|
Holistic approaches to solving morally perplexing issues may be based on
rules that somehow assume 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. Some
conflicting issues arise, however, regarding utilitarian 'rules based' and
'holistic' moral philosophies.
Scarcity and abundance are degrees of material distribution and availability
that are dependent on ownership, and biophysical factors such as season and
location. Obviously under a utilititarian train of thought, ownership is the
one key variable that creates, determines and resolves conflict without the
realization of a holistic moral philosophy. In a scenario where there are
scarce resources like drinking water for instance how do you allocate the
resource if in fact there simply is not enough water for all people in the
location? Under a true moral and holistic approach, we would assume that all
available drinking water is allocated to the most thristy first, if they all
have an equal right to water. Of course this seems a rather simple system
of allocation. But the next step would be not so simple. Each person in the
group would be awarded an assignment of a share of water based on need. If
the basic need was met, then there are no problems. However if there is a
constant & consistent supply, and one new person is recruited and the need
suddenly becomes greater, then some other simple system of distribution is
required.
Utililitarian rules then would assign each person water on the basis of
what is in the best interest of the group in terms of group survival and the
allocation would resemble a form of 'triage'.
Under a holistic moral philosophy two things would be required in addition
to the system of triage in the utilitarian rules based approach, that is,
consent and information. If the need arose to make the same decision the
group would have to decide if each individual in the group consented to a
new allocation of a constant nonvariable supply of water, with the added
burden of one more person [say a birth]. Of course there are all kinds of
possibilities and this could include voluntary ones that members of the
group could agree on including for instance that all members could agree to
use less water. From the perspective of a strict moral philosophy, then it
would appear that the utilitarian method of the 'greatest good' for the
greatest number would allocate water differently, i.e. older and possibly
less valuable members could be denied water, the sick could be denied and so
on in a system of triage where scarce and critical resources are offered to
the most valuable members first, i.e. a rationalistic approach where the
most resourceful people are allocated needed water and the less resourceful
are denied.
A holistic moral philosophy is an open system of thought and action that
would not necessarily be based on 'the greatest good for greatest number'
but may be more dedicated to justice for the individual rights in contrast
to the group. For instance the group may decide that the best and most
fairest way to allocate drinking water would be through a lottery. In a
truly loving society, this would be a fair way of allocating water, if
everyone agreed to it. There are other ways and approaches but in essence
the difference between the two approaches [utlitarian and holistic moral
philosophy] would be that utilitarianism is dedicated to the group's
survival in a rationalistic sense, and holistic moralism is dedicated to a
'fairness and consent' approach based on individual preference; and
preference may not be absolutely in contrast to utilitarian beliefs....if
that is what the group decided through unanimous consent. Under
utilitarianism individual preference is scarificed often for group
preference, majority, etc. I think casting of lots in a loving and moral
society may be preferred in some cases to 'rationalistic conservation' goals
since competing needs often are met through the power of ownership which is
often intrinsically unfair.
John Foster
[log in to unmask]
At 12:43 PM 10/8/1998 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
>Anyone think that rule based utilitarianism can be developed into a
workable holistic moral philosophy?
>
>If so, by what means?
>
>Suggestions perhaps: general systems approach, environmental fit as
criterion for
>
>happiness .... any more?
>
>If not, why not?
>
>All opinions respected and considered.
>
>Thanks
>
>Dayus
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
><META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=#faf3de>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT size=2>
><P> </P>
><P>Anyone think that rule based utilitarianism can be developed into a
workable
>holistic moral philosophy?</FONT><FONT size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>If so, by what means?</FONT><FONT size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>Suggestions perhaps: general systems approach, environmental fit as
criterion
>for</FONT><FONT size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>happiness .... any more?</FONT><FONT size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>If not, why not?</FONT><FONT size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>All opinions respected and considered.</FONT><FONT
>size=3> </P></FONT><FONT size=2>
><P>Thanks</P>
><P>Dayus</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
