I'm
trying to figure out utility. So far I guess utility primarily
signifies the quality of being useful, although it is somewhat more
abstract than the traditional definition of usefulness or use. Utility is often employed to denote
adaptation to produce a valuable result, while usefulness denotes the
actual production of such result, perhaps some tangible thing. I've
tried comparing and contrasting beauty and utility, in that
beautiful art can elicit utility. It can be said that an invention's
utility is questionable even while it's usefulness has been proven by
trial, even if only by a few individuals. Still utility and usefulness
are interchanged as synonyms on occasion despite their differences.
Expediency refers primarily to escape from or avoidance of some
difficulty or trouble; while either expediency or utility might be used
to signify either profit or advantage as considered apart from rights or
entitlement as the grounds for ethical or moral obligation, or of
actions that have a moral character, expediency denoting immediate
advantage on a contracted view. Especially with reference to avoiding
danger, difficulty, or loss, while utility might be so broadened as to
cover all existence through all time, as in the utilitarian theory of
morals. Policy is often used in a kindred sense, more positive than
expediency but narrower than utility, as in the proverb: 'honesty is the
best policy' although policies are rarely directly honest. Utility is
often partially synonymous with profit, the returns or receipts
including all that is received from an outlay or investment. Avail
stresses the idea of effectiveness and effectualness. Gain is what is
secured beyond previous possession. Benefit is anything that provides
or does good, but is not necessarily utility. Emolument is profit,
return, or value accruing thru an official position. Expediency has
respect to profit or advantage, real or supposed, considered apart from
or perhaps in opposition to what is correct or proper action in terms if
moral or ethical character. Utility is chiefly used in the sense of
some immediate or personal usefulness, and some material good, as in
product; although financial goods are immaterial. Advantage is that
which provides one a vantage ground, either for coping with competitors
or with difficulties, needs, demands, or perhaps to empower later
utility. As in to possess the advantage of a good education. Profit is
frequently used of what one has beyond another or secures at the
expense of another if you believe in scarcity. As in to have the
advantage of another in a argument, or take advantage of another in a
bargain; although I hope that is not utility as itself.
The Greek word for "kind" as in "Charity suffereth long, and is kind" has
both the idea of goodness and usefulness. I think for something or
some policy to be utilitarian in a true sense, it must be both good and
useful. If not good it will soon cease to be useful; if not useful it
can do no good. God is kind to men in both senses, and utility fulfills both senses.
Trying
to avoid the dualistic psychological nature of utility although the
semantic confusion between goodness and a good is an issue. The idea of
psychological products recently expounded upon in the growth of the
experience economy could be analogous to the feelings of righteousness
sold by the church for centuries, implemented as the delight of
discovery by science, or the excitement of epiphany could all be said to
have utility by the individuals who do recall such memories,
experience, or knowledge as positive. Spite, schadenfreude, and
righteousness could be other psychological experiences perceived as
possessing utility due to positive feelings although the utility,
advantage, or usefulness is ripe for moral and/or ethical discourse due
to the fact that it might not garner a net benefit. The enemy of
charity is pride to define a simple dual relationship, or the opposition
to kindness is spite; although the dynamics are really more geometric
as charity could be in opposition to pride, greed, righteousness, sloth
and any other number of co-occurring emotions, beliefs, or constructs.
Which is why I wanted to avoid it. Even something as enjoyable as humor
could be thought of as a zero sum game. A recent example from the
'news' might be fat shaming versus fat jokes, versus motivation or there
might be a net benefit. It is hard to define en masse as the utility
of each individual is exactly that, individual in the aggregate. It
really comes down to outcomes, a priori, and a posteriori. Utility is
observable in some behaviors, although the variables that affect,
effect, and lead to those behaviors are cognitive, as are some forms of
utility. Utility can be said to be received from both vice and virtue,
and either to excess is the other.
There
is something about statistics that separates us from each other,
dehumanizing a group, and portending marginalization. Stereotypes do
exist for a reason but they are measurable with statistics. Individuals
need not embrace stereotypes, however doings so does elicit utility for
the in-group through shared experience, belonging and doing do does
elicit utility for the out-group through identification of the in-group,
righteousness of knowledge; but not of understanding or discernment.
Stereotypes can serve to reinforce a group which can provide utility to
that group, such as nationalism in terms of integration, or the
individuality of sub culture differentiation. I have some ideas
concerning chaos, synchronization, and game theories that progress in
that order, but I prefer to be able to test them first, I appreciate
utility in that.
