Comment Re:Ethics. (Score 1) 582
This is wrong in basically every respect. Your characterization of relativism is apparently some version of subjectivism, which is distinct. Relativism applies at the level of groups - a particular group has a well-defined standard that is then right for that group. Two groups may disagree and have no recourse, but two individuals within the same group do think that only one could be right, as the group standard determines this. This is not at all logically flawed as you suggest. There is also subjectivism, in which each individual is her own standards-bearer. Here you can use something like a Wittgensteinian argument to claim that "private rules" are incoherent, but this argument does not work at groups of at least 2.
"Objectivism" is a term of art to describe Ayn Rand's philosophy, which is a fusion of a branch of egoism and virtue ethics. You mean "Absolutism" which claims that moral rules are absolute and universal. There is still a further distinction to be made between how context-sensitive rules can be (that is, whether rules have the character of "don't lie" or "don't lie under these circumstances").
Of course, there are then many other distinctions to be made in other dimensions, like whether you have a consequentialist theory, a deontological theory, an intuitionist theory, etc.
Also of note, John Stuart Mill did not "come up with the theory of Utilitarianism" - he had a version of a theory of Utilitarianism, and his version is nothing like what you describe. Utilitarianism goes back to at least Frances Hutcheson (who was the first to state the Greatest Happiness Principle), and at the very least Jeremy Bentham is a more appropriate figure to attach to the version of utilitarianism that you discuss. Of course, Mill has arguments against almost precisely what you raise as a devastating problem. In fact, Mill is a standard-bearer for the "high liberal tradition" in which education, personal development, and extensions of rights are hallmarks. How this is "what is wrong with democracy" is not at all clear.
Besides getting the ethics (and meta-ethics) wrong, you should also note that just as humans are social animals, there are lots and lots of non-human social animals that are also more than happy to act altruistically. Not just primates, even. Anyway, things to think about before you want to sound too authoritative on this stuff again.
"Objectivism" is a term of art to describe Ayn Rand's philosophy, which is a fusion of a branch of egoism and virtue ethics. You mean "Absolutism" which claims that moral rules are absolute and universal. There is still a further distinction to be made between how context-sensitive rules can be (that is, whether rules have the character of "don't lie" or "don't lie under these circumstances").
Of course, there are then many other distinctions to be made in other dimensions, like whether you have a consequentialist theory, a deontological theory, an intuitionist theory, etc.
Also of note, John Stuart Mill did not "come up with the theory of Utilitarianism" - he had a version of a theory of Utilitarianism, and his version is nothing like what you describe. Utilitarianism goes back to at least Frances Hutcheson (who was the first to state the Greatest Happiness Principle), and at the very least Jeremy Bentham is a more appropriate figure to attach to the version of utilitarianism that you discuss. Of course, Mill has arguments against almost precisely what you raise as a devastating problem. In fact, Mill is a standard-bearer for the "high liberal tradition" in which education, personal development, and extensions of rights are hallmarks. How this is "what is wrong with democracy" is not at all clear.
Besides getting the ethics (and meta-ethics) wrong, you should also note that just as humans are social animals, there are lots and lots of non-human social animals that are also more than happy to act altruistically. Not just primates, even. Anyway, things to think about before you want to sound too authoritative on this stuff again.
