Aria PN

Of course, I’m no expert in the matter of (Ushul) Fiqh, so CMIIW.

I was reading the fundamental principles of Fiqh, and saw that there are three principles where utility theory might come into play. First, “select the higher of the two benefits, or incur the lesser of the two harms when faced with them both.” Now, to do that, you certainly have to be able to order your preferences for the choices you have. If your set of preferences are already in the rulings derived from the well established sources, your (dis)utility is set.

If not, your ordering must be based on other principles, and require extensive knowledge not only on the rules of law but also about the subject of your choices. Usually this kind of ruling involves experts from various fields.

This principle is often misused by ignoring other principles, especially what comes right after it, “repelling harm takes precedence over procuring benefits.” You have to be aware of the consequences (to others) of your maximizing your own utility based on your own preferences. You have to minimize the disutility, and make that your top priority.

[Utilitarianism (Bentham, J.S. Mill) also wants to maximize utility, with no mention of minimizing disutility as the top priority. Some say utilitarianism is the superset of consequentialism. Without the latter, the former can lead to hedonism.]

The other principle of interest is, “certainty is not invalidated by doubt.” OK, you find your best option, but it doesn’t always give you the utility you were estimating when you ranked your preferences. The probability is not 1. Does this mean you should eliminate this option? What happens if none of the options are certain to give you the calculated utility? Do you have to rank them by their probabilities? Or do you use expected utility?

ariapn Personal