Problems With Logical And Utilitarian Moral Valuations.

[Zero_Sum]

There is a particular problem with logical and utilitarian moral valuations I've come across namely if utilitarianism is about maximizing the lives of a majority of people we would presume that it concerns itself with the happiness of the majority of people as well but if that is so, how can it be that our world doesn't take upon itself maximizing the happiness of the majority?

[I see no evidence at all that anybody is concerned with maximizing the happiness of the majority of people in our world.]

Also, if moral utilitarianism is about maximizing the lives of a majority of people where social equality is the alleged goal it would seem this is inconsistent with [socio economic] class stratification where each individual is judged differently based upon their individual value in relation to society moreover if some individuals are valued more while even still others valued much less it would appear social equality is impossible. Social equality would only be possible if everybody was valued in the same exact way uniformly. With uneven social or economic distribution social equality is meaningless. So with all of that, what is morality without social equality and maximizing the lives of a majority of people? If morality is unable to fulfill both of those positions, what other purpose does it serve? If it is unable to fulfill its primary purpose, what is it?

It would seem morality and ethics in reality doesn't change the world at all for the world is the same cruel place whether it exists or doesn't, where people are cruel to each other. Constant human cruelty is the only prevailing virtue where morality and ethics exists only in name only. If morality and ethics can't even live up to their own ideals, purpose, or stated goals it would seem both only exist by the powerful to manipulate in intimidating the majority. If we understand morality and ethics as a way of psychological warfare against the majority of the population population by those in power then the real purpose of morality becomes much clearer.

[James S Saint]

I see no evidence at all that anybody is concerned with maximizing the happiness of the majority of people in our world.

Yathink?

If morality and ethics can't even live up to their own ideals, purpose, or stated goals it would seem both only exist by the powerful to manipulate in intimidating the majority. If we understand morality and ethics as a way of psychological warfare against the majority of the population population by those in power then the real purpose of morality becomes much clearer.

That would depend on which morality and ethic is promoted.

The only way to accomplish that goal of the best for the most is to very, very greatly compartmentalize authority, power, and wealth (like 1,000,000,000 compartments). The excessively wealthy very seriously would not like that. Would you if you were them?

[Pandora]

I see the opposite happening through pushing of human rights agendas worldwide. Also, happiness through dependency (by global banks and corporations). Money is politics and even ethics-neutral, it goes where there is opportunity. In the globalized world, there will be max happiness, but not true freedom because everyone will pay the cost for it. Be careful what you wish for, or you just might get it.

[James S Saint]

In the globalized world, there will be max happiness

And what justified that thought in your mind?

[Pandora]

The way things are going (with advancements in technology, mass media, and medicine), everyone will eventually be cometely enslaved and lobotomized, either genetically, chemically, or ideologically; or a combination of all three. Even concepts like happiness and freedom themselves will change. You may be a slave in reality but you’ll be “free” to think within the ideological limits of your genetically pre-designed and chemically controlled and environmentally reinforced mind. A fish is still free to swim from one side of the fish tank to another, and may as well imagine itself freely and happily swimming in an ocean.

[Pandora]

For those who’re worried about max world happiness, don’t worry, the global pharma/food companies will fix that problem for you. You can be assure you’ll be happy and till the day you die.

[James S Saint]

Unhappiness (Fear) is used to create and maintain global paradigms. If the goal is to be without fear or unhappiness, one mustn't depend on it. A globalist union cannot be independent of it. It is a problem of system design limits.

[Prismatic567]

If we understand morality and ethics as a way of psychological warfare against the majority of the population by those in power then the real purpose of morality becomes much clearer.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility.
"Utility" is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities.

Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action.

Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally.

Utilitarianism [as with Morality and Ethics] considers the interests of all beings equally, thus will not fit into your intended view of majority against minority.

In the case Morality and Ethics [proper] the minority with higher Moral Quotient [MQ] will always strive [unconditionally and naturally] to increase the average MQ of the majority.

Your point re 'minority in power exploiting the weaker majority' is basically a very primal impulse which emerged within humans when they first gathered in groups. Your point is more appropriately dealt with through anthropology, psychology, social, and politics.
Morality and Ethics [with other fields of knowledge] will play a role in suppressing such evil as with all other evils.

[Arminius]

I see the opposite happening through pushing of human rights agendas worldwide. Also, happiness through dependency (by global banks and corporations). Money is politics and even ethics-neutral, it goes where there is opportunity. In the globalized world, there will be max happiness, but not true freedom because everyone will pay the cost for it. Be careful what you wish for, or you just might get it.

The way things are going (with advancements in technology, mass media, and medicine), everyone will eventually be cometely enslaved and lobotomized, either genetically, chemically, or ideologically; or a combination of all three. Even concepts like happiness and freedom themselves will change. You may be a slave in reality but you’ll be “free” to think within the ideological limits of your genetically pre-designed and chemically controlled and environmentally reinforced mind. A fish is still free to swim from one side of the fish tank to another, and may as well imagine itself freely and happily swimming in an ocean.

For those who’re worried about max world happiness, don’t worry, the global pharma/food companies will fix that problem for you. You can be assure you’ll be happy and till the day you die.

This is very similar to what I have been saying for a very long time. It is the inevitable way that modernity has been following since the so-called "industrial revolution". Now, this process has reached a point where the very much accelerated development gets even more accelerated. The title of one of my threads is the question: "Can we slow down the modern velocity?". If the answer is "no", what does this mean for the future? It is likely that this does not mean that the people will sit there and be sad, no, they will likely be happy according to their situation in general and their spiritually limited capabilities in particular.

One of the examples could be a cyborg with many artificially optimized muscles and joints but a consciousness that does not work better and more than the consciousness of a dog.

The above example was already anticipated in the last decades of the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century when Johann Wolfgang von Goethe studied the real Faust, designed his story of Faust and wrote it down. And his Faust of the second part died, because he had reached his goal.

Another example could be the humans of the end of history as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel described it in his main work "Phänomenologie des Geistes", published in 1807.

A further example could be the "last men" who became famous in 1883: "'Wir haben das Glück erfunden' — sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. ("'We have discovered happiness' — say the last men and blink.")

However, these humans or "post-humans" will not be unhappy. They will live without history (compare the text in my second thread: "Thinking about the END OF HISTORY") and without work (compare the text in my first thread: "Will machines completely replace all human beings?"). We - the current humans - think that this will be very sad, and we are absolutely right about that. But they will not think so. And they will not think much but believe much on a very low level. They will be almost absolutely dependent and very naively believe in the opposite.

To me, this development is the most probable one for the future (although presignals have been becoming apparent since the beginning of our modernity). One of the presignals of this situation in the future is the increasing replacement of the human nature by the artificially human technology, thus machines.

The humans will have merely two options or chances in order to stop the continuation of this development or, at least, to slow down the modern velocity. One option or chance is the avoidance of the complete replacement of humans by machines, because this complete replacement will lead to the lost of the human control over the machines, so that the machines will control or even kill the humans. The other option or chance is a huge catastrophe in the very near future that will lead to a new beginning, provided that there will be enough survivors of that catastrophe. The difference between this two scenarios and the most probable scenario is that the humans will not lose their relatively freedom and the extent and independence of their consciousness in the case of the said two scenarios and the exact opposite in the case of the most probably scenario. What will be the worst case scenario then?