Derek Parfit — more people with net positive lives, but how many more?

[Multicolored Lemur]

Mr Morality: the astonishing mind of Derek Parfit

He was one of the greatest philosophers of the late 20th century. Now he has a biography that lives up to his genius and enigmatic character

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

“If we grant, as he thought we must, that it is always better if there is more happiness in the world . . . . . So, an Earth crammed with 30bn barely happy souls would probably be preferable to our current one of 8bn people of varying happiness.”

========

A lot of people have probably talked about something similar. But modern philosopher Derek Parfit helped to give this some attention in the 1980s and in the years since. Parfit died in 2017. And sure, we can give him some credit.

It’s like overloading a boat, isn’t it?

We can keep adding one more person, one more person. But at a certain point, the boat will capsize. And we don’t want to get even close to that point.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here are some key things I noticed in the article in regards to his views on morality:

But most of Parfit’s work was on moral philosophy. He was deeply troubled by the view—widely held at the time by philosophers—that there was no objective basis for moral judgements. As Edmonds puts it, he thought that: “If morality was not objective, there was no reason to act in one way rather than another.” Worse, “If morality were not objective, life was meaningless.”

It is perhaps telling that he argued that, contrary to appearances, the major moral theories did not in fact disagree, but were merely “climbing the same mountain on different sides”.

A clue to Parfit’s fundamental error comes in one of the countless extraordinary anecdotes recounted by Edmonds. Parfit once watched a documentary about the Nazi invasion of France in which Hitler danced a little jig after his army’s triumph. The philosopher said, without irony, “At least something good came out of the German victory.” The logic is simple: a world with more happiness is always better than a world with less. So, a world in which Hitler was not pleased by his monstrous success would be worse than one in which he was.

Source: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/61751/mr-morality-the-astonishing-mind-of-derek-parfit

Later philosophers found some fault in his reasoning, but I'm sure he was thoughtful on moral issues. Personally, I never say that objective morals don't exist, but rather it's that we have no reliable way of knowing about them even if they did exist. We know some of the basic rules, like don't murder or steal, but there are just numerous other issues that would go unanswered, like if open marriages are okay, lying in certain situations, knowing who was right when there's a moral disagreement, etc.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Mr Morality: the astonishing mind of Derek Parfit

He was one of the greatest philosophers of the late 20th century. Now he has a biography that lives up to his genius and enigmatic character

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

“ . . Parfit once watched a documentary about the Nazi invasion of France in which Hitler danced a little jig after his army’s triumph. The philosopher said, without irony, ‘At least something good came out of the German victory.’ . . “

================

We’re talking about 1-person, short-term happiness

vs.

many-people, long-term suffering.


Piece of cake, not even close. A world in which Hitler felt remorse would have had been better.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Personally, I never say that objective morals don't exist, but rather it's that we have no reliable way of knowing about them even if they did exist. We know some of the basic rules, like don't murder or steal, but there are just numerous other issues that would go unanswered, like if open marriages are okay, lying in certain situations, knowing who was right when there's a moral disagreement, etc.

Okay, I feel I’m only going to get one bite at this apple, so . . .

events in the 1980s

This book convinced me that it’s really wrong to hold out false hope to patients or their families. For example, if a patient has had a stroke [ and doesn’t get the clot-busting drug quickly enough for blockages], they’re not going to get much better.

Sometimes the family is not ready to hear that truth.

My idea — Keep it short and sweet. Maybe just say to the family, “Let’s wait for the test.” That’s an indirect way of telling them it’s serious.

===========

In other words, ethics are about skills, and not 5-step logical “proofs.”

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Mr Morality: the astonishing mind of Derek Parfit

He was one of the greatest philosophers of the late 20th century. Now he has a biography that lives up to his genius and enigmatic character

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

“ . . Parfit once watched a documentary about the Nazi invasion of France in which Hitler danced a little jig after his army’s triumph. The philosopher said, without irony, ‘At least something good came out of the German victory.’ . . “

================

We’re talking about 1-person, short-term happiness

vs.

many-people, long-term suffering.


Piece of cake, not even close. A world in which Hitler felt remorse would have had been better.

I believe Peter was on the right track, but needed to make some changes. Another big problem is that happiness, like any other feeling, is subjective. What makes you happy may not make another person happy. Religions for instance have a very different idea of what happiness involves, often differentiating between superficial happiness and "real" or "true" and lasting happiness.

I've been looking into Buddhism perspective on happiness and suffering. Very interesting to say the least.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I've been looking into Buddhism perspective on happiness and suffering. Very interesting to say the least.

I like some of the Buddhist thinking. For example, zen seems an artful thing!