Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:06 am
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm What would be the mathematical model that we should use?
100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. Simple really.
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmNo one has devised one.
I have. If you stopped making assumptions, then you will stop looking foolish.
If you have a mathematical model for calculating the moral utility value of actions then that really does deserve its very own thread.

Obviously we are all very well aware that you never make any assumptions at all, so we will take it as read that you have properly thought this through and understand in full the nature of the task.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:22 pm
ken wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:06 am
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm What would be the mathematical model that we should use?
100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. Simple really.
Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmNo one has devised one.
I have. If you stopped making assumptions, then you will stop looking foolish.
If you have a mathematical model for calculating the moral utility value of actions then that really does deserve its very own thread.
Would you like to start one? I am more than happy to answer all questions posed.

Asking for clarity, with questions, in order to clear up what is puzzling you, if there is any thing, then that would help Me or others in knowing what it is exactly that you want to learn and understand, and thus answered.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:22 pmObviously we are all very well aware that you never make any assumptions at all,
If I have stated that I never make any assumptions at all, then I have expressed that incorrectly because I prefer to write, "I do not want to make any assumptions at all". If you can point us to where I have wrote that I never make any assumptions at all, then I would be thankful. I can go back and correct it.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:22 pmso we will take it as read that you have properly thought this through and understand in full the nature of the task.
If you want to take it as that, then that is fine with Me.

As for 'properly thought "this" through' as far as I can see "it" all fits together nicely with all the other "stuff" and forms quite a large and very clear and accurate picture of Life, for Me. I am not left puzzled about anything nor am I confused. But the truth of this last statement we will have to wait and see.

As for 'understand in full the nature of the task' then that all depends on what is the task is you are actually talking about. If the task is to just answer some clarifying questions in which all the answers are like the pieces of puzzle and when shown for what they are they all fit together "perfectly" to form the big picture of Life, and thus end up showing the Truth of Life, then that is a very easy thing to do indeed. Finding people, however, who are honest and open enough, and who are curious enough to ask the challenging and demanding questions without having any preconceived ideas is the only hard part. If people are going to presume or have even just the slightest bit of belief that I can not do some thing, then there really is no use in trying, is there?

If people want answers, then all they need to do is ask questions, obviously. But expect Me to ask for clarity about what they mean exactly in the question before I answer. If people, however, just want to make statements here, then how do they want Me to respond? I know already why they make the statements they do, and they are free to make any statement they like, I can not provide just answers to statements.

If any person wants to know, see, and understand how a model works in solving all moral problems in Life, then just be prepared to take a good look at yourself. This solution, and it's formula, has only worked with those who are totally and completely honest, and thus truly open. The only other way to find out if this model works is by just being completely open and asking clarifying questions. This later option has not been attempted yet. But I am willing to give the answers, if any person is willing to ask the questions.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:51 pm If any person wants to know, see, and understand how a model works in solving all moral problems in Life, then just be prepared to take a good look at yourself. This solution, and it's formula, has only worked with those who are totally and completely honest, and thus truly open. The only other way to find out if this model works is by just being completely open and asking clarifying questions. This later option has not been attempted yet. But I am willing to give the answers, if any person is willing to ask the questions.
Don't be a complete fanny mate. Hand over the formula.

It's either true or it's bollocks, but if it's a mathematical formula it doesn't need an open mind to be true or false.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:51 pm If any person wants to know, see, and understand how a model works in solving all moral problems in Life, then just be prepared to take a good look at yourself. This solution, and it's formula, has only worked with those who are totally and completely honest, and thus truly open. The only other way to find out if this model works is by just being completely open and asking clarifying questions. This later option has not been attempted yet. But I am willing to give the answers, if any person is willing to ask the questions.
Don't be a complete fanny mate. Hand over the formula.

It's either true or it's bollocks, but if it's a mathematical formula it doesn't need an open mind to be true or false.
Just more proof of how assumptions lead human beings so astray from the actual truth.

If you stopped assuming that your perception of "mathematical formula" is much to do with what I have been talking about here, then you would stop believing that what I am willing to show you is impossible.

How could I make it any clearer? IF YOU WANT ANSWERS, THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

The brain inside this head has about as much mathematical knowledge as a 5th grader, probably far less if I am really honest with my self. I have stipulated before that I am very simple. I know of no "mathematical formulas" in the sense you are talking about. (If you have noticed here now, that I am also making 'assumptions', in regards to what your perception of 'mathematical formulas' are, which could lead this discussion even further astray. This part is written just for those who might have thought that I had not noticed what I am doing now. The reason for why I am assuming here will become clearer later.)

Anyhow, now back to what it is that you want Me to "hand over". Firstly, if you had taken any notice at all of what has been said then you would have noticed how far you have taken this away from what I have actually been saying. Let us start where you did. You quoted what sciencefan and I wrote,
Science Fan wrote: "What would be the mathematical model that we should use? No one has devised one."
I wrote: [the mathematical model we should use is one for] "100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. Simple really."

Science fan was/is completely confused about what the words "greatest happiness overall" means. Science fan, at that time, went on, "Another puzzling aspect about utilitarianism is that no one can do an actual calculation. What would be the mathematical model that we should use? No one has devised one." To which I implied, [the greatest happiness overall is obviously for] 100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. I had already questioned science fan about who they thought how many would the "greatest happiness overall" be for, of which there was no reply. To Me, obviously "happiness" would be for ALL, and not just some. So the only mathematics I was providing was the numbers in relation to this. The greatest happiness overall IS for ALL people ALL of the time ALL over the place obviously. I actually never thought that would need saying, but I should never assume any thing also.

And, in reply to "No one has devised one [a model] I wrote, "I have. If you stopped making assumptions, then you will stop looking foolish."

The model I have "devised" is only mathematical in the sense that it is for "100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. If that model IS a solution for ALL, then it must also be a solution to all of the "world's" problems. Because every solution has a formula, then there must also be a formula for the solution to all of the "world's" problems. The formula to solving all of the "world's" problems is NOT, I repeat, NOT mathematical at all. The formula to ALL of the "world's problems", which by the way is not an accurate picture. The 'world' does not have any problems. The only problems in Life are ALL caused and created by human beings. Anyway, the formula that leads to solving ALL problems IS HOW. Honesty, Openness, and a Willingness to change for the better. There I have just handed over the formula. If you want to know more, then you, hopefully now, know what to do.

Unfortunately previously, you just jumped from 'mathematical model' to 'mathematical formula' because just like science fan you were making assumptions and jumping to conclusions BEFORE any clarification was taking place. I NEVER stated I had a 'mathematical formuala' for any thing. You just jumped to that conclusion.

NOW AGAIN, if you want to know any more answers, then just ask the clarifying questions, from an open perspective.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Greta »

Science Fan wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:18 pm Greta, How can utilitarianism be the wave of the future, when it is so at odds with basic human nature? When no one, including you, can offer an actual formula that we can use to even apply the utilitarian calculation? The reason why utilitarianism cannot work, as a matter of principle, is simple: It is impossible to weigh one-person's happiness against another's. It may be possible to weigh one person's happiness over a range of various options and determine what, for that specific person, makes him happy, and what adds to or decreases his happiness, but it is impossible to weigh one person's happiness against another's. Utilitarianism cannot even get out of the starting blocks, much less pave the way for our future.
Sorry, missed your reply earlier. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it being against "basic human nature". Sure, we are naturally selfish, but I suspect you meant something else.

I don't see us as choosing our systems. So I can't see anyone actually choosing utilitarianism as a pure philosophical or ideological philosophy; it's more of a policy tool than a policy platform. Our political and economic systems are always evolving. Each society is not run under strict utilitarianism, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism/anarchy, democracy or oligarchy but a combination of each element in varying degrees.

The principle of utilitarianism will always have a place in public policy for as long as there are more humans in a group than it is possible to know. It's simply conducting policy to provide what is assessed/guessed to be maximal benefit for the most people. It's a laudable aim, but not a cure-all.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

Greta wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:43 am
Science Fan wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:18 pm Greta, How can utilitarianism be the wave of the future, when it is so at odds with basic human nature? When no one, including you, can offer an actual formula that we can use to even apply the utilitarian calculation? The reason why utilitarianism cannot work, as a matter of principle, is simple: It is impossible to weigh one-person's happiness against another's. It may be possible to weigh one person's happiness over a range of various options and determine what, for that specific person, makes him happy, and what adds to or decreases his happiness, but it is impossible to weigh one person's happiness against another's. Utilitarianism cannot even get out of the starting blocks, much less pave the way for our future.
Sorry, missed your reply earlier. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it being against "basic human nature". Sure, we are naturally selfish, but I suspect you meant something else.
How and why are human beings supposedly naturally selfish?

What evidence is there for this?
Greta wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:43 amI don't see us as choosing our systems. So I can't see anyone actually choosing utilitarianism as a pure philosophical or ideological philosophy; it's more of a policy tool than a policy platform. Our political and economic systems are always evolving. Each society is not run under strict utilitarianism, capitalism, socialism, libertarianism/anarchy, democracy or oligarchy but a combination of each element in varying degrees.

The principle of utilitarianism will always have a place in public policy for as long as there are more humans in a group than it is possible to know. It's simply conducting policy to provide what is assessed/guessed to be maximal benefit for the most people. It's a laudable aim, but not a cure-all.
I like the way you expressed this.

What I found is the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is within. When this knowledge evolves to be consciously known what is discovered and seen is the truth or what is right and the falsehoods or what is wrong in and of each such some system above. Then people will follow the knowledge from within that they KNOW is right, and not choose to follow any one particular system such as above.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Science Fan »

Greta and Ken: You are both still ignoring human nature, and also not explaining how anyone can even do a so-called utilitarian calculation. The selfishness comes directly from our evolution. This is why parents, for the vast majority of them, ignore utilitarianism and favor their own children over strangers, and always will. They have an interest in spreading their genes more than in spreading their money.

As far as the calculation, let's take a simple example: A student says that Muslim terrorists did 9/11 in the name of Islam. OK. Now, what does utilitarianism tells us about whether this statement should be banned? No one knows. A Muslim could argue that 1.5 billion Muslims are extremely upset by the statement, and non-Muslims have little concern either way, so, therefore, utilitarianism tells us the statement should be banned and the student sent to prison. On the other hand, another person could argue that since it's a true statement, we are overall better off allowing the statement, and the 1.5 billion Muslims are hurt less by the statement than the rest of us benefit. So, the statement should be allowed.

Because no one can do any utilitarian calculation it is simply an ideological tool used to support any position imaginable.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:51 pm If any person wants to know, see, and understand how a model works in solving all moral problems in Life, then just be prepared to take a good look at yourself. This solution, and it's formula, has only worked with those who are totally and completely honest, and thus truly open. The only other way to find out if this model works is by just being completely open and asking clarifying questions. This later option has not been attempted yet. But I am willing to give the answers, if any person is willing to ask the questions.
Don't be a complete fanny mate. Hand over the formula.

It's either true or it's bollocks, but if it's a mathematical formula it doesn't need an open mind to be true or false.
Just more proof of how assumptions lead human beings so astray from the actual truth.

If you stopped assuming that your perception of "mathematical formula" is much to do with what I have been talking about here, then you would stop believing that what I am willing to show you is impossible.

How could I make it any clearer? IF YOU WANT ANSWERS, THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
There's only one clarifying question that remains: Are you taking the piss?

What you clearly don't understand is that Utilitarianism is by definition a quantitative theory, and SF pointed out that nobody has a model for quantifying it. "100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place" quantifies the square root of fuck all. Now we learn you aren't offering anything more quantitatively solid than that. So you were quite wrong in you reply to SF and you are wasting the limited attention I am willing to spend on you as well.

Nobody needs to be told by you that 'To Me, obviously "happiness" would be for ALL, and not just some.', unlike you we are educated and have read Jeremy Bentham who wrote that shit 200 years ago. I'm sure I pointed out to you some months ago that none of the grand ideas you think you are going to change the world with are new to us. They are new to you because you are ignorant, and with it arrogant.

Likewise, some fluffy shit about honesty and openness answers precisely no question at all other than "what insipid hallmark card worthy bland truisms might some uninspired, shallow little man offer up as his Ultimate Grand Philosophy?"
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Greta »

Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:31 pm Greta and Ken: You are both still ignoring human nature, and also not explaining how anyone can even do a so-called utilitarian calculation.
Fortunately, there are more talented people than us who can at least make an attempt. Sometimes it's obvious. Is running water of utilitarian benefit? Obviously yes, but we need no calculations to know that.
Science Fan wrote:As far as the calculation, let's take a simple example: A student says that Muslim terrorists did 9/11 in the name of Islam. OK. Now, what does utilitarianism tells us about whether this statement should be banned? No one knows.
Utilitarianism is a peacetime approach, basically opposite to war. The former seeks to confer the greatest benefit to the greatest number while the latter seeks to benefit only one's own group and to destroy or control the enemy.
Science Fan wrote:A Muslim could argue that 1.5 billion Muslims are extremely upset by the statement, and non-Muslims have little concern either way, so, therefore, utilitarianism tells us the statement should be banned and the student sent to prison.
Ah, I see. Your concern is that minority interests are railroaded by utilitarianism. Fair point. Then again, it could be argued that utilitarianism isn't simply a mechanistic popularity contest but a consideration of benefits and problems over the short, medium and long terms. So, for instance, it may be found that the decision in your example would set precedents that would undermine the society as a whole.

In a sense, the problems and solutions of utilitarianism are equivalent to the pluses and minuses of hedonism. One may argue that hedonism is hare-brained because it prioritises pleasure today over pleasure tomorrow. Yet the gaining of today's pleasure can bring pain tomorrow, a fact recognised by Epicurus, whose summarised his approach:
It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing "neither to harm nor be harmed"), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.
By the same token, it is impossible for a society to be balanced if it does not consider medium and longer term ramifications, and utilitarian policy can be considered in that context. Thus, mere numbers at any one time is only one consideration, along with precedents set, possible knock-on effects, unacceptable hardship for some, or potential imbalances or distortions of markets, etc.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Science Fan »

Greta: Nazism can be "justified" by utilitarianism, as can feeding Christians to the lions, etc. All one has to do is come up with some basis for saying that the enjoyment of the majority outweighs the harm to the minority, and all is fair game under utilitarianism. It is impossible for anyone to actually know what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number or how to even go about calculating such a thing.

I'm not even sure why anyone wants to attempt an answer to a moral question based on utilitarianism. If a lady gets an abortion, and if someone thousands of miles away, living in a different country, would be upset if she found out about the abortion, how do we measure that? Why should we even care to do so?

Anyways, this is my last post here. I'm sticking with another philosophy forum, where the members are not permitted to insult each other. Frankly, I just can't stand the personal attacks from Harbal and Veggie anymore. I'm an adult, not a child.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Well that's weird. I haven't even addressed that poster for days, and as far as I can see he's been just as insulting as anyone else. Harbal is the same to everyone so what's with lumping us together? We aren't the same f'ing user.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Walker »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:44 am Greta: Nazism can be "justified" by utilitarianism, as can feeding Christians to the lions, etc. All one has to do is come up with some basis for saying that the enjoyment of the majority outweighs the harm to the minority, and all is fair game under utilitarianism. It is impossible for anyone to actually know what causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number or how to even go about calculating such a thing.

I'm not even sure why anyone wants to attempt an answer to a moral question based on utilitarianism. If a lady gets an abortion, and if someone thousands of miles away, living in a different country, would be upset if she found out about the abortion, how do we measure that? Why should we even care to do so?

Anyways, this is my last post here. I'm sticking with another philosophy forum, where the members are not permitted to insult each other. Frankly, I just can't stand the personal attacks from Harbal and Veggie anymore. I'm an adult, not a child.
Well, that’s a shame. Can’t ever have enough fans around when it gets hot. Consider the cause of diamonds, and that water seeks a natural level. It’s like memories. You can think of the good times, or the bad. Thinking of either doesn’t negate the other. However, thinking of either reveals that causation is purely physical, and as many have realized, this means that either there’s something other than the physical, there’s something more to be discovered about the physical, or the physical must be redefined. For instance, you can walk through a big city and the only forms you will see other than life forms first existed as mind-forms. You can live out your days in a totally mind-created environment of forms, even the form of the walking surface. Lose sense of time to the immediacy of the present and before you know it, you’re walking in the city of the mind, faces reflecting yours and mirroring the mind-created forms all around. Jeese, so few of de broads on Broadway are broad.
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Impenitent »

Walker wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 am Jeese, so few of de broads on Broadway are broad.
and even fewer are utilities...

-Imp
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by Walker »

Impenitent wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:45 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 am Jeese, so few of de broads on Broadway are broad.
and even fewer are utilities...

-Imp
Well, it goes without saying that labeling what exists as unnecessary is a logical oxymoron.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Utilitarianism is Unnecessarily Broad

Post by ken »

Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:31 pm Greta and Ken: You are both still ignoring human nature, and also not explaining how anyone can even do a so-called utilitarian calculation. The selfishness comes directly from our evolution. This is why parents, for the vast majority of them, ignore utilitarianism and favor their own children over strangers, and always will. They have an interest in spreading their genes more than in spreading their money.

As far as the calculation, let's take a simple example: A student says that Muslim terrorists did 9/11 in the name of Islam. OK. Now, what does utilitarianism tells us about whether this statement should be banned? No one knows. A Muslim could argue that 1.5 billion Muslims are extremely upset by the statement, and non-Muslims have little concern either way, so, therefore, utilitarianism tells us the statement should be banned and the student sent to prison. On the other hand, another person could argue that since it's a true statement, we are overall better off allowing the statement, and the 1.5 billion Muslims are hurt less by the statement than the rest of us benefit. So, the statement should be allowed.

Because no one can do any utilitarian calculation it is simply an ideological tool used to support any position imaginable.
You make so many assumptions it is hard to know where to begin with you.

What exactly is human nature?

To Me, a 'utilitarian calculation', as already explained, IS EVERY one, EVERY time, EVERY where. I just did a utilitarian calculation so it can be done. If you agree with it and accept it or not is another issue. How I did it was to just consider EVERYONE equally. It is not that hard to do at all.

How sure are you that selfishness comes from our evolution? What is "our" evolution? Does 'evolution' roughly mean change? If so, then does that mean "selfishness" can and in fact does change? How does 'selfishness' actually work? Are you a selfish person? If so, how many human beings are you selfish to and for? Is the number you pick, the exact same for every other human being if selfishness is human nature, which is what you appear to be suggesting? Would you let your children die or any child die if you could easily prevent it from happening? If not, then what does 'selfishness' actually mean? If you are not that selfish to prevent children from dying, then what selfishness are you actually talking about? I could ask you multiple more questions, which if you took the time to consider and answered honestly and openly correctly, then your own answers would show you what is the truth of human nature. You are saying Me and greta are ignoring human nature, well you provide how, what, where, and when human nature IS and works. Feel free to write this down in full detail and of course which also is unambiguous, 100% factual, and can not be disputed. THEN, and only then, I will stop ignoring human nature. Would that make you feel better and then would you be happy? That is just in relation to your first two sentences. As for the next two;
Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:31 pmThis is why parents, for the vast majority of them, ignore utilitarianism and favor their own children over strangers, and always will. They have an interest in spreading their genes more than in spreading their money.
According to you and your logic, the vast majority of parents ignore utilitarianism and favor their own children over strangers, and always will. Therefore, by your logic, a tiny percentage of parents acknowledge and/or obey utilitarianism and favor ALL people, and always will. How and where does your so called "human nature" come into play here? What do you think would happen if more and more people started favoring ALL people equally, and not just some, and this always will happen? Do you think human beings living together here on earth would get better or worse?

As for, "They have an interest in spreading their genes more than in spreading their money" statement is this exactly what you have an interest in and do or what absolutely every human being has an interest in and does? Also, just because the human gene, just like about every other gene in the Universe, wants to and thus has an interest in spreading it's self has NO bearing whatsoever on how much a person labeled "parent" favors one child over another. Some "parents" hate their own children. How does "human nature" come into play here?

As for your "simple" calculation, I am not even going to attempt to reply to it. I see an extremely complicated and convoluted explanation in trying to persuade others to think the same as you do about what you think is right. Whatever that may be.

Regarding your last sentence;
Science Fan wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:31 pmBecause no one can do any utilitarian calculation it is simply an ideological tool used to support any position imaginable.
If you replaced the word 'utilitarian' here with any other word besides 'mathematical' do you think your sentence would make just as much sense?
Post Reply