Maintenance - Conquering ones lack of self control with qualitative utilitarianism

[Spare Chaynge]

John Stuart Mill-1863
UTILITARIANISM

Chapter 2
What Utilitarianism Is.


The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

Now, such a theory of life excites in many minds, and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure- no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit- they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine, to whom the followers of Epicurus were, at a very early period, contemptuously likened; and modern holders of the doctrine are occasionally made the subject of equally polite comparisons by its German, French, and English assailants.
When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification. I do not, indeed, consider the Epicureans to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. To do this in any sufficient manner, many Stoic, as well as Christian elements require to be included. But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation. It must be admitted, however, that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc., of the former- that is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they might have taken the other, and, as it may be called, higher ground, with entire consistency. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him. If they ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes. A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness; we may attribute it to pride, a name which is given indiscriminately to some of the most and to some of the least estimable feelings of which mankind are capable: we may refer it to the love of liberty and personal independence, an appeal to which was with the Stoics one of the most effective means for the inculcation of it; to the love of power, or to the love of excitement, both of which do really enter into and contribute to it: but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them.

Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness- that the superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior- confounds the two very different ideas, of happiness, and content. It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.

It may be further objected, that many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness. But I do not believe that those who undergo this very common change, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasures in preference to the higher. I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one, they have already become incapable of the other. Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether any one who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures, ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower; though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.

From this verdict of the only competent judges, I apprehend there can be no appeal. On a question which is the best worth having of two pleasures, or which of two modes of existence is the most grateful to the feelings, apart from its moral attributes and from its consequences, the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both, or, if they differ, that of the majority among them, must be admitted as final. And there needs be the less hesitation to accept this judgment respecting the quality of pleasures, since there is no other tribunal to be referred to even on the question of quantity. What means are there of determining which is the acutest of two pains, or the intensest of two pleasurable sensations, except the general suffrage of those who are familiar with both? Neither pains nor pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. What is there to decide whether a particular pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings and judgment of the experienced? When, therefore, those feelings and judgment declare the pleasures derived from the higher faculties to be preferable in kind, apart from the question of intensity, to those of which the animal nature, disjoined from the higher faculties, is suspectible, they are entitled on this subject to the same regard. (John Stuart Mill)




This will be narrowed down and swim will do a short anaylsis on how this relates to some people in recovery tommorow. Swim begs you to read this as it has helped swim enormously.


Spare Chaynge added 845 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

A short summary by swim

Mill makes an important distinction between two different kinds of pleasure lower and higher. The quality of pleasure is determined by what Mill refers to as the “competent judges”. “Competent judges are a group of people who are familiar with two different types of pleasures and determine which is superior. These judges can be any group of people; but it is important to note that the judges must have more than one or two experiences with the types of pleasure they are judging but have had considerable experience, and as a result, are “competent” to judge the pleasures. The pleasure that all or most of the “competent judges” prefer is the greater or higher of the pleasures, even if the pleasure preferred is harder to obtain or causes pain. Mills goes onto to say that for those who have enjoyed both types of pleasure and are still capable of doing so, almost always prefer those pleasures stemming from the use of their “higher faculties” due to a greater intrinsic value and not because of the instrumental value. This is the basis of Mill’s distinction between lower and higher pleasure, the latter having a greater intrinsic value and one that most, if not all, judges would choose. Pleasures that are seen as lower are sometimes chosen but only because they are the easier to obtain and in doing so people neglect the higher pleasures. Even when lower pleasures are chosen, the person is usually aware that the pleasure is of a lesser quality and would never be willing to resign to a life of only lower pleasures unless that person has lost the ability to enjoy higher pleasures. What keeps a person who still has the ability to enjoy higher pleasures from resigning to a life filled with lower pleasures “is a sense of dignity”. The ability to enjoy higher pleasures can be lost, most often due to surroundings and experiences that are unfavorable to the enjoyment of higher pleasures.


swim now compares higher pleasures such as reading or anything involving the higher faculties to lower pleasures such as sex,drugs, alcohol.

Mills distinction between higher and lower pleasures is accurate. Certain pleasures such as reading history are more fulfilling then a pleasure like drinking alcohol. Reading history is a more fulfilling pleasure because by participating in this pleasure most if not all would receive a sense of pride, self worth or dignity from doing so. This sense of dignity obtained from higher pleasures is an “essential part of happiness” for humans. Few who drink alcohol would argue that doing so leads to a sense of dignity after the effects have worn off. The lack of pride, self worth and dignity resulting from enjoying pleasures like drinking and drugs is what makes the intrinsic value of such pleasures, lower. As someone who fits Mills description of a “competent judge” I am able to determine that reading is of a greater intrinsic value because of the dignity, pride and self worth it provides me. I agree with Mills distinction between higher and lower pleasures.



You may be content with a life full of lower pleasures such as drinking but you will never be truly happy...In swims opinion not being able to enjoy higher pleasures is why many people with previous substance abuse problems never are able to return to normal drinking...they are unable to enjoy higher pleasures never learn to or their environment is not conducive to their enjoyment and as a result are stuck with a life of lower pleasures.

If you do anything with your sobriety learn to enjoy things that are more fulfilling such as activities involving the mental faculties. If you do not you run the risk that when and if you do go back to drinking/drugs it will be the greatest of pleasures that you are capable of enjoying resulting in a return to your former life style.

I will argue that that person who learns how to enjoy higher pleasures will NEVER return to his former life style for long, because he will be aware that the pleasure he is using to fill his life is inferior.

NOTE* Swim has made some logical fallacies in his argument that certain pleasures have a greater intrinsic value, he is currently working to rid his argument of this and will update by nov 28

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very interesting, and pertinent to many here.

[dyingtomorrow]

That was a fascinating read, and anytime I thought I was going to start disagreeing with him, he reconciled it further on. Although I would point out that Epicureanism has been confounded with base hedonism when in fact it advocates making oneself sensitive to the most simple and basic pleasures, and that increasing the quantity/quality/level of one's pleasure is actually a regression rather than a goal.

I can't argue against the definitions of "higher" and "lower" pleasure, but to me it also points out what an imperfect tool of description language can be. It can be so difficult to capture both the big picture, and the detail. I think, however, if you look at both, there is really no seam separating the two types of pleasure. You can call them higher and lower as a means of distinction, but the value connotation carried by the two words is otherwise meaningless.

First, look at human needs, desires, and pleasures as a whole. Although they are not universal, some of the common ones are sex, drugs, music, companionship, learning, creating, attaining power over others, mastering a skill. All of these are derived from the way we are biologically hardwired. The collective consciousness of humanity does generally think that sex is a "lower pleasure," but if one were able to be completely objective, this is probably just a cultural perception that has carried on for millenia which we are unknowingly enslaved to for the most part. At some point in the darkness of prehistory, the human mind started fighting a war with itself, trying to deny what it really is. Perhaps because the mind can imagine greater things, travel to distant times and places, conceive of unattainable beauty - and yet always finds itself chained to the limitations of the body. Wherever you go, there you are. I don't think that loathing the body, or placing instincts and bodily pleasures below cognitive ones, is our inherently natural state of being. Shame is not something an animal feels, and I think it likely evolved in humans as a positive trait for social cohesion, which by making us feel pain in harming another, also gave us a greater capacity for love, bonding, sacrifice and organization. The unnatural part, or, ironically, the cognitive part, came when our flexible and imaginative minds took this potential feeling of shame and directed it towards other ideas. Such as sex for instance. There are countless examples of our conscious mind taking our basic feelings, instincts and emotions, and applying them to bizarre or "uncouth" objects. Fetishes, obsessions, confounded affection, phobias, etc.

I think the break we perceive between higher and lower pleasures comes more from relativistic cultural constructs (albeit nigh universal among the cultures of the earth) than from an inherent state of being. The collective consciousness of humanity has constantly evolved throughout history, and I think a future mental evolution for us will be the reunion of the mind and body. I believe people as a whole will be much happier, healthier and wiser when they stop fighting an artificial and needless battle between their instincts, pleasures, and conscious volition. Our learned behavior of separating the mind and body, that certain instincts which harm no other are still inherently "wrong," and that we are supposed to subjugate the call of our body with brute mental force, ironically, gives us even less control over ourselves, and gives rise to a myriad of mental disorders and physical ailments. We are riddled with cognitive dissonance which is the root of a legion of other problems. When humans become comfortable with themselves again, conscious and accepting of their animal nature - when they collectively "know thyself" - it will be a marked step forward and open up new horizons of wisdom, cultural advancement, philosophy and science.

Reputation Comments on this post:

amazing reponse, adds to the discussion a good objection

[Spare Chaynge]

Wow, I mean what can I say this is a bit more advanced of a reply then swim was expecting.

With my very limited knowledge of philosophy/ethics its hard to counter this. I do have to admit that showing certain pleasures are intrinsically greater than others is proving very challenging to me. It is to the point where I can not do it with out begging the question, as I did above.

What would you say about quantitative utilitarianism? I have read nothing about it but mill says this , that the more desirable pleasures or the ones to seek have "greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc.". Some sort of ethical system that allows one to participate in pleasures such as drinking or doing drugs yet places greater importance on the ones that are valued and approved by society can be very useful for someone with a previous self control problem.

Even if this is regression, society does not view it as so, and being a functional member of society is important in a practical mainstream kind of way...if you get my drift. ie someone who smokes marijuana or drinks all the time for his pleasure is viewed as a less productive member of society compared to the person who gets his pleasure from reading, exercise or usage of his higher faculties and is viewed as the happy functioning member(even if occasionally he does smoke marijuana and drink)

My goal in posting this was to help others see that drugs and alcohol are inferior pleasures to activities like reading, in hopes that those that wanted to, could return to a normal lifestyle instead of being "trapped" in an either or type of situation. I have seen many in this kind of situation. These people truly think that its either heroin 20xbags a day or nothing. The result is a vicious cycle of sobriety followed by screwing everything up... Their is nothing for the person who might want to have a drink or smoke marijuana a couple times a month....hopefully this will help some.

[dyingtomorrow]

Originally Posted by Spare Chaynge

Wow, I mean what can I say this is a bit more advanced of a reply then swim was expecting.

With my very limited knowledge of philosophy/ethics its hard to counter this. I do have to admit that showing certain pleasures are intrinsically greater than others is proving very challenging to me. It is to the point where I can not do it with out begging the question, as I did above.

What would you say about quantitative utilitarianism? I have read nothing about it but mill says this , that the more desirable pleasures or the ones to seek have "greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc.". Some sort of ethical system that allows one to participate in pleasures such as drinking or doing drugs yet places greater importance on the ones that are valued and approved by society can be very useful for someone with a previous self control problem.

Even if this is regression, society does not view it as so, and being a functional member of society is important in a practical mainstream kind of way...if you get my drift. ie someone who smokes marijuana or drinks all the time for his pleasure is viewed as a less productive member of society compared to the person who gets his pleasure from reading, exercise or usage of his higher faculties and is viewed as the happy functioning member(even if occasionally he does smoke marijuana and drink)

My goal in posting this was to help others see that drugs and alcohol are inferior pleasures to activities like reading, in hopes that those that wanted to, could return to a normal lifestyle instead of being "trapped" in an either or type of situation. I have seen many in this kind of situation. These people truly think that its either heroin 20xbags a day or nothing. The result is a vicious cycle of sobriety followed by screwing everything up... Their is nothing for the person who might want to have a drink or smoke marijuana a couple times a month....hopefully this will help some.

Sorry, wanted to respond for a long time, but SWIM can't think 1/100th of as well "sober" as he can on heroin, and hasn't had any significant amounts in a couple weeks. He'll try anyways.

I think that even beyond the most euphoric drugs (and this is saying a lot), the thing which can give a person the most pleasure in life is to have strong friendships and social bonds with people who are accepting of them. To that end, qualitative utilitarianism is correct, as the "higher pleasures" are those that generally lead to respect and social bonding. I think, however, that people can be predisposed to not be able to enjoy the higher pleasures, either out of blatant stupidity, or a certain species of intelligence. The former group can at least attain the goal of quantitative utilitarianism in their own way though.

I have to stop myself. While I recognize that it is probably true for most people - they want respect and acceptance by society, and recognizing quantitative utilitarianism would help them - I'm a freak and most of the assumptions that are made by quantitative utilitarianism are utterly alien to me. I'd just end up pointlessly arguing something on behalf of a microscopic number of people. I think it is probably very useful for the greatest portion of humanity though, and that it was a great article to post.

[Spare Chaynge]

just end up pointlessly arguing something on behalf of a microscopic number of people.

A very utilitarian argument. If the pain of those individuals is great enough than it is not pointless. Someone starving to death is unacceptable and the majority should suffer a small amount of pain to prevent someone from experience a great amount of pain. i.e. the majority should sacrifice a couple hundred dollars a year to prevent that person from starving.


P.S Have you tried methadone?

[dyingtomorrow]

Originally Posted by Spare Chaynge

just end up pointlessly arguing something on behalf of a microscopic number of people.

A very utilitarian argument. If the pain of those individuals is great enough than it is not pointless. Someone starving to death is unacceptable and the majority should suffer a small amount of pain to prevent someone from experience a great amount of pain. i.e. the majority should sacrifice a couple hundred dollars a year to prevent that person from starving.


P.S Have you tried methadone?

It's difficult not to inflate your own experience, which is why I had to hold back. I know I do that frequently here and it's something I'm trying to work on.

Well, thank you for thinking enough of me to inquire. SWIM's been on and off methadone, suboxone, and to 2 rehabs ... SWIM would honestly be surprised if there is a psychiatric drug that he hasn't been on or been on an analogue to over many years of doctors. Heroin is the only thing that makes SWIM happy, able to think, and actually want to be alive. Anything anyone's ever read on here of SWIM's and thought "that was kind of intelligent" was because he was on heroin, otherwise he just can't think very hard. Sometimes he wishes he could have someone else feel exactly what everything feels like to a sober SWIM and how unbearable it is, but he dismisses that thought and wouldn't wish to do that to someone even if he could. People just can't really understand each others pain. "If a tree falls in the woods ..." The lack of understanding is fine, until they start judging someone else and assuming they could (and should) do differently if only they were, ?, different? Tried harder? I don't know, it's all bullshit to me. It doesn't matter anyways, the fact is people almost exclusively cannot help each other with anything other than the simplest problems, and even then not for long. Don't mean to go off topic.

[Spare Chaynge]

This thread is dead anyways. If a heroin maintenance program was available in chicago would you make an effort to join? It seems to have great success in the uk. swim is just wondering if its the life style or the actual drugs? If you had heroin delivered daily by the government in adequate amounts would you, i hate to say this but join society and its norms or at least be happy(happiness is more important)?

swim has been forced to accept and conform to societies norms. The pain he suffers from doing these things is minimal compared to the advantages. He basically gets to do what he wants to. I have had great difficulty understanding why people conform to the norms in the past, but i am tired of fighting. What i am trying to say is i can somewhat understand your view point.

As for utilitarianism, if it were to be suddenly shattered by a fool proof argument, i would not be to upset. Most people when i talk philosophy try and avoid the subject and talk about sports or something so its rather refreshing to have other peoples opinions.

[dyingtomorrow]

Originally Posted by Spare Chaynge

This thread is dead anyways. If a heroin maintenance program was available in chicago would you make an effort to join? It seems to have great success in the uk. swim is just wondering if its the life style or the actual drugs? If you had heroin delivered daily by the government in adequate amounts would you, i hate to say this but join society and its norms or at least be happy(happiness is more important)?

swim has been forced to accept and conform to societies norms. The pain he suffers from doing these things is minimal compared to the advantages. He basically gets to do what he wants to. I have had great difficulty understanding why people conform to the norms in the past, but i am tired of fighting. What i am trying to say is i can somewhat understand your view point.

As for utilitarianism, if it were to be suddenly shattered by a fool proof argument, i would not be to upset. Most people when i talk philosophy try and avoid the subject and talk about sports or something so its rather refreshing to have other peoples opinions.

God yes. That's the only thing SWIM is really sticking around for. SWIM would probably be fine with just a hydromorphone prescription, although the injecting has become critical too. He would not get any relief out of heroin/morphine if he couldn't inject it, which forces him to recognize that the habit and process have become an artificial, but real, burden, and that just the chemical itself isn't enough. SWIM really wants to work, create, build and do things, and when he was on heroin he was an unparalleled intellectual beast of burden; unfortunately it was just the financial part that got him, due to the natural tendency of people to binge on heroin at first before learning how to control one's use. He likens it to the binge drinking most people do when they first go to college, except if beers cost $20 a can and were highly addicting.

I understand what you mean by getting to do what you want to by "conforming." Sometimes I think back to everything I had, when I was able to do/go/buy literally anything I wanted, and just shudder. I don't think that working and having to dull yourself is the bad part, I think it's what happens to most people because of it. It really bothered SWIM to see many of the brightest spirits he knew become narrow minded robots from their career. The plus side, though, is that there are always amazing people out there to find, so he never despaired over it too much.

To take the quantitative utilitarianism discussion in a new direction, looking at it similar to other self help devices, my mind immediately goes to the concept of free will. Perhaps the heroin addiction, and the overwhelming control it takes over your consciousness (which he has to admit, but not necessarily saying it's a bad thing), has influenced SWIM's thoughts, but he just doesn't believe in free will. I think self control is an illusion, and that people are really just complicated algorithms that can't help how they respond to things. It's the random events intersecting us in life that cause the algorithm to change, not necessarily one's own volition; although it may seem that way after the fact. While I said people cannot really help one another, in a way we have more power over other people than ourselves, but no real control or knowledge of what that influence will actually do to them.

I should say that I think that "self programming" is possible, but in an extremely esoteric, complicated way, and requiring so much art that it is far beyond the ability of the vast majority of people, and would require a completely "healthy" and "clear" mind to even begin the undertaking. That prerequisite alone is beyond the attainment of most people. It makes me think of Aleister Crowley, whose philosophy/religion or whatever you'd call it was entirely focused on "true will." Yet even someone who spent their life trying to hone their "will," intensively using "logograms" to program themselves (the way SWIM believes it would be done), still fell victim to heroin addiction and couldn't break it. Nonetheless I believe it is possible, but could possibly be one of the most difficult things to truly attain. To take control of your own mind requires a high degree of relativity, and to have a high degree of relativity is to have a low degree of ego and "will." I don't personally know how the contradiction works itself out.

One interesting thing about addiction in general, at least, is the way it connects your mind and your body. I really can't think of anything else that creates such a powerful link, besides perhaps something like having a child. Would it be that drugs could be used to create other targeted compulsions; kind of like the "mood machine" in Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep (a.k.a. Blade Runner as a movie), if you're familiar. But, back to the point, I don't think anyone can really blame anyone else for what they do. Anything someone does is what's natural to them, and if you could see from their perspective, you'd understand it. In that respect, I think people are either predisposed to qualitative utilitarianism, to inherently desire those "higher pleasures" and the apprehended rewards they give, or to utterly see things from a different perspective, and be completely oblivious to it.

Thus ends my rant disclaiming any responsibility I have over my own actions.

[Spare Chaynge]

Yeah, free will is just assumed with ethical theories. It kind of has to be, otherwise theirs not much of a point in having ethical theories . I will agree that most choices we make are determined. However, I would like to believe in libertarian free will. Being forced into 12 step programs really made me hate determinism and even compatabalism. Just because I would tell someone in the program that I was going to a concert or something and they would tell me not to do it because I would get loaded, then I would go to the concert and not get loaded and then they would tell the IOP i was attending who would threaten to tell the judge. The whole powerless thing... blah


Yeah the consequences of conforming and as a result being a ass is something I had to accept along time ago ...and I can see other negative side effects of conforming.