengers crashes on an uncharted desert island. There are eight men and two women. At first, rivalry over the women leads to fighting among the men. But then the ten inhabitants of the island get together to decide how best to run their lives. One man proposes that the two women be forced to provide sexual services to all of them on a turn basis, so that the men can stop fighting amongst themselves. Hands are counted, and the motion is formally passed. (This is democracy - mob rule) 'It's for the greater good, after all,' says each of the men at the start of his turn to profit from the sexual enslavement of the two women.
You intrinsically know that this wrong. Now you have to figure out why. So much for utilitarianism and the 'greater good' argument. It doesn't hold water.
You cannot justify violating natural law rights on the basis of 'the greatest good of the greatest number', because respect for the sanctity of natural law is essential for the greatest good of the greatest number. Without respect for natural law, we degenerate to little more than beasts. The greatest good for the greatest number is that we live in accordance with natural law.
Do you understand what 'natural law' is now?
It is your natural born instinct to know right from wrong. It's that little voice on your shoulder, like Jiminy Cricket.
Your conscience. We all have it but the state would like to be it instead. Which do you trust?
What if 'the state' is the little guy in red ^
If you let someone else dictate what your conscience should tell you you're in danger of losing it. Exercise your conscience, listen to your gut and mostly BE KIND.
To prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority, one must already deselect or question the question or the voting topic. The problem, however, that we ourselves create, is to assign ourselves to one of the groups. How do we even know whether we belong to a majority or a minority? In my eyes, this is already a superfluous question. It doesn't even matter. It is pointless.
Your scenario is a successful one in that it shows that the good of the many cannot take precedence over the good of the few, even if that is a very persistent image that we are presented with everywhere. Nevertheless, it is a fictional example that is not really representative of everyday life.
The questions on how we live together should not be put to a vote at all, from my point of view. They arise from the flow of the respective events themselves. But if you put them to the vote, you disturb this flow immensely. Then it's "decide!", basically a complete impossibility to decide definitively for or against something. One does that anyway, for oneself and with oneself, but when one is forced to "act decisively" for others, one can no longer get out of the devil's kitchen. This creates the enmities and conflicts we see.
Which means you are a classical anarchist like me? I agree I don't want others to make decisions for my life path thankyou. No rulers even if they are supposedly affected by mob rule.
Addendum : ....And rip the living, beating heart, out of the devils that want to rule over you....(in a kind and very inclusive way, of course)
oh yeh there is that too wink wink
I just KNEW you'd have something to say about that. I kinda mean be kind like Superman, you can be kind but not take shit and you don't have to be kind to demons anyway.
https://blurt.blog/blurtlife/@lucylin/terms-of-engagement-are-we-clear-now-a-prelude-to-a-report
I was talking about in real life not on this fake 2D blogging website. I was in no way trying to take away your joyful ribpoking humorous postings on here. Sticks and stones and all that.