Introduction

Well welcome to this, my first tentative attempt at writing a blog. The basic idea is to blog about current affairs. So far so simple. Unfortunately news wasn't the only blog subject getting kicked around the inside of my head at the time I picked a subject. I also wanted to do a proper philosophy blog¹, a food blog and perhaps a travel blog. The compromise that emerged was a current affairs site with a particular philosophical slant that occasionally (or mostly, we shall see) digresses on to the not unimportant topic of things to eat. If nothing else it'll be unique.

The philosophical slant in question is utilitarianism. I don't want to talk about philosophy in too much depth in this blog, partly because it deserves a level of attention to detail that I can't give it right now, but I think it's worth giving a brief utility intro.

Basically utilitarianism is the philosophical position that we can reduce the morality of all actions down to a single thing, their utility value. Actions that do good are morally good, actions that do bad are morally bad, irrespective of the type of action. A murder that saves the lives of millions more is actually a morally good action, irrespective of what some might consider to be the inherent wrongness of murder.

Of course this gets more complicated when we examine it in depth. What do we really mean by utility? Do we mean pleasure or perhaps the absence of pain? Maybe we should let people decide upon their own utility and simply service their preferences.

We're about to fall over a precipice of complicated and ultimately inconclusive argument so I'll cut straight to the simplified version of my own perspective. Firstly I think we should seek courses of action based on their outcomes and not vague assertions about the rightness or wrongness of particular acts. That means I'm open to any course of political action which can be shown to be the most expedient in achieving utility.

Secondly 'human rights' don't actually exist anywhere except inside our heads. That's not to say we shouldn't accord people rights, some rights are very important, but they are just legal constructs. The concept of innate rights, the idea that we would have rights irrespective of whether they were recognised by the rest of society, is in Jeremy Bentham's memorable words, nonsense upon stilts.

Having uttered the phrase 'politically expedient' and denied rights exist I now probably sound like some crazed right wing loon, yet I'm actually extremely liberal. That shouldn't really come as a suprise, after all I'm following in the philosophical tradition of J.S. Mill. Anyway I've rambled for far too long here so if you need further convincing or explanation I suggest you wait for some actual posts.

¹ By which I mean a blog discussing more technical philosophical issues for a narrow academic audience.