Aforemention
There are a few critiques I am expecting for this work to which I plead somewhat guilty as charged.
One is that I am not really identifying “new” philosophical concepts, I am simply organizing them in a different way. Reiterating the same information, rendering it almost pointless to say.
Another is that I identify it all under “utilitarianism.” To which I can certainly look at alternatives. I use utilitarianism only because it is generally suited toward a common goal. Other philosophies may not identify a goal at all, making them somewhat neutral to other beliefs. But then this work is not interested in the neutrality of choices. Rather- the common choices made and how they complement one another rather than conflict. Ultimately, there is no great elaboration on detail or examples. It’s intended food for thought.
The purpose of the paper was not quite clear in writing, which may show in its result.
But looking on it as a whole, I believe that people will see this as a means of identifying with themselves and others in a way that’s pleasant or not so dry. Its artistic attitude allows us to see each other more colourfully. It may help us appreciate rather than condemn many of our differences in values. It is our differences in values that often becomes justification for war and neglect. So what is different which we can still agree on?
The Quams
Utilitarianism, in its broadest sense, I believe, is this belief. . .
“An utilitarian is bound by morales toward what they can best perceive and show effort toward the probabilistically ‘better.’”
In other words, utilitarianism differs from sorts of morality which observe strict regulations. Utilitarians are left wondering what will improve things in general, with only general guidelines and not a set of commands and propositions. So the next big question is defining “better.” That’s what this post is about.
I believe it centers around 3 terms: Justice, Life, and Energy. An utilitarian might be centered around these 3 terms- explained respectively. These will be termed as Quam Judicare (“Possible Justice”), Quam Spiritus (“Possible Life”), and Quam Navitas (“Possible Energy”)
Synonyms may apply better for the reader- of which particular ones to use I’m uncertain. Judicare could be righteousness, fairness, balance, ethic. Spiritus could be spirit, choice, survival, biodiversity. Navitas could be change, growth, potential. All to name a few.
Justice Utilitarianism or what I might call Quam Judicare (“Possible Justice”)
This is centered around the belief that actions must be eventually vindicated or set under some universal equity. Every transgression deems an eventual price. Every gracious intent deems an eventual reward. We serve as examples of Quam Judicare when we do things like attend a funeral or enshrine a famous figure. Doing such things is suggestive that we do not only participate in the actions solely for our psychological well-being. We are perhaps assuming it is possible that, even if these actions are not contributing to some purely practical cause, like feeding the hungry or fixing machinery, somehow we are paying a debt or offering a fair reward to its rightful benefactor. Quam Judicare also suggests that at times we may intentionally induce suffering or ill treatment. We do not necessarily commit this act out of a simple need to make an example. (“The people will not do what they must until I show them what will happen if they refuse.”) We may desire to induce ill treatment simply because we feel its subject is deserving of it.
Quam Judicare would believe that all of these checks and balances could extend eternally. That there need not be an eternal suffering or reward- but that there is constantly an equity to be struck.
Life Utilitarianism or Quam Spiritus (“Possible Life”)
Quam Spiritus is the doctrine that life is a most precious element of the universe- and that the only true moral task is its propagation. We see examples of Quam Spiritus in many forms. Perhaps its best political example is socialism. Life naturally self-propagates, but only now humanity can reflect on what natural trends ought to continue.
It is difficult to identify what life specifically is. Many believe that life is unique in its ability to experience and interact with the universe on a level more than simple reaction. That life can make decision on a basis which is more than pure predisposed mechanistic cause and effect, and more than what’s truly random. What this other option may be is uncertain. There is no real way to understand it (or assume its existence) any further. In a similar manner- mathematicians and physicists could speak of a fourth dimension. They can’t really point to it the way we do in our three-dimensional understanding, but they can draw parallels as to what it’s like. Likewise, many share the belief that life’s ability to experience and decide is beyond a process which we now deem rational or which we can currently “point” to.
Because of this unique, vaguely identified, quality of life- Quam Spiritus believe that the propagation of life is all that eventually matters. Life itself can choose its justice, or its energy. Morally, only its propagation need be fulfilled.
Energy Utilitarianism or Quam Navitas (“Possible Energy”)
If life and justice are not the ultimate goals, how about the fundamental properties which offer their potential?
Life is regarded to depend on energy continually. Bubble theory claims that there is an endless propagation of universes, as an endless sea of energy systems. So long as there is energy propagating new possibilities, then the possibilities retain the ability to produce life. So essentially, maybe we don’t need to ensure the propagation of life, or the propagation of justice. We’re simply content with a swinging pendulum. The constant change.
Quam Navitas is utilitarianism closest to nihilism. It is not to deny all morality, and say that there is no meaning to any existence at all, but to say that existence itself has already fulfilled its meaning- relying on the eternal perpetuation of change.
Overview
It is important to note that the differences between the three “Quams,” or utilitarians, are not intended to be seen as competing religions. They all essentially complement each other and each one achieves the purposes of the others. It is true that different utilitarians in this manner will not necessarily agree with one another’s decisions. A set of examples will be provided shortly. However, they all ultimately lead to the same ends. Those that desire a more extensive end result still rely on the same fundamentals of the others. The Quams can be quite apparent in their disposition and their actions. Merely thinking of one Quam probably almost instantly pinpoints people you personally know. See if they identify themselves accurately in line with how you identify them- given that the subject is somewhat agreeable to “utilitarianism.”
Try a test. A group of people may choose one person as a subject. The entire group, including the subject, secretly lists one “Quam” for the subject. Perhaps after this is revealed, the choice will be unanimous.
Comparisons
The following is a full list of how each Quam may see another. You can probably identify stories everywhere, fiction and nonfiction, in which the same relationships occur between characters or groups.
Quam Judicare complements Quam Spiritus on the level that Quam Spiritus wants the ability of choice to exist. Spiritus may not believe in a specific “righteous cause” as Judicare, but the Judicare can rest at ease, knowing that Spiritus would see the propagation of any being that may eventually decide to put right toward past wrongs.
Quam Spiritus does not share the desire of Quam Judicare, in which Judicare wants to “right” something as soon as possible. Spiritus would sense moral obligation to intervene in a case of danger- but does not feel a personal need to exact a fairness on anything other than to prevent further danger. In this way, Spiritus could disagree with Judicare pressing an agenda. But so long as Judicare is looking for the fulfilment of the better for life in general, then the two have mutual goals.
Quam Judicare has the most contrast to Quam Navitas. Navitas may show an incredible resilience to the conditions of the environement, and sees triviality in experience. Judicare may often feel that almost nothing is trivial and there’s a goal to achieve. But Judicare can appreciate the fact that Navitas is not there to jump in the way. On the contrary, it is two Judicare in disagreement of what’s “right” that are more likely to have conflict than any other association between the Quams. Still, it remains important for Judicare to sort out whom is most accurate in the rightness of the cause.
Navitas is content to watch Judicare “believe” in the cause.
Spiritus, generally content to say “live and let live” is in less contrast to Navitas. But Spiritus also feels an obligation to compassion, where Navitas may be content to assume everyone’s personal responsability for their wellbeing and put faith in their ability to achieve it. Spiritus can appear more patronizing than Navitas. Most people understand the burden of those that seem to believe what’s better for the subject, rather than leaving it to the subject to decide.
Navitas is content to watch Spiritus “believe” in the cause.